Politics

Over the weekend, Glenn Beck held a rally on the National Mall at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. The political left, of course, hated every minute of it. Russell Moore, Dean of the School of Theology and Senior Vice-President for Academic Administration at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, though, was unimpressed for other reasons and posted this very thought-provoking article on the event. It’s so chock full of great quotes that if I tried to sample them, I’d likely end up pasting the entire article, so head over to russellmoore.com and read the entire article yourself. I will, though, at the risk of “ruining” it for you, quote his closer, because it’s a good one:

It’s sad to see so many Christians confusing Mormon politics or American nationalism with the gospel of Jesus Christ. But, don’t get me wrong, I’m not pessimistic. Jesus will build his church, and he will build it on the gospel. He doesn’t need American Christianity to do it. Vibrant, loving, orthodox Christianity will flourish, perhaps among the poor of Haiti or the persecuted of Sudan or the outlawed of China, but it will flourish.

And there will be a new generation, in America and elsewhere, who will be ready for a gospel that is more than just Fox News at prayer.

Feel free to comment below.

Beginning to think about whom you’ll vote for in Oklahoma’s primary on July 27?

Check out Oklahomans for Life’s pro-life questionnaire, to see how the candidates answered the number one policy topic.

News: Oklahoma Legislature overrides third abortion veto

http://www.newsok.com/multimedia/video/87997947001

The other day, we were quick to praise Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry (D) for approving pro-life legislation.

Now comes the news today that “Henry vetoes two pro-life bills on Friday.

With due respect to the Governor, your reasons for the vetoes are paper thin and do not err on the side of life. Here’s to hoping you’ll see the light, so more babies can see the light of day.

Update: The Legislature overrides Henry’s vetoes!

In “Fiscal Conservatism Is Not Enough: What Social Conservatives Offer the Party of Lincoln,” scholar Robert Patterson offers key insight.

According to the Telegraph, conservative leader “David Cameron has pledged to review Britain’s abortion laws and stop assisted suicide in moves designed to place religious issues at the forefront of the Conservative election campaign.”

“The Conservative leader said that he would personally favour reducing the abortion limit from 24 weeks to 20 or 22 weeks.”

Read the rest of the story here. While it’s not the ideal solution, Britain certainly seems to be getting closer to the ultimate goal than we in the United States.

Hat tip: JR

In this recent TV interview, when asked about the Executive Order related to abortion and the health care bill, self-proclaimed pro-life Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak says:

Christian author and spokeswoman Joni Eareckson Tada offers two non-negotiables in the health care debate in this sage piece. It begins:

“A few years ago, I helped write a book, How to Be a Christian in a Brave New World, about the bioethical challenges in the 21st century. Today, one of our foremost ethical challenges is how to accomplish health care reform in a way that respects most Americans’ traditional religious values.

“As a quadriplegic for the past 43 years, I have had more than my fair share of doctors’ visits and medical treatments. I know the difference between good care and bad care, and I can tell when a physician has my best interests at heart. I am thankful that, for the most part, my doctors have always treated me as the individual I am rather than just another patient in a wheelchair.

“For these reasons — my faith and my experience with medical care — I am very concerned about two specific items that currently exist in proposed health care legislation:
– Federal funding of abortions
– Rationing of care.”

I think she is spot on in this and the rest of her piece, which you read here at a link I found on Christianity Today‘s main website.

Her book, How to Be a Christian in a Brave New World, by the way, is one of the clearest, most concise ethical guides for Christians I have ever read. It covers hot topics like abortion, cloning, birth control, in vitro fertilization, embryonic stem cell research, and uses the lens of the Christian view of the world to guide the reader. I highly recommend it, as well as any of her writings.

“God and Tea,” a new piece posted on The American Conservative blog discusses how there is a rising tension between social conservatives and libertarians.

During the 2008 Presidential primary season there was a visible tension between Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. Since then, Huckabee has gone on to attack Congressman Paul on occasion, and criticize CPAC for becoming too libertarian. Now evangelical leaders are expressing their unease with the libertarian leanings of the Tea Party Movement.

Read the full article here. I tend to think Fusionism died along with President Reagan. Now, not only do I not see how we can all get along, I don’t see why we would.

According to this new analysis from the Southern Baptist’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the President’s health care plan advances abortion, in that:

• funding goes to Planned Parenthood;
• subsidies go toward insurance plans that cover elective abortions; and
• there is no language in the bill that speaks to barring federal funding of elective abortions.

This even after the Stupak amendment had passed and made clear the will of Congress. This is an absolute outrage!

A panel of Oklahoma House of Representatives passed House Bill 2321 which allows “the state Board of Education to adopt guidelines for the nonsectarian, nonreligious academic study of the Bible and its influence on literature, art, music, culture and politics.”

“This lays some ground fire to back these teachers who would like to refer to the Bible,” said bill author Rep. Todd Russ. “It’s intended to be an additional tool for presenting our heritage and the history of America and the value system of America and where it came from.”

I appreciate Rep. Russ’ description of “ground fire.” It reminds me of the line from the song “Pass It On” that says it only takes a spark to get a fire going. May this Bible teaching fire continue to spread throughout our country.

I predict (and oh, I hope I’m wrong) that Democrat Martha Coakley will barely win today. I also tend to think even if Brown can pull off the upset, the premature gloating and celebrating on the right will backfire.

Don’t count your Senate seats before they hatch, to borrow a phrase.

UPDATE: You know, sometimes it’s enjoyable to be so wrong. Long live the Grand New Party!

“OKLAHOMA CITY (January 7, 2010) – Working to reduce Oklahoma’s high divorce rate, state Rep. Sally Kern has filed legislation to refine state law to encourage married couples with children to work through their problems.”

Read more here.

Maggie Gallagher, a tireless defender of traditional (or, shall we say, real) marriage, has a post by that title in response to Ben Smith’s assertion that it is. For the impatient, she says it is not for these reasons:

1. Nothing is inevitable.
2. Young people are not as unanimous as most people think.
3. The argument from despair is bait and switch.
4. Progressives are often wrong about the future.
5. Demography could be destiny.
6. Change is inevitable.
7. Newsflash: 18-year-olds can be wrong.
8. New York’s highest court was right.

Read the whole post here for the details.

Over at The Corner, there are a couple of really great posts regarding the twin boondoggles, TARP and The Stimulus. First up is Iain Murray’s post, “Best Summary of TARP I’ve Yet Seen.” Quoting the quote:

After all, the whole premise of the TARP programs was to give extremely large amounts of public money to companies with demonstrated track records of mismanaging money, then assume there was no chance whatsoever the companies’ executives would be more concerned with their own paychecks than with the taxpayer.

The second (and I’m sure there are more), is Stephen Spruiell’s, “Dude, Where’s My Jobs Created or Saved?”

When asked to explain the phenomenon of stimulus-related job creation in non-existent congressional districts, Pound told the New Orleans Times-Picayune, “who knows, man, who really knows.”

With news that the President is considering another stimulus “jobs legislation” pacakge, I’m reminded of a phrase pledges of a certain (now defunct) “social club” in college were required to say after getting paddled with the giant wooden boards they were required to carry, “Thank you, sir! May I have another?”

I recently “retweeted” (if you don’t understand what that is, don’t worry about it right now :) a quote from Tom Coburn in which he said, roughly, “you can’t love through the Federal Government.” In response to that, I was asked what the difference was between giving to a charity, and “giving” (through taxation) to the government. That seems like a fair question, so I’d like to address it a little more fully. Read the rest of this entry »

When I first heard that the President won the Nobel Peace Prize, I was really shocked. My first question, and that of everyone I spoke to this morning, was, “Why?” I was anxious to hear what the professional pundit’s reactions would be. My prediction would be skepticism from the Right, and unbridled glee from the Left. I was only half-right. Other conservatives responded as I did, with confusion and bewilderment.

The reaction from the Left, though, surprised me. While some are all but dancing in the streets, some Leftists — major ones at that — are also confused. Matt Lauer said, “We’re less than a year into the first term of this president and there are no — I’m not trying to be, you know, rude here — no major foreign policy achievements, to date.” He even asked David Gregory, “So, what you’re saying in some ways and, again, not to be rude here or sarcastic, that in some ways he wins this award for not being George W. Bush?” to which Gregory responded, “I think that that is an inescapable conclusion about all of this.” I never thought I’d agree with a post on the The Daily Beast, but I think Peter Beinart got it right:

When it comes down to it, I really don’t care who wins the award. It’s been mostly a farce for years now, with terrorists like Yasser Arafat and warm-mongering junk scientists* like Al Gore winning, I don’t think it’s had any real credibility for a long time. Adam Graham at Race 4 2012 sums it up nicely. What bothers me is how weird it is putting a man who has only talked about peace next to those who labored in slums or languished in prisons. It boggles the mind.

* I say junk science because I don’t buy the sky is falling proclamations of Gore and his ilk. Even if one assumes he’s right, though, how is fighting melting ice caps related to peace? Because people might someday fight over dry land in some sort real life Water World scenario? Absurd.

“To the vast majority of Americans, the purpose of health care is to protect, improve and lengthen life. Life is the primary goal; issues of health care financing are secondary.”

James Pinkerton offers this provoking statement in his column “Why Obamacare Will Fail and the Media Will Fail to Notice Its Flaws.” He also points out an alarming perspective given by the Washington Post as the paper analyzes President Obama’s health care plan slipping in approval ratings because the president’s “opponents seized control of the discussion, elevating side issues such as abortion and end-of-life counseling.”

Sanctity of Life should always be valued. Affordable health care is a reasonable pursuit, but not at any cost. Lowering the level of care so that “everyone” can be covered should not be the primary goal.

One of the more popular religious games to play, for both the sectarian and the secular, is “What kind of politician would Jesus Be?” Would He be a Republican or a Democrat? Sometimes this branches out into more a economic realm with would He be a capitalist or a socialist? This former flavor of the discussion was recently brought op on twitter. Since 140 characters at a time is a tough format in which to have a serious discussion, I thought I’d try to share my thoughts in longer form here. Read the rest of this entry »

National Review magazine tells the conspiracy theorists to stop the nonsense:

“President Obama was born on August 4, 1961, at 7:24 p.m, in Honolulu County, Hawaii, on the island of Oahu. The serial number on his birth certificate is 010641. Baby Barack’s birth was not heralded, as some of his partisans have suggested, by a star in the east, but it was heralded by the Honolulu Star, as well as the Honolulu Advertiser, each of which published birth announcements for young Mr. Obama.

“Much foolishness has become attached to the question of President Obama’s place of birth, and a few misguided souls among the Right have indulged it. The myth that Barack Obama is ineligible to be president represents the hunt for a magic bullet that will make all the unpleasant complications of his election and presidency disappear.”

Read the rest here.

“I commend President Obama for forcing the issue of health-care reform into the public debate,” says Chuck Colson in a new article. “Our present system, still the best in the world, needs to expand coverage to the uninsured.”

The question is how to do it and “who will decide who gets medical care.” The most helpless in society should not be forgotten in the President’s plan. By this I mean the pre-born and very elderly. Read the rest of Colson’s thoughts here.

Moreover, our newer system must focus more on “health” than “health care,” shifting away from predominantly curative to preventative measures. Mike Huckabee explains it better than I could. That being said, I am grateful that the President is calling for action. Just hope he remembers to “do no harm.”

President Obama has oft discussed finding common ground on the pro-life issue. His remarks at Notre Dame, in fact, hinged on that. Taking him at his word, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission explores whether common ground can be found on the life issue and comes up with some satisfying answers, championed largely by Democrats for Life of whom I largely approve:

Can pro-life and pro-choice people find agreement on how to reduce the number of abortions in a way that honors the sanctity of all human life? The answer lies in the Pregnant Women Support Act. The bill addresses the sad reality of widespread abortion by encouraging pregnant women and girls to bring their babies to term. It was crafted with a specific goal in mind: reducing the number of abortions by 95 percent in 10 years.

The Pregnant Women Support Act would make grants available to adoption centers and establish a toll-free telephone number to direct women to organizations that provide support during pregnancy, including information on adoption centers. It would also make adoption information available to women whose babies are prenatally diagnosed with conditions such as Down syndrome. Additionally, it would increase and make permanent the adoption tax credit. Women and girls who intend to keep their babies would be helped in many similar ways, such as assisting pregnant students with child care through colleges and universities.

Read more here about this attempt to make immediate progress for life.

Mark Joseph gives a good perspective about Sarah Palin. I find it interesting, since many have compared the Alaska governor to Ronald Reagan, the comparison Joseph gives.

Palin is 45. When Reagan was 45, it was 1956, and he was miles away from being the “Great Communicator.”

“Reagan spent those intervening two decades writing, listening, reading, talking and developing a philosophy of governance that he simply didn’t have at the age of 45, when he was a shadow of the politician he would become,” Joseph said. ”If Palin is to be a serious political force in American politics, she too will need to take time to hone her craft and both deepen her understanding of the issues as well as sharpen her communication skills.”

Last week I heard Charles Krauthammer project Mitt Romney to be the Republican candidate for 2012 and Palin for 2016. I guess you can do the math on how he thinks the results will turn out for the 2012 election.

I have yet to hear anybody give a positive nod on Palin’s decision to step down as governor. I have heard many give constructive advice about her taking some time for refinement. Maybe she doesn’t need to run for president in 2012, and maybe she doesn’t plan to run.

Considering the fact she was basically thrown into the ring less than four months before last year’s election and the fact this time last year the majority of the country never even heard of Sarah Palin (present company included), she may need to allow more time for herself as well as for American voters to develop understanding and appreciation, respectively.

I have watched almost two hours of coverage on Alaska Governor Sarah Palin stepping down from her position. Needless to say, she is going to have a major challenge ahead of her. Many are going to criticize her on all sides. I do like her, and I want her to do well because right now there are few in politics who hold the views I have on the issues. So though I have some concerns about this decision, Sarah Palin is somebody I would support if she does run for president in 2012.

Jenny Sanford released a statement to the media today, regarding her husband South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford’s public admittance to an affair.

There are some great words and phrases used in her remarks — forgiveness, reconciliation, repentance, institutions of marriage and family. I don’t know Mrs. Sanford, but I admire what she had to say.

“Forgiveness opens the door for Mark to begin to work privately, humbly and respectfully toward reconciliation with me. However, to achieve true reconciliation will take time, involve repentance, and will not be easy,” she said.

There is great truth and wisdom in her statement. She is correct that his actions were a violation of trust and a disgrace to the sanctity of marriage. She also is gracious and wise to recognize that saving their marriage is a process that will take time, but it is not beyond restoration.

I also appreciate Mrs. Sanford’s awareness of the need to privately restore their marriage. I only wish a certain reality TV couple would have been aware of this need.

“As God can protect his people under the greatest despotism, so the utmost civil liberty is no safety to them without the immediate protection of His Almighty arm. I fear that Christians in this country have too great a confidence in political institutions … [rather] than of the government of God,” from Confidence in God in Times of Danger by Alexander Carson.

“From the Brody File today — 19 pro-life Democrats have sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi saying they will not support a public option if the government covers abortion or abortion-related services,” reports WORLD magazine.

To Speaker Pelosi they wrote:

“We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families.  Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan.  We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.”

Mike Huckabee’s website has a new look. Not bad at all.

One thing I neglected to mention in my convention update post was that, following his ringing oration, Huckabee broke out the bass guitar and jammed with the SBC praise band.

Christianity Today has a must-read article on public policy and abortion in America. It claims, “The current proposals to lower the abortion rate will only make things worse.”

The piece goes to analyze some of Obama’s words and actions pertaining to abortion, which in this case are not the same.

The article, part of a complete series on the pro-life cause, even examines the next wave of abortion on demand: chemical abortions under other names, like “emergency contraceptives.”

“NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.”

-BARACK OBAMA, in a recent White House press release

Hat tip: BTD

I’m not a frequent viewer of The O’Reilly Factor, but once in awhile I do tune in to see what Mr. Bill is reporting. On Monday night, he did something that is rarely done in the state of Oklahoma — accuse Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry of being irresponsible and apathetic. He also called out Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson.

According to the McAlester News-Capital a district judge sentenced a child rapist a year in prison after a plea bargaining agreement with the rapist’s attorney. O’Reilly said he called both Henry’s and Edmondson’s offices to get their reaction to this sentence. Henry’s office declined to comment, and Edmondson said he was “too busy” to talk to O’Reilly.

O’Reilly has been on a crusade against judges who give short sentences to child rapists and sex offenders. He also is an advocate for Jessica’s Law and will call out lawmakers who appear to make decisions that contradict the popular law that is designed to punish sex offenders and reduce their ability to re-offend.

I am curious to see how this accusation on national television will pan out for both Henry and Edmondson. Henry is a lame duck, but Edmondson plans to run for governor. Regardless of their future plans, O’Reilly’s bulldog-like tactics could make it troublesome for both politicians, especially in this conservative state.

Rush Limbaugh is one of the most polarizing figures in American politics. The Left simply can’t stand him. As soon as his name comes up, so does an inordinate amount of bile. Almost without exception in some circles. It was no surprise then, that Rush’s suggestion to Colin Powell to “go be a Democrat” has caused much consternation, even from some on the right. The GOP, we’re told, must be more inclusive! “Stop pushing out people who disagree with you,” critics tell us. I think that’s horrible advice, and I’m not alone.

Read the rest of this entry »

“America may have a president and Congress that support abortion rights, but a new Gallup poll suggests that for the first time such a stance is not the majority view.”

Gallup said on Friday that a new poll, conducted May 7 to 10, found “51 percent of Americans calling themselves ‘pro-life’ on the issue of abortion and 42 percent ‘pro-choice.’ This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.”

“The new results, obtained from Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs survey, represent a significant shift from a year ago, when 50 percent were pro-choice and 44 percent pro-life. Prior to now, the highest percentage identifying as pro-life was 46 percent, in both August 2001 and May 2002.”

Christianity Today interviews “Joe the Plumber,” a fixture of the 2008 circus, I mean campaign. Glad to see he is a professing Christian.

I submitted this to The Oklahoman, which seems to have passed on it, so here it is
The Oklahoman published my thoughts on The Flaming Lips Flap:

I learned something in the last couple of weeks. I learned that one Oklahoma band likes the Communist party. I also learned that some Oklahomans like bands that like the Communist party, as well as that the State House does not. Most importantly, I learned that when the State House “snubs” a band that likes the Communist party, we have a governor that will swoop in and save them. Sadly, that same governor is sympathetic to those who like to destroy human life in the name of economic growth. Maybe if we wrap those embryos in the Hammer and Sickle our fine governor could be bothered to protect them.

“The U.S. Senate easily confirmed Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as secretary of Health and Human Services April 28 despite controversy over her record on abortion and the political contributions she has received from the country’s most notorious abortion doctor.” Read some commentary from Richard Land here.

This is by far Obama’s most controversial, partisan, pro-choice pick in my book. I could easily look the other way on almost all of the others, but this is inexcusable. And so is Sam Brownback‘s voting to approve her.

“A Georgia Senate committee has approved legislation that would limit the use of in vitro fertilization and embryo research. With concerns that the use of the medical technology is going overboard, pro-life groups are promoting the bill, the Ethical Treatment of Human Embryos Act.”

Read the rest here.

Mike Huckabee is featured in the latest issue of World Magazine. Marvin Olasky follows the former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate on a routine schedule of talk show productions and speaking engagements and asks Huckabee a solid list of questions regarding current issues and the possibility of running for office again.

In the article, Huckabee hits a Ruthian grand slam when he responds to Olasky’s question, “How do you break out of the Christian ‘box’?”

Huckabee said, “I don’t want to break out of the box if that means people think I’m somehow abandoning my faith. If my faith is the reason people say, ‘I’m not going to vote for him,’ then good, don’t vote for me, because I’m not going to abandon who I am to get your vote. . . . When I was governor people asked me, ‘Is it hard being a governor and a Christian?’ and I said, ‘No, it’s actually easier. I don’t have to wake up every day and decide what I’m going to believe today.’ If I get defeated, I get defeated. That’s part of the deal. I’d rather be defeated and go to my grave with some sense of consistency of conviction than that I had to win every last office in America including the presidency but had to sell my soul to do it.”

I am not a scientist. I am not a doctor. In fact, I do not even own a white coat. But I can recognize unethical science when I see it, and embryonic stem cell research (albeit with noble intentions) fits in this category.

That is why I was aggravated to see that Gov. Henry vetoed a bill that would have essentially banned the practice in Oklahoma, while encouraging adult stem cell research. The latter is reported to have proven, positive results. The former does not, which is why it is surprising that the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce lobbied against the bill. You would think business executives would want to invest in the type of research that provides results.

Be that as it may, a veto-override in the Oklahoma State Senate has failed. To read more about the legislators who changed their vote, click here. I am not alone in my view, as more important people, such as Joni Eareckson Tada, oppose the use of embryonic stem cell research on ethical grounds.

Rick Perry speaks at a Texas TEA Party

Texas Governor Rick Perry has made many bold moves while he has been the leader of the Lone Star State. He is a social conservative who has made his Christian beliefs publicly known.

Perry spoke at a few of the TEA Parties in Texas yesterday, rallying attendees with remarks of supporting states’ rights. He said, “The federal government is strangling Americans with taxation, spending and debt.”

He also provoked some interesting thoughts of Texas seceding from the United States. On April 9, the Governor gave his support of a state resolution affirming states’ rights under the 10th Amendment.

It doesn’t appear likely that Texas would once again become its own sovereignty, but I do hope the current White House and Congress would come to an understanding of how serious Americans are about the dissatisfaction of the economic decisions they are making and the “big government” philosophy they are following.

Living in Oklahoma, there are only a few areas I could be envious of Texas. One area especially would be that Texans have a better governor.

I have much admiration for conservative columnist Cal Thomas. He recently posted an article titled “Apologies Just Tell Our Enemies We’re Weak.”

He makes some excellent points in regards to Secretary Hillary Clinton apologizing to Mexico for the demand of drugs in America. This apology is not constructive. Some could say she was grandstanding and just continuing the “company line” of blaming the former administration for everything that is wrong.

And Cal is right when he says “what good does it do? Unless she has a suggested policy to accompany her confession or apology, I fail to see how it lowers the level of violence in Mexico or reduces the demand for illegal drugs in the U.S.”

However, I will not agree with him when he says apologizing shows weakness. When someone is wrong, admit it. When there isn’t admittance, there is pride.

The Bible says, “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” This will cause more weakness than confession ever will.

In a recent speech on the floor of the US Senate, Senator Jim DeMint (R, SC) made a great, principle speech on why the GIVE Act (HR 1388). While there are many great, political reasons to oppose this boondoggle, one of the provisions of the bill that bothers me the most is this:

SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:
SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:
[SNIP!]
(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.

The way I understand that is this: If, say, your son gets a federally subsidized student loan, he will be compelled to enter a period of public service. However (above and beyond Senator DeMint’s excellent case against government-mandated volunteerism), your son will not be able to choose as his service anything that might spring from his personal faith. Want to help out at your local denomination-sponsored boys’ home? Too bad. If the name of Jesus (or Jehovah, Allah, etc, to be fair) happens to be mentioned by the group you’d like to serve, they are enjoined from receiving any GIVE help. The message, then, is that you can help, but only if you’re humanistic or atheistic in whom you want to help. To force someone to “volunteer” is bad enough¹, but then to deny them their rights of free speech and exercise of religion is beyond the pale.

The government intrusion into private life and the erosion of personal rights continues apace, and the band plays on.

(h/t Michelle Malkin)

¹ The “volunteering” here is, indeed, forced. I can think of no other instance where one gets a loan and is forced to perform some sort of service. I certainly don’t pull weeds for my mortgage company.

This comes from National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru:

The other day when I turned on the tv, the channel was set, as it often is, to Noggin, the toddler network. There was a cartoon image of our president with an announcer saying something like, “Noggin congratulates President Obama. And now here are some things that he likes.” I flipped the channel before finding out whether abortion and taxes made the list.

Yesterday, President Obama rescinded President Bush’s ban on federal funding for expanded embryonic stem cell research. Adam Keiper, in a post on The Corner, made some really interesting points regarding the policy shift. One of the most interesting parts of the analysis was this question that Keiper asks of the President:

What counts as a purely “scientific decision”? What issues can we possibly decide on scientific grounds alone — that is, without also inquiring after the kinds of important ethical, political, and economic concerns that President Obama denigrates as mere “ideology”? On what future issues will the president claim that science dictates a policy and trumps all other concerns?

If we’re not going to let ideology play a role in determining what happens in the name of science, why not allow unrestrained animal — or even human — testing? Is vivisection on the table then (no pun intended)? History has clearly shown that restraints must be put in place, or some very cruel, and, yes, evil people will push that laissez faire attitude as far as they can. If Obama envisions a scientific world untethered by any sort of ideology, whence comes morality in some respects, then he’s opening a Pandora’s Box that we will rue for decades.

Stem cells can cure a lot of things, just not the stem cells the President is pushing. Given the success of adult stem cells and the resounding lack of success of embryonic stem cells, the President’s decision is anything but non-ideological. It’s misguided, deluded, and infanticidal.

“At the White House a few moments ago, President Obama nominated Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to be his secretary of Health and Human Services.”

This is his worst, most-devastating pick yet–and that is saying something.

Governor Bobby Jindal

Last night, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal gave the Republicans’ response to President Obama’s State of the Union address. I give the young state executive leader a high grade. Read the rest of this entry »

Here’s a question: Big Oil is bad. Big Peanut is bad, apparently. Big Pharmaceutical is bad. Big Bank is bad. Why then, is Big Government good?

Interesting article on National Review Online today. It begins:

“For the first time since Jimmy Carter ran for the White House in 1976, large numbers of evangelical and Catholic voters pulled the Democratic lever in a presidential election. Last week, Pres. Barack Obama decided to reverse a policy that prohibits U.S. tax dollars from funding abortion providers overseas.”

“How to square the two? Some younger Christians probably saw it coming: Obama’s campaign emphasized social-justice issues like overcoming racism, combating poverty, and tackling global issues like AIDS, and for them, this agenda trumped abortion. For others, however, the new policy is a betrayal: While courting the evangelical and Catholic vote on the campaign trail, Obama also promised to reduce the number of abortions.”

Though I chose to start out neutral and/or favorable to him, this one major policy switch (and the disloyalty to his campaign rhetoric it represents) is why I cannot in good conscience approve of the job Obama is doing. Read more of the piece here.

Thanks to Ross Douthat for this link:

The Internet Monk, which, I have to confess, I just heard of today so I don’t know much about him, has a pretty good analysis of the two prayers given at today’s inaugural. My favorite quote is this:

You can’t talk reasonably and genuinely about a God of many understandings. Not with actual believers in Jesus, Yahweh, Allah and Buddah around. You might as well pray to the cat. (It probably would be better to pray to the cat.) But you can talk about the God who created, the God who reigns and the God we know as we know and believe Jesus.

The indispensable Christian journal, First Things, has an interesting piece on pro-life politics. It begins:

It happens every four years—maybe every two years: Anytime there’s an election in this country, the pundits and political experts take to their soapboxes and proclaim the death of pro-life politics. The unwashed yokels in Utah, Alabama, South Dakota, Oklahoma: They’re an embarrassment, you see, and the sooner we stop paying attention to them, the sooner the nation’s politics will regain its equilibrium.

Are pro-life politics yesterday’s news? Read the rest here.

President-elect Barack Obama ignited a firestorm of controversy with some by allowing Rick Warren to voice a prayer during his inauguration. More controversial, I think, though certainly less-covered, is a similar selection of homosexual Episcopal priest Gene Robinson. Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel and associate dean with Liberty University School of Law, discusses this selection in his short but poignant column, “Obama betrays Christian voters.” He makes a really good point, with some really good zingers (“After that comment, I wonder if he heard a rooster crow.”). It’s a short piece, so I’d encourage you to read it, and by all means, pray for our next president, and pray for Gene Robinson.

For Christmas this year, I received not one but two copies of Do the Right Thing by Mike Huckabee — one from my mother-in-law and another from a friend.

The irony of this is I attempted to purchase the book for my mother, and it was sold out (though I noticed this particular popular bookstore was well stocked with multiple books on Obama, as well as many liberal authors).

Since I’m in the middle of reading four different books, I’m only on chapter four, but already I’m convinced this is one of the best books I have ever read, mostly because of one profound paragraph. Read the rest of this entry »

“When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family, and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception.”

Ted Kennedy
August 3, 1971

(hat tip: BTD)

Sarah Palin is taking some heat for doing a press interview in front of some turkeys being bled out on a turkey farm.  It seems some in the media find that offensive.  One quick-witted NRO reader had this to say,

She should tell the media that she apologizes and she’ll do her next interview inside an abortion clinic.

Zing!

A special thanks to Brian Hobbs for passing along a story from The Baptist Messenger‘s Bob Nigh.

Along with passing the proclamation to emphasize prayer for the next President of the United States, Oklahoma Southern Baptists also heard a passionate address from BGCO President Alton Fannin, pastor of FBC Ardmore.  Read the rest of this entry »

I had the wonderful experience of attending the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma annual meeting in Broken Arrow, Okla. Personally, it was a great experience for many reasons.

One reason I would like to share with our blog readers is my appreciation of a resolution that BGCO messengers passed. I am truly thankful for the conservative values represented by Oklahoma Baptists, and they were emphasized in many of the proposed resolutions. But one resolution holds significant encouragement.

Read the rest of this entry »

In a key vote that our blog has been following closely, “South Dakota voters once again rejected a proposed law that would have banned most abortions.” Read the rest here.

Also, “Voters [in Washington] approved Initiative 1000, an assisted suicide measure that would make Washington the second state to allow doctors to prescribe lethal doses of medication for terminally ill patients seeking to hasten their deaths.” If you can take it, read more here.

Lastly, Colorado rejected a pro-life “persohood amendment.” Read about it here.

Happy Election Day, to the brightest readership on the Web.

OK, I’ll admit this is trite to say, but… we implore you to vote today. I’d hasten to remind you not only to vote, but vote pro-life.

May God help us.

“If people want a sense of purpose they should get it from their archbishop. They should certainly not get it from their politicians.”

-the late British Prime Minister Harold MacMillan

Over at Public Discourse: Ethics, Law, and the Common Good, Maggie Gallagher, President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, and President of the National Organization for Marriage, has an excellent article titled, Marriage Matters: For Kids, for Parents, and for Religious Liberty.  If you are one of the ones wondering what the fuss is all about, this article should give you a very nice introduction to the issue, which goes well beyond “fairness.”  Some highlights:

• Marriage between a man and a woman is rooted in our nature–”in biology, not bigotry”–sex between men and women makes babies, society needs babies, and babies need a father as well as a mother. But the proponents of same-sex marriage want the government to declare in law that there is no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex unions, and anyone who thinks otherwise is promoting bigotry. This will have major ramifications for those who believe in marriage in the traditional sense–especially religious citizens and organizations.
• Equality, especially racial equality, trumps religious liberty in our constitutional scheme. Indeed just a few weeks after declaring that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right (because sexual orientation is a protected class just like race), the California Supreme Court explicitly affirmed that the government has the right and obligation to punish a Christian doctor who refused to perform the insemination procedure on a lesbian couple. Treating two women in a union any differently than a husband and wife is now the same as discriminating on the basis of race under California law–and it is a well-established principle of law that religious beliefs do not give an individual or an institution a right to violate norms of racial equality.
• Everyone acknowledged that a union of a black man to a white woman could be a marriage–which is why these unions had to be banned to maintain a racial classification system in the law. Calling same-sex unions ”marriages,” by contrast, requires the law to redefine the very meaning of the word, and to strip marriage as a public, legal status of its ancient, honorable, and distinctive relationship to responsible procreation.

You should read the whole article to see how this attempt at redefining marriage will affect you, your family and your church.  It won’t be pretty.

Randy Alcorn, founder of Eternal Perspective Ministries, has an insightful blog post on Barack Obama’s pro-choice stance. He admits up front, “My blog on Barack Obama’s pro-abortion stance, and the fact that various evangelical Christians are supporting and campaigning for him, has been getting lots of comments, some of them heated.” You can read the rest here, and scroll to the end which has video clips of Obama speaking at a Planned Parenthood event.

If you are weary of abortion being a political litmus test, then I would encourage you to wrestle with this new piece from Touchstone magazine. Here is an excerpt:

“There has been a steady campaign by some Christians who regard themselves as orthodox and conservative to persuade the rank and file of their Christian brothers and sisters to rethink their predictable support for political candidates who are pro-life. They bring other issues to the fore—war, torture, taxes, education, health care, and poverty—in an attempt to undermine the claim that conscientious Christians must always support pro-life candidates. They imply that such ‘single-issue’ pro-life voting is unsophisticated, often in lockstep with the mostly uneducated ‘religious right,’ and perhaps not even very moral in the long view.”

Two years after a failed attempt to protect the lives of pre-born babies in South Dakota, pro-life advocates in the state are trying again, this time fixing some of the wording that caused the bill to fail the first time.  As can be expected, pro-abortion advocates are vowing a fight.  Those on both sides of the issue are watching this measure closely, as its passage will likely send the question to the Supreme Court.  If Obama wins, though, the chances that it would be upheld are slim as Obama believes that “Roe was decided correctly.”  Get the full story here, and pray.

Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, has the story.

I know I keep beating this Obama-and-abortion drum, but I think this is an extremely important issue to consider as November approaches. Andrew McCarthy, National Review’s legal-affairs editor, has a very sobering look at Obama’s abortion radicalism in an articled titled “Why Obama Really Voted For Infanticide.” Here’s a sampling:

• There wasn’t any question about what was happening. The abortions were going wrong. The babies weren’t cooperating. They wouldn’t die as planned. Or, as Illinois state senator Barack Obama so touchingly put it, there was “movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.”

• No. In Obama’s hardball, hard-Left world, these least become “that fetus, or child — however you want to describe it.”

  Most of us, of course, opt for “child,” particularly when the “it” is born and living and breathing and in need of our help. Particularly when the “it” is clinging not to guns or religion but to life.

• When it got down to brass tacks, Barack Obama argued that protecting abortion doctors from legal liability was more important than protecting living infants from death.

Read the whole article for yourself. It’s quite a chilling and damning expose, I think, of the Senator’s position. If there’s ever an issue over which to be a one issue voter, this is it.

As a technology junky, Google has long fascinated me.  When they burst on the scene, they had amazing technology and spunk, and that facet continues today.  One of the things that has set them apart corporately is their motto “Do no evil” (see item #6).  Unfortunately for pro-lifers, that philosophy is distorted or ignored to exclude us when it comes to advertising.  While denying the chance to buy targeted advertising to pro-life groups, Google has made a regular practice of selling ads to pro-abortion groups.  Thanks to the yeoman’s effort by the Christian Institute, a cross-denominational pressure group, Google has had to reverse its discriminatory policy and allow the pro-life ads.  You can read more about it here.

As you’ve likely heard by now, John McCain has chosen a running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.  You’ve also likely heard that she has several children, the youngest of which, Trig Palin, has Down’s Syndrome.  Have you heard, though, the new depths to which the main stream media (MSM) have gone to tear down Gov. Palin?  James Taranto has, and he’s not happy:

Fowler uses Palin’s motherhood to disparage her accomplishments, an obvious betrayal of the principle of women’s equality. And although proponents of permissive abortion laws nearly always claim to support not abortion but “a woman’s right to choose,” here we have three of them rebuking Palin for choosing not to abort her baby.

So a woman has the right to choose, as long as she chooses to abort her baby.  Their true colors finally shine.

This quote is from Al Mohler’s blog:

Speaking Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Senator Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee for Vice President, made headlines by stating that he accepts “as a matter of faith” that human life begins at conception, but he would not impose that view on others as a matter of law. Sen. Biden’s statement is similar in form to those offered by other Catholic politicians like former New York Governor Mario Cuomo.

Biden’s remark, which made Mohler think of Cuomo, made me think of another New York politician who thinks likewise. During his bid for President, Rudy Giuliani explained his pro-choice stance to include that he “hated abortion.”

This line of thinking is what the pro-life debaters, such as Stand to Reason’s Gregory Koukl calls, “personally opposed to abortion.” Koukl reminds pro-life spokesmen to follow up these kinds of statements with, “Why are you personally opposed?” Or, “Why do you hate abortion?” Their answer almost invariably is, “Because it takes a life.”

By taking them to the logical end of their position, I have even known some to abandon the “personally opposed” position for the solid ground of “personally opposed and publicly opposed.”

Last week, the Democrat’s Convention contained several notable speeches, including one by Michelle Obama. This week, at the GOP convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, there were many speeches worthy of comment. To that end, below is our assessment of the major ones that provided the driving force for the convention, and thus, determined the momentum of the upcoming elections. Our grades are, as is with everyone, mostly subjective.

John McCain: B+

Explanation: His words were Churchillian, his story is heroic, his delivery was a tad lacking and lengthy. He’ll make a great President though. [listen to a speech excerpt].

Sarah Palin: A+

Explanation: She stole the show and single-handedly shifted the momentum of the election. She was feisty but not flashy. She was substantive but not boring [speech excerpt].

Read the rest of this entry »

I just finished watching Governor Sarah Palin give her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. This woman is phenomenal and gave one of the greatest speeches in American political history. Read the rest of this entry »

The pro-life movement has long needed an eloquent spokeswoman on the national stage. In Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, we appear to have been given that gift.

For this reason and more, we wholeheartedly endorse this historic selection by Sen. John McCain.

Have we posted enough commentary about Rick Warren’s Faith Forum?

I am thinking more and more that Pastor Warren’s table talk is the pivotal point of this presidential campaign. I read a great op-ed from the Wall Street Journal outlining some of the heavy questions featured in Warren’s oral quiz.

Also, regarding the Democrats featuring “faith” at their convention this year, Pew Forum’s Michael Cromarty says it does not have an effect on Evangelicals due to the fact that Evangelicals are “interested in policy not just language.” Obama’s usage of “church speak” will not hold as much clout until he changes his position on non-negotiable issues such as abortion.

My friend Brian Hobbs has done an excellent job of promoting Rick Warren’s recent forum with the two presidential candidates. Warren was phenomenal with his line of questioning.

Personally, I expected the typical shallow dialogue that was featured in the primary debates. Warren’s questions were well-phrased with no vague political slant.

The question of the night was “At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?” Of course, McCain was spot on with his answer, “At the moment of conception.”

Obama, however, failed miserably with his answer: “I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that quesiton with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.”

I watched Warren in a follow-up interview on Fox News’ Hannity and Colmes. The man gained my confidence again after his exchange with liberal commentator Alan Colmes:

Colmes: And “above my pay grade,” he’s coming under fire for that as if to say — I interpreted — to me, you know, that’s really between a person and God, that’s really higher than any of us.

Warren: Yeah. Well, you know what? He is right in the fact that it isn’t his decision, it’s God’s decision. If you believe Psalm 139 where — as a pastor I do — it says I formed you in your mother’s womb and I planned all your days before you were born, so obviously to me, that was — an answer that I wasn’t comfortable with, but I thought that he shared his view and people know where he stands.

Excellent Pastor Warren! May all future debate moderators follow your lead!

Today, July 29, is voting day for the Oklahoma primaries. The polls are open 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. If my experience at the polls is at all telling, it is going to be light turnout today, even though a U.S. Senate seat and other important offices are at stake.

Of course, Pilgrims Progress readers are just about the brightest in the country, so you probably knew this already.

Just last week, I heard a contrast made between being a “conservative” and a “progressive” (by the way, that’s the new term for liberal). A “conservative” was defined as someone who looks back, who holds on to things of the past, whereas a progressive is someone who looks forward to the future, ready to embrace new ideas, even new truths. Of course, carefully defining the words like this is a thinly veiled attempt in pejorative monikers by those on the left. That being said, there is some truth in the definitions. Read the rest of this entry »

… for John McCain’s running mate, as their latest feature column attests.

It turns out, though, at least 90 Evangelical leaders do. And I suspect there are many more in the pews who are like them.

Over at National Review, Bill Bennett and Seth Leibsohn have published a list of their top ten concerns regarding the potential of an Obama presidency.  The list is pretty interesting, but I found it distressing a bit that life was listed at number 9, and then relatively briefly:

9. Barack Obama is to the left of Hillary Clinton and NARAL on the issue of life. As a state senator in Illinois, Barack Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, a law that would have protected babies if they survived an attempted abortion and were delivered alive. When a similar bill was proposed in the United States Senate, it passed unanimously and even the National Abortion Rights Action League issued a statement saying they did not oppose the law.

That quibble aside, it’s a good read for anyone thinking of voting for Barack Obama.

In about twenty four hours, I plan to attend a lunch briefing featuring pro-tax-cut activist, Grover Norquist. He is perhaps most famous for forging the ‘Leave-Us-Alone Coalition,’ a “description of a hoped-for reality of cooperation between social conservatives, libertarians / free market supporters, and various single-issue voters such as gun rights supporters.”

The title of his new book, Leave Us Alone: Getting the Government’s Hands Off Our Money, Our Guns, Our Lives, says it all. Yet as a so-called one-issue voter (i.e. pro-life), I find myself increasingly uncertain as to what his philosophy has to say on pro-life issues and progress.

That may be a good question to ask Mr. Norquist.