By Thomas E. Brewton
New Orleanians born and bred in the welfare-state seem honestly believe that they are not required to do anything to help themselves.
A large number of people, most of whom apparently are residents of New Orleans, have favored me with four-letter-word denunciations of The god That Failed New Orleans.
A common allegation was that I had written that New Orleans deserved its fate. No one, however, cited specifics, for good reason: I wrote nothing to that effect.
For example:
And do they want the levees to break? I guess it depends if you are (as a New Orleans blogger commented to a brain-dead Repug at the link) "a f_ckmook" who believes New Orleans deserved it (and there are, sadly, many more like this)…My thought is that they … don't care. We're the last major city port at the mouth of the largest river system in the United States, and they don't give a rat's ass. We have some of the best food, culture, history and characters to be found, and are unique unto ourselves in this world, but they pretty much summed it up with Dennis Hastert's comment: "It looks like a lot of that place could be bulldozed."
In other words, New Orleanians don't need to exert themselves rebuilding the city. They're entitled to have the taxpayers of the nation do it for them, because New Orleans has all sorts of things that cater to sensual appetites.
No emailer advanced a single argument to counter the specific points I made, which were that New Orleans, a once great commercial city, had become after 1927 mired in hedonism and dependence upon the welfare state.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as News Events, Politics, Social Issues at 12:36 PM EST
No Comments »
By Warner Todd Huston
We are certainly used to seeing the MSM causing trouble for conservatives and this one is no different at least on that level. But the interesting thing here is that the trouble a social conservative discovered was as a result of what she wrote in the MSM as opposed to what was written about her by the MSM. It seems that the opinion editorial written by Crystal Dixon for the Toledo Blade got her fired by the University of Toledo because… well, you know how universities are all about free expression and speech, right? Unfortunately for Dixon, though, hers wasn’t the proper, politically correct sort of speech that is officially approved of by the thugs at the University of Toledo.
You see, Crystal Dixon made the mistake of believing that this whole silly idea of “freedom of religion” also applied to our institutions of higher learning. She foolishly asserted in her Toledo Blade op ed that as far as her religious beliefs are concerned, homosexuality is a choice made by the individual instead of some genetic predisposition, that someone chooses to engage in homosexual activities instead of assuming that being gay is forced upon one by “nature.”
Of course, Dixon based her entire op ed on her Christian religious beliefs. It was no hate filled rant and was quite civil, even tempered, and to the point. But the gay mafia inside the University of Toledo must be awfully powerful. Or, at the very least, fear of them was enough to stifle — no, execute — Mrs. Dixon over what the president of UoT must imagine is her wretched religious extremism.
President Dr. Lloyd Jacobs dashed off a letter summarily firing Mrs. Dixon from her $134,383 a year job as associate vice president for employee resources.
A letter to Ms. Dixon informing her of her termination, stated “The public position you have taken in the Toledo Free Press is in direct contradiction to university policies and procedures as well as the core values of the strategic plan which is mission critical.”
It went on to say her position calls into question her ability to continue in her role as an administrator in charge of personnel actions and decisions and that “the result is a loss of confidence in you as an administrator.”
Don’t you DARE have any religious beliefs in an American university. Well… unless it is the church of Satan, or Islam, global warming, anti-Jewish or feminism you want to belong to. Those are perfectly fine religious opinions in the halls of our fetid universities it should be noted.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as Constitutional Issues, Family Values, Social Issues at 9:52 PM EDT
No Comments »
By Thomas E. Brewton
Why does much of New Orleans still look as if the 2005 devastation of Hurricane Katrina had occurred just a few weeks ago?
Huge areas of New Orleans still are wastelands. New Orleans's liberal-progressive-socialist Senator Mary Landrieu has grabbed far more than her share of Congressional pork. Hundreds of millions of Federal dollars spent for rehabilitation have produced far too little beneficial result. People were without electric power for months; the police department contained more thieves than honest law enforcers; drug-dealing and prostitution remain major enterprises; and the city still retains its crown as the nation's murder capital.
One of the city's few "legitimate" businesses is casino gambling.
City and state administrations have yet to coordinate rebuilding plans, as politicians fight over who gets what share of the spoils.
The best that the city's Mayor Nagin can do is to demand that the Democratic-socialist Party presidential candidates pledge to send even more pork to New Orleans.
What accounts for this dismal record?
The answer is simple. New Orleans abandoned God and personal moral responsibility, turning instead to worshipping the atheistic, secular political state. That secular god has failed miserably, notoriously so in the aftermath of Katrina.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as News Events, Politics, Social Issues at 11:43 PM EDT
No Comments »
By Christopher Adamo
The American public, and Christians in particular, are being deluged once again with talk of the thoroughly ambiguous concept of “social justice.” It is, after all, election time. Thus the pseudo religious among us must make their pitch for the Christian vote, on whatever spurious terms they can concoct.
In its raw form, “social justice” merely references the prevailing societal attitudes of the day, relegating any defining standards of right or wrong, good or evil, and moral or immoral to a snapshot of the existing consensus. Biblical principles notwithstanding, “social justice” has throughout time been equally applicable to those crowds shouting “crucify him,” the burning of “heretics” at the stake during the inquisition, and even the holocaust.
It is therefore no great wonder that the “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright, in his venomous and racist rantings against America, would seek refuge under the umbrella of “social justice” when attempting to defend his positions.
In its modern form, it represents a conglomeration of environmental extremism, coupled with the Marxist concept of a government empowered to confiscate the property of one citizen for the purpose of purchasing the loyalty of another. But since the ultimate reality of such false generosity and sanctimony conflicts with foundational Biblical truth, substitute “truths” must be cited in their stead. No less a mutation of reality is sufficient to legitimize socialism or environmental extremism under the guise of “spirituality.”
Possibly the most notable and outlandish example in recent memory is Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s fabricated “scripture” asserting that one must worship the environment in order to worship God. Those who are truly familiar with Scripture know that the first chapter of Romans contains a stern admonition against that very notion. But while few among Pelosi’s ranks have ever had any interest in fact as derived from such dry and rigid source material, their current transparent attempts to redefine Christian citizenship merely represent a continuation of similar sordid efforts over the years.
The stunning collapse of Democrat fortunes in the 1994 elections caused party operatives to realize that they had suffered from an enormous disconnect from mainstream America and its traditional values. But, being thoroughly unwilling to actually embrace or even comprehend those values, liberal Democrats concluded that the only alternative, if they were ever to regain that portion of the electorate, was to offer an alternative set of “values” that might resonate with the American heartland while not conflicting with the liberal socialist agenda.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as Politics, Social Issues at 10:38 PM EDT
No Comments »
by David Barton
As a Christian should you vote? Does God give us instructions on what kind of people to vote for? I will attempt to answer these questions in the scope of this article. Should a Christian vote? Some Christian individuals and in fact some entire denominations believe that Christians shouldn't vote or get involved with politics. They'll say "well I'm waiting for Jesus to return and set up his kingdom" or "The bible says to have no part of the world" and it's true, we are to expect Jesus to return at any time as a thief in the night, but he did give us civil duties as well as spiritual ones. We are not supposed to just bide time and wait until the Lord returns, he told us our job was to occupy until he comes (Luke 19:13). Occupy means more than just take up space,we are to preach the gospel in the entire earth, and that should be our focus, however how will we be able to do that if our government continues getting more and more hostile towards Christianity. Already we have several states trying to ban the church from speaking against homosexuality. The government has no business in the church according to the 1st amendment. Jesus told us specifically to "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. " (Mat 22:21). He expects us to carry out our spiritual duty but also our civil duties. The bible tells us that God appoints all leaders, well in the United States God has set it up so that the government depends on the people's free will to vote. God has people that he desires to be in office , but he won't buck the human spirit. He doesn't buck the human will to save us even though the bible tells us it's His will that all be saved. (2 Peter 3:9). That means that it is up to us to vote in Godly people into office, the kind of people that will stand up for righteousness. They aren't going to make it in if we don't vote because he has given us the power to do so.
Now that we have established the fact that Christians should vote, on what things should we base our votes? Biblicly can we vote for anyone we want? I believe there are 4 major points we should consider when voting, especially for the president. 1. What Kind of Judges will he/she appoint? The bible tells us in Isaiah 1:26 that judges shall restore righteousness to the city of Jerusalem. You may think that doesn't apply to our government today but what we have to realize is that our system of government was set up by the principles laid out in the bible and the position our judges hold now is very much the same as it was then. Think of this it was our judges that deemed abortion was ok and legal, and it was our judges that mis-use the term separation of church and state which is not even in the constitution. If we had been electing righteous judges then we wouldn't have abortions legal in America. As Christians we want judges who will uphold the constitution as it is written and not put their own interpretation onto it. These judges are called strict constructionists.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as Social Issues at 12:04 AM EST
No Comments »
By Warner Todd Huston
In an article that is ostensibly supposed to be about the many Iowa homeschoolers that are supporting Mike Huckabee, the Washington Post pins the reason to the fact that homeschooling parents must hate Mormons! This has easily become the MSM’s favorite theme as they try to divide and anger portions of the GOP primary voting base against each other. In this MSM meme, anyone who votes against Romney or questions the relative Christian merits of the Mormon faith is a bigot who hates Mormons and won’t vote for Romney merely because he is one. They are also unanimous in pinning support for Huckabee to an anti-Mormon sentiment. The MSM is doing their level best to start a religious war on the right.
In the Post’s article, religion is the central theme of pro-Huckabee homeschool advocates. Here the Post reveals the efforts of a homeschooling Mother named Julie Roe (bet they chose her for her familiar name: Roe) who has stumped for Huckabee by making homemade buttons and making numerous phone calls.
Julie Roe, an early believer in Mike Huckabee, worked with what she had… With no buttons, no yard signs and no glossy literature from his nearly invisible Iowa campaign, she took a pair of scissors and cut out a photograph of the former Arkansas governor. She pasted it on a piece of paper, scribbled down some of his positions, made copies and launched the Huckabee for President campaign in rural Hardin County.
So, why Huckabee? (My emphasis added throughout).
Huckabee’s name is no longer a mystery to Iowa’s Republican voters, in large part because of an extensive network of home-schoolers like Roe who have helped lift his underfunded campaign from obscurity to the front of a crowded field. Opinion polls show that his haphazard approach is trumping the studied strategy of Mitt Romney, who invested millions only to be shunned by many religious conservatives such as Roe, who see the former Baptist preacher from Hope, Ark., as their champion.
But, even the Post contradicts this religious basis only a few paragraphs later.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as News Events, Social Issues at 7:33 AM EST
No Comments »
 ADF attorneys filed friend-of-the-court briefs in August explaining to R.I. high court that divorce is not legally possible for non-marital relationshipsPROVIDENCE, R.I. — In a case involving two women seeking to “divorce†one another, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island ruled Friday that the term “marriage,†according to state law, means a union between one man and one woman. Therefore, the lower state court did not have the authority to consider a petition for a same-sex “divorce.â€
“Marriage has always been one man and one woman in Rhode Island. Everything else is counterfeit. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island ruled correctly,†said Alliance Defense Fund Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks. In August, ADF attorneys filed three friend-of-the-court briefs explaining that divorce is not legally possible for non-marital relationships (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4197).
The two women in the case, Margaret Chambers and Cassandra Ormiston, both residents of Rhode Island, traveled across the state to Massachusetts in May 2004 and obtained a “marriage†license there. The couple subsequently petitioned the Rhode Island courts for a “divorce.â€
The Supreme Court of Rhode Island expressed in its ruling, “The role of the judicial branch is not to make policy, but simply to determine the legislative intent as expressed in the statues enacted by the General Assembly.â€
“Not only is today’s ruling a victory for marriage, it’s also a tremendous step forward against judicial activism,†said Nimocks. “Rhode Island’s highest court acknowledged that it is the role of the legislature, and not the judiciary, to establish public policy.â€
A full copy of the ruling issued by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island in the case Chambers v. Ormiston can be read at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/ChambersRuling.pdf.
ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.
www.telladf.org             www.domawatch.org
Posted by Walt as Family Values, News Events, Social Issues at 10:55 PM EST
No Comments »
By Robert Meyer
Typically any discussion about breaches in the so-called impregnable wall of church and state separation are associated with right-wing fundamentalist Christians. This is a gross misconception, due largely to a deconstruction of the true meaning concerning the church and state separation concept.
The “strict separatist” view of this doctrine has come into vogue, its contemporary roots were ushered in primarily by the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education. The 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman ruling gave us the “Lemon Test,” further refining and codifying the requirements of the establishment clause to the satisfaction of the then current Supreme Court.
The modern application of this approach yields something almost tantamount to affirmative action for secularists.
This is accomplished by viewing the concept of separation as an ideological separation of the secular and sacred realms, rather than a functional and jurisdictional separation of the two institutions, church and state. A sociopathic conceptual divide between God and government results, rather than a healthy recognition and respect of sphere sovereignty.
We have seen the clever, but irreverent bumper sticker slogan: “The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.”
Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn would not be impressed. He might reply that the last time a country forgot about God, millions were murdered–and that event happened more recently–in the “enlightened” 20th century. After the liberal makes his political or philosophical dissertation about getting right-wing fundamentalist thinking out of the halls of government, he is ironically ready demonstrate that he doesn’t really believe in church and state separation after all.
We find him asking rhetorical questions, such as, who would Jesus bomb, or how does Bush’s foreign policy square with the Sermon on the Mount? Viola! Suddenly there is no more talk about rendering unto Caesar differently then unto God. There is no consideration on the part of the liberal pundit, that the state is charged with wielding the power of the sword, thus must be distinguished from the church as it exercises its mandate.
The tendencies to blur of the lines of distinction get more convoluted when applied to economic policy.
A traditional understanding of church and state separation recognizes that the church has the ministry of grace, whereas the state must administer justice.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as Constitutional Issues, Social Issues at 11:51 PM EST
No Comments »
By Thomas Lindaman
In an already absurd political season, hearing the flap about Hillary Clinton’s campaign planting questions in the audience of a campaign stop made me look for a clown car and a three-ring circus. Then, I remembered she wasn’t in the well of the Senate at the time and I got my bearings.
Seriously, who gives a flying handshake about Hillary planting questions in the audience? At the risk of sounding like a teenager getting caught doing something I shouldn’t be, everybody or just about everybody does it. George W. Bush has done it. FEMA did it not too long ago. And Hillary’s done it since she announced she was running for Senate in 2000. It’s no big deal. And for the record, no, I wouldn’t jump off the side of a cliff just because everybody was doing it.
There are three reasons politicians are planting people and questions at campaign stops. One, it makes them look far more intelligent on issues. Two, it helps them craft an overall message for each stop and make it look like it just happened to be that way. And three, it cuts down on the likelihood that they’ll be surprised by…an honest question! Ultimately, each reason revolves around the politicians’ ego, which they prize more heavily than Gollum treasured Frodo’s ring from “The Lord of the Rings.” And while we’re on the subject, doesn’t Dennis Kucinich kinda look like Gollum? I’m just sayin’…
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as News Events, Social Issues at 12:29 AM EST
No Comments »
by Thomas E. Brewton
Left wing churches ignore the law, engage in the equivalent of judicial activism.
The Wall Street Journal, in its July 20, 2007, edition printed an article based on a Time Magazine story in the July 30 edition. The first two paragraphs are the following:
"Sanctuary Drive Could Bolster Religious Left TIME — JULY 30
"A movement to give sanctuary in churches to illegal immigrants threatened with deportation might bring new firepower to the long-quiescent religious left, writes David Van Biema in Time.
"Inspired by churches who offered sanctuary to Central Americans fleeing civil wars in the 1980s, members of a range of religious faiths have launched the New Sanctuary Movement in cities around the U.S. The effort has been small-scale, housing eight undocumented immigrants in churches in five U.S. cities. (While immigration authorities legally can raid a church, they rarely do.) NSM activists say four more congregations will house immigrants in August, and the mainline Protestant United Church of Christ has resolved to work with it."
A few observations:
First, deciding to break the law of the land solely on the basis of what an individual or a group, including a church, thinks the law ought to be is essentially what activist judges do when they ignore the Constitution or statute law and, in effect, legislate from the bench.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as Atheism, Social Issues at 9:47 PM EDT
No Comments »
