Kids Can Pick Murder, but not Religion

Americans United for Destruction of Religion Separation of Church and State believes students aren’t wise enough to decide for themselves on religion. But, somehow, kids are extraordinarily mature enough to choose to murder an unborn baby, recognize evolution is the only logical explanation for science, and be tolerant of homosexuality when they struggle with their own heterosexual hormones. AU sent an email today encouraging their members to direct questions to members of Congress while they are on August recess and in their home towns. One of those questions was particularly hypocritical, as I just pointed out:

Question: Do you believe that the public schools should be leading prayers and worship for students or should that task be left to the students’ parents?

It’s obvious that the Founders preferred Christianity over other religions and desired that it be taught and encouraged in schools and by the government. But the Founders also recognized other religions and tolerated their existence in a perfect blend of satisfaction for Christians and other beliefs. At least there weren’t efforts to silence or separate other beliefs from the majority like AU and other liberals attempt to do today. 

AU also claims prayer in school has been outlawed. But a cursory look at 150 years of judicial precedent shows this outlawing is actually unconstitutional. Like I’ve said before, liberalism is based in emotion, not fact and this question exposes that pretty well.

Our Work Cut Out for Us

It’s no secret really. California politicians are liberal and don’t like family values. They are doing everything in their power (and some outside it) to be intolerant of any worldview contradictory of their own. After four judges gave the left a gift in May and legalized gay marriage, activists attempted to have a marriage amendment taken off the ballot in order to prevent their marriages between June and November from being invalidated. That effort failed, but homosexual lobbyists did succeed in getting the language on the amendment changed that dealt a blow to pro-family advocates in California. 

The ballot title originally approved for Proposition 8 described the proposal as an amendment “to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”  But after homosexual activists failed to get the initiative removed from the ballot, Secretary of State Debra Bowen changed the title to describe the proposal as amending the state constitution to “eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.”  The description also claims, with no supporting evidence, that the state will lose “several tens of millions of dollars” if the measure is passed.

Attorney Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, has been working to support the proposed marriage protection amendment. He believes that most people entering the voting booth will have only thing on their mind — and it will not be Prop. 8.

Consequently, says Dacus, pro-family forces have their work cut out for them in educating the voters. “We’re just going to have to work twice as hard to get the information out so that people aren’t confused and [so] they understand that marriage – as it has been defined for centuries, including as it has been defined throughout California history – has always been between one man and one woman,” he states. “This alleged ‘right’ recognizing homosexual ‘marriage’ is something that was just newly created by a few activist judges…a few months ago and is not to be treated as something that is long and established in the State of California.”

This presents a wonderful opportunity for churches to design and distribute literature educating voters in their communities on the facts on the amendment.

The Republican Strategy for the Black Vote

I can’t add much to this, so I’ll just quote a few segments of La Shawn Barber’s well-written piece on why black people don’t care that the GOP is a civil rights party. 

I’m only one black American among millions, and I’m no authority on black people, nor do I speak for black people.

But I can provide insight.

Knowing history is important, obviously, and all this makes for good reading. But I need to break it you: blacks who vote for Democrats do not care about this history. The only bit of history they care about is the one that provides excuses and finger-pointing opportunities: ancestors in bondage, great-grandparents and grandparents struggling to gain first class citizenship in this country, etc. They don’t care who did what to or for whom in the past. All they care about is who’s offering them the most goodies today.

Democrats know they’ve got an eternal lock on 90 percent of the “black vote.” All they have to do is continue to promise black Americans bigger and better government programs and government handouts (so-called affirmative action, set-aside contracts, and other entitlements qualify as handouts to me), and encourage them to blame third parties for their troubles. (And I’m talking about blacks as a group here.) No grand theories. … (federal government as savior, for example), it is that simple.

Now that the Democrat party has a black candidate, it’s easy to see where the “Messiah” title for Obama comes from.

Democrats Want to Drill…

… In your WALLET! Nowhere else. 

Ed Morrissey notes the WSJ latest poll showing mounting public support for domestic drilling.

Michelle Malkin has more on Pelosi’s do-nothing halt on relieving the pressure on Americans’ wallets.

Are Christians Wrong to be “Single-Issue” Voters?

After being gone a lot during the last week, I’m back to blogging. On several occasions, I’ve been berated by fellow Christians for seemingly voting on a single issue, namely abortion. But in recent years, same-sex marriage has become 1b. The recent, “Evangelical Manifesto,” a concoction of the religious left, made drastic pleas that Christians not allow these two issues to define our cultural identity. World Magazine Founder, Joel Belz offers a compelling defense why Christians should not apologize for voting on a single issue, but take an even stronger stand today.

Evangelicals shouldn’t be embarrassed to say boldly and clearly: Abortion and same-sex marriage are uniquely heinous sins. They rattle the foundations of a civilized society. They take a culture in a dreadful direction. We haven’t been wrong to say so. We aren’t fanatics.

And I’m not referring here so much to the young women caught in the anguish of an unexpected pregnancy or folks bewildered by their sexual identity. I’m talking mostly about a society that goes all out to tell such people that what they’re doing is just fine. There’s forgiveness for individual sinners. There’s judgment for societies that lead them astray.

Society is trying its best to exert its tolerance for child-killing and homosexuals on Americans utilizing every arena from schools, businesses, and courts to the media, Hollywood, and advertising. The religious left would not argue that Christians are on the wrong side of these issues. And while Christians have not been as zealous on the environment, poverty, and healthcare, at least we are facing the right direction. Belz notes the key difference:

What evangelical do you know who says insensitivity to the poor should be promoted? What evangelical leader is calling for more racism? Who advocates the uncontrolled plundering of the environment?

That is exactly the kind of cheerleading that is going on for abortion and same-sex marriage. .

But here’s the core of the matter. To be robustly and consistently anti-abortion is at the very same time to cast your vote for environmental sensitivity, against racism, and for economic justice. These are not independent, isolated packages.

It’s hard to see how anyone can claim to be a protector of the environment and not put a high priority on the preservation of human babies. To defend a focus on the future of polar bears and whales, while asking evangelicals to get less noisy about infant humans, is an embarrassing contradiction.

Similarly, keep in mind that abortion is one of the most racist of all social causes in history. Minorities don’t just happen incidentally to be targeted by the practice of abortion. The history of Planned Parenthood and similar organizations is racist to the core—as is their current practice.

And no economist can look at the loss of 50 million American babies over the last 45 years and not wince at the impact of such a drain on the economic vitality of our society. Today’s poor Americans are poorer than they would have been if we’d taken care to preserve enough consumers—and workers—to fill a state one-and-a-half times as big as California. Tomorrow’s elderly will worry about Social Security more than they would have with 50 million more contributors to the system.

The religious left would do well to recognize who the real “single issue” voter is here: the liberal non-Christian who believes tolerance for special rights somehow won’t upset the social balance God created and instilled in the heart of every man. Today’s young Christians have been asked to buy a lie that their elder Christians were too narrow-minded and single-issue focused. I, for one, will not buy that lie and urge my fellow young believers to not apologize for being a single-issue voter either.

Controversial California Home-School Case Dismissed

The unconstitutional February 28 ruling by a California Appeals Court outlawing ALL home-schooling in the state of California has been dismissed by a family court judge last Friday, July 11. The 2nd District Court of Appeals ruled improperly that California parents without teaching credentials cannot home-school their children. This occurrence likely means the Court of Appeals decision will not be resurrected. 

LA Times:

A controversial legal ruling that outlawed most forms of home schooling in California will face greater scrutiny because the underlying family court case was dismissed earlier this week.

“It should mean the whole thing goes away,” said Michael Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Assn. “I’m very optimistic for the long haul. I don’t see how in the world this case could be upheld. That [dismissal] absolutely bolsters my optimism greatly.”

Edward Steinman, a law professor at Santa Clara University, said he does not believe that the family court dismissal undermines the ruling, but it could provide easy political cover if the appellate court wants to get out of the spotlight.

California has some 200,000 children currently being home-schooled. No court wants that many unhappy families protesting their decision. But home-schoolers are not out of the clear yet: 

Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, said the appellate court is expected to decide in the next few weeks whether to drop its earlier ruling.

“If that were to happen, we would be back at square one as if this whole mess had never taken place — at least legally speaking — because there’d be absolutely no precedent on the books,” he said.

Gary McCaleb, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said he is hopeful the court will do the right thing.

“We’ve had a tremendous alliance arguing on behalf of home-schoolers, and the case has been tossed out of the lower court,” he said. “We think the appellate court will do the right thing and settle the matter that parents can home-school in California.”

How ironic it is that the liberal mantra of rights, equality and tolerance is forced upon Americans when it comes to abortion, religion, and homosexuality. But since when does one bad home-schooling family make all the rest equally bad? There is no tolerance for the Christian worldview, especially in public schools where the state thinks it knows much better what is best for your children than you the parent does.

Video: Brit Hume Honors Tony Snow

 

Very sad news. Tony Snow died early this morning after battling cancer at age 53. He was the White House Press Secretary for 17 months in 2006 and 2007. He is survived by his wife, son, and two daughters.

FoxNews:

Snow died at 2 a.m. Saturday at Georgetown University Hospital in Washington, D.C.

Snow joined FOX in 1996 as the original anchor of “FOX News Sunday” and hosted “Weekend Live” and a radio program, “The Tony Snow Show,” before departing in 2006.

As a TV pundit and commentator for FOX News, Snow often was critical of Bush before he became the president’s third press secretary, following Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan. He was an instant study in the job, mastering the position — and the White House press corps — with apparent ease.

Snow had his colon removed and underwent six months of chemotherapy after he was diagnosed with colon cancer in 2005. In 2007 he announced his cancer had recurred and spread to his liver, and he had a malignant growth removed from his abdominal area.

He resigned from the White House six months later, in September 2007, citing not his health but a need to earn more than the $168,000 a year he was paid in the government post. He was replaced by his deputy, Dana Perino, Bush’s current press secretary.

After taking time off to recuperate, Snow joined CNN as a political commentator early this year.

Snow played six instruments — saxophone, trombone, flute, piccolo, accordion and guitar — and was in a D.C. cover band called Beats Workin’. He also was a film buff.

Others remembering: Michelle Malkin, Hot Air, Stop The ACLU.

Video: What Will Nozzle Rage do to You?

Spread the word and visit NozzleRage to join the effort.

Every American is getting hosed. Each time we fill up our cars, we are putting money into the hands of OPEC – the oil cartel led by Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis and the other countries that make up that monopoly control most of the world’s reserves. Most of them pay just a couple of bucks per barrel to get oil out of the ground.

Yet, OPEC is limiting production and encouraging speculation that is costing us and other consumers hundreds of billions of dollars every year. It amounts to the largest artificially engineered transfer of wealth in history. OPEC is waging economic warfare, and it is bleeding our country dry.

Worse still, some of the oil money the Saudis, Iranians, Venezuelans and other OPEC members get from us is being used to support terrorism. We are literally paying people to try to kill us.

This is clearly a ridiculous – and unsustainable – situation. If not corrected, we are going to bleed out as we underwrite our destruction.

Enter NozzleRage. NozzleRage is a video campaign designed, through viral YouTube and Internet distribution, to make clear what is happening to this country and its drivers. Its goal is to channel the fury most Americans feel into effective action.

The first of a series of 30-second NozzleRage videos features an OPEC gas pump ripping off and then attacking an ordinary American consumer. Conceived, directed and produced by the fabled Hollywood team of David and Jerry Zucker, it directs viewers to the www.NozzleRage.com website where they can register to view upcoming videos and find out what they can do to end our suicidal vulnerability to OPEC’s oil cartel.

You gotta love liberals’ argument that drilling in ANWR and off our coasts won’t make a difference in our prices because much of that oil will go on the world market. While it isn’t necessary that this happen, nor is it a requirement, even if it did, we wouldn’t give it away. We would receive what is known as money for our goods which would then allow the oil companies to lower the price of the fuel they sell at the pump, regardless of where it came from.

Oil companies are aware of the amount of fuel Americans use. If we are producing fuel from oil in our country, we can make enough fuel available to Americans reversing the current ratio of 70/30 (imported/domestic). If the ratio is for example, 70/30 (domestic/imported), oil companies can apply the profits from the 30% export to American prices at the pump, muck like middle eastern countries do in their homelands. 

T. Boone Pickens breaks down our current situation:

Visit the PickensPlan website for more on his plan.

Others: Michelle Malkin.

Video: Jesse Jackson REALLY Must Dislike Barack Obama

Out of the heart, the mouth speaketh. Even for a viper like Jesse Jackson:

O’REILLY: ‘We held back some of this conversation… we didn’t feel it had any relevance to the conversation this evening. We are not out to get Jesse Jackson. We are not out to embarrass him and we are not out to make him look bad. If we were, we would have used what we had, which is more damaging than what you have heard’…

But Jackson later apologized and Obama accepted. 

Ed Morrissey

Jackson may have done Obama a bit of a favor. Mainstream America has long distrusted Jackson, and anything that puts distance between him and Obama can only help support Obama’s status as a member of the new generation of black politicians. He didn’t do himself any favors by attacking Obama; it will underscore his identification as a mostly discredited has-been.

I’m not sure any apology will do in this circumstance. 

In the fallout of this, I look for liberals to equate this absurdity to the Jeremiah Wright relationship. Liberals have tried to dismiss Obama’s association to Wright by comparing this relationship to McCain and Hagee, which of course is absurd because McCain was not a member of Hagee’s church for twenty years. Obama’s denial of Wright’s views makes him look worse than Roger Clemens and Mark McGuire. At least with Jesse, liberals will have some substance to the claim that Obama has no relationship to him. 

Others: Michelle Malkin, Stop The ACLU.

The New Deal 2.0

If Barack Obama wins the presidency in November and retains majorities in Congress, this country will make a hard turn to the left not seen since the New Deal. Seventy-five years ago, Franklin Roosevelt’s first 100 days began with his March 4, 1933, inaugural, and culminated June 16 with his big push for the National Recovery Administration (NRA).

I should preface this by pointing out that the material depression was far greater in 1933 than today. Americans needed Roosevelt to act, and he did. Like Barack Obama today, Roosevelt used his rhetoric to bring Americans into his camp. But his NRA programs, plowing through Congress exploiting a 313 to 117 Democrat to Republican ratio, only exacerbated the Great Depression. 

Roosevelt pushed his unprecedented, government-growing legislation through not only because of his majority in Congress, but like Obama today, he appealed to the emotions of voters using biblical falsifications such as the government’s “duty” to seize control and expand all forms of transportation, communication, and other utilities.

Barack Obama’s vision for an increase in government power carries a Rooseveltian harmony. As evidence, I submit any supporter of Barack Obama who can’t explain his position on any major issue. These types of voters are more numerous than you might imagine. Just about every late night and political talk show has interviewed such persons on numerous occasions. They have been beguiled by the mellifluous notes of The Pied Piper’s Barack Obama’s flute. And to top it all off, they have no excuse. First, they have the failures of Roosevelt’s New Deal to look back on and learn from, and second, we are not in a depression and do not need our next president to expand government in order to survive. Obama’s ideals for government power are for his personal benefit and the good of his party, not the American people. 

In 1935, thanks to a conservative Supreme Court, the NRA was found to be an unconstitutional deprivation of liberty, resulting in FDR backing off. But he cranked it back up after his reelection. And since the voters during those depression years preferred the hope the NRA paraded to the medicine GOP candidate Alf Landon offered, Roosevelt enjoyed a second term with another majority in both houses of Congress and no opposition to obstruct his liberal programs. 

What can conservatives do this year to prevent The New Deal 2.0? One way is obvious: work to elect John McCain. But if McCain appears headed for defeat, Republicans will have one other viable option: prevent a sizable Democrat majority in Congress. The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund recalls what happened in 1996 when Bob Dole’s loss was imminent:

The Republican National Committee decided to take bold action by directly appealing to the public’s fondness for divided government and fear of one-party rule. It rook out ads that featured a fortuneteller staring into a crystal ball showing scenes of Biblical devastation, plague and conflict were seen. The announcer warned what could happen if Democrats swept the elections:

“Remember the last time Democrats ran everything? The largest tax increase in history. Government-run health care. More wasteful spending. Who wants that again? Don’t let (insert local state) down. Don’t let the media stop you from voting. And don’t hand Bill Clinton a blank check.”

It worked. Republicans gained two seats in the Senate and lost only a handful in the House.

Fortunately, McCain is running close enough in the polls that option one is still highly possible. But if Obama’s daily flip flops have the intended consequence of duping more voters into believing his words today over yesterday, then plan B may be our only hope for survival.