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.

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.

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 »

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 »

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.