What’s interesting in the news today?
1. At least 14 people have died in a mudslide in Washington state. Many more are still missing.
From Seattle/CBSLocal “The search for survivors of a deadly Washington state mudslide grew Monday to include scores of people who were still unaccounted for as the death toll from the wall of trees, rocks and debris that swept through a rural community rose to at least 14.
In the struggle to find loved ones, family members and neighbors used chain saws and their bare hands to dig through wreckage that was tangled by the mud into broken piles.
Authorities said they were looking for more than 100 people who had not been heard from since the disaster about 55 miles northeast of Seattle. They predicted that the number of missing would decline as more people are found safe. But the startling initial length of the list added to the anxieties two days after a mile-wide layer of soft earth crashed onto a cluster of homes at the bottom of a river valley.”
_______________________________________
2. The failed results of this administration’s “smart” diplomacy. Failed state, failed diplomacy. We should never have gotten involved.
From HotAir “An anniversary passed this week that went almost completely unremarked — and for good reason. March 17th marked the three-year anniversary of the UN Security Council resolution imposing a no-fly zone over Libya to stop the Moammar Qaddafi regime from attacking rebel-held Benghazi and Ajdabiya, and the three-year anniversary on the 19th of the NATO war on Libya. French, British, and American planes began bombarding the Qaddafi regime, an air war that would continue for months — while Barack Obama refused to request Congressional approval for it. Later, Obama would claim that Libya represented the smart model of Western intervention.
If so, why did these anniversaries pass unremarked? The Associated Press report on the status of Libya today gives a very good answer, although it is not written as such. Libya has become a failed state, where the government’s writ doesn’t run outside of its capital, and not even everywhere within that. Not only is it a dangerous place, but it is a danger to the surrounding nations in north Africa too:
Libya, where hundreds of militias hold sway and the central government is virtually powerless, is awash in millions of weapons with no control over their trafficking. The arms free-for-all fuels not only Libya’s instability but also stokes conflicts around the region as guns are smuggled through the country’s wide-open borders to militants fighting in insurgencies and wars stretching from Syria to West Africa.
The lack of control is at times stunning. Last month, militia fighters stole a planeload of weapons sent by Russia for Libya’s military when it stopped to refuel at Tripoli International Airport on route to a base in the south. The fighters surrounded the plane on the tarmac and looted the shipment of automatic weapons and ammunition, Hashim Bishr, an official with a Tripoli security body under the Interior Ministry, told The Associated Press.”
And as the author notes later, the Obama admin relied on the same type of groups for security in Benghazi, and in Egypt as well.
__________________________________________
3. Democrats are now using the tactic of disparaging military service to help win elections. Rather cowardly, not to mention ungrateful of them, if you ask me.
Also from HotAir “In case you were wondering precisely how desperate Senate Democrats are getting as they watch the poll numbers shift and the pages of the calendar fall away toward November, the answer would appear to be, “a lot.” You can argue the relative merits of policy and legislation all day long and nobody will bat an eye, but who on Earth thought it would be a good idea to criticize your opponent for serving their country in the military? Well, two examples come to mind from recent weeks. The first was Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) going after Tom Cotton.
There’s a disgusting pattern emerging of Democrats attacking Republican candidates’ records of service to the nation. Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) recently complained that Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR), his general election opponent, has a “sense of entitlement” because of his military service.
“There’s a lot of people in the Senate that didn’t serve in the military,” Pryor, who never served and is the son of a politician, told NBC News. “I think it’s part of this sense of entitlement that he gives off is that almost as like ‘I served my country, therefore elect me to the Senate.’ That’s not how it works in Arkansas.”
A “sense of entitlement” for mentioning your service record? That takes some serious chutzpah. It had the Morning Joe crew shaking their heads in disbelief.”
___________________________________________
4. Remember the old days when college campuses were the place to engage in debate, and all points of view were heard and considered, that whole free exchange of ideas thing?
Yeah, good times….. Nowadays you might get assaulted by a professor for not towing the liberal line.
From TheCollegeFix “The University of California-Santa Barbara professor who allegedly assaulted a pro-life student on campus has been charged with criminal battery.
The College Fix reported on March 12 that department of feminist studies professor Mireille Miller-Young, whose research emphasis is black studies, pornography, and sex work, had been caught on camera assaulting a 16-year-old student, Thrin Short.
Miller-Young led a small mob that approached a group of pro-life demonstrators who were holding signs. The mob chanted “tear down the sign.” Miller-Young then grabbed one of the signs and stormed off with it, eventually engaging in a physical altercation with 16-year-old Short, one of the pro-life demonstrators, when Short tried to retrieve the stolen sign.
The confrontation took place in the university’s designated “free speech area.”
The irony is strong with this one….
__________________________________________
5. The DoJ is trying to convince the Supreme Court that preventing an embryo in the womb from implanting is not abortion.
From CNSNews “The U.S. Justice Department is telling the Supreme Court that killing a human embryo by preventing the embryo from implanting in his or her mother’s uterus is not an “abortion” and, thus, drugs that kill embryos this way are not “abortion-inducing” drugs.”
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby. The crux of the administration’s argument in this case is that when Christians form a corporation they give up the right to freely exercise their religion–n.b. live according to their Christian beliefs—in the way they run their business.
It is in the context of this case, that the administration is making its argument that killing an embryo seeking to implant in his or her mother’s womb is not an abortion.”
__________________________________________
6. This one is just disgusting. Talk about inhumane.
From TheTelegraph/UK “The bodies of thousands of aborted and miscarried babies were incinerated as clinical waste, with some even used to heat hospitals, an investigation has found.
Ten NHS trusts have admitted burning foetal remains alongside other rubbish while two others used the bodies in ‘waste-to-energy’ plants which generate power for heat.
Last night the Department of Health issued an instant ban on the practice which health minister Dr Dan Poulter branded ‘totally unacceptable.’
At least 15,500 foetal remains were incinerated by 27 NHS trusts over the last two years alone, Channel 4’s Dispatches discovered.”
_________________________________
Kane alleges that these prosecutors, out of revenge, left her holding a damaged political-corruption case that she was forced to drop, and that they then leaked the story to the press in order to besmirch her reputation. But I have looked into the facts, and they conclusively disprove this charge. These prosecutors didn’t leak this story, and I believe that not just because they told me; I believe it because the reporters themselves have said so. Kane should know that too, because those reporters have explicitly advised her office that these prosecutors were not the source of the story.
And there’s another problem with this theory: The case files were not in her office when Kane became attorney general. I have been told that before she took office, the files had been given to federal authorities, and they have stated that they never made a conclusion as to the merits of the case. No one left her with a potentially embarrassing decision to make; all she had to do was leave the investigation in the hands of federal authorities. But she didn’t do that. Instead, she asked for the files back. And then, after going out of her way to reclaim the investigation, she shut it down.
For whatever reasons, Kane has been largely silent about this important fact. She has repeatedly claimed that it was federal prosecutors who ended the investigation, and that they did so because they concluded that it was without merit. I believe that to be untrue.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#aUyPTCkdv8mZYgWj.99
Kane alleges that these prosecutors, out of revenge, left her holding a damaged political-corruption case that she was forced to drop, and that they then leaked the story to the press in order to besmirch her reputation. But I have looked into the facts, and they conclusively disprove this charge. These prosecutors didn’t leak this story, and I believe that not just because they told me; I believe it because the reporters themselves have said so. Kane should know that too, because those reporters have explicitly advised her office that these prosecutors were not the source of the story.
And there’s another problem with this theory: The case files were not in her office when Kane became attorney general. I have been told that before she took office, the files had been given to federal authorities, and they have stated that they never made a conclusion as to the merits of the case. No one left her with a potentially embarrassing decision to make; all she had to do was leave the investigation in the hands of federal authorities. But she didn’t do that. Instead, she asked for the files back. And then, after going out of her way to reclaim the investigation, she shut it down.
For whatever reasons, Kane has been largely silent about this important fact. She has repeatedly claimed that it was federal prosecutors who ended the investigation, and that they did so because they concluded that it was without merit. I believe that to be untrue.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#aUyPTCkdv8mZYgWj.99
Kane alleges that these prosecutors, out of revenge, left her holding a damaged political-corruption case that she was forced to drop, and that they then leaked the story to the press in order to besmirch her reputation. But I have looked into the facts, and they conclusively disprove this charge. These prosecutors didn’t leak this story, and I believe that not just because they told me; I believe it because the reporters themselves have said so. Kane should know that too, because those reporters have explicitly advised her office that these prosecutors were not the source of the story.
And there’s another problem with this theory: The case files were not in her office when Kane became attorney general. I have been told that before she took office, the files had been given to federal authorities, and they have stated that they never made a conclusion as to the merits of the case. No one left her with a potentially embarrassing decision to make; all she had to do was leave the investigation in the hands of federal authorities. But she didn’t do that. Instead, she asked for the files back. And then, after going out of her way to reclaim the investigation, she shut it down.
For whatever reasons, Kane has been largely silent about this important fact. She has repeatedly claimed that it was federal prosecutors who ended the investigation, and that they did so because they concluded that it was without merit. I believe that to be untrue.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#aUyPTCkdv8mZYgWj.99
Kane alleges that these prosecutors, out of revenge, left her holding a damaged political-corruption case that she was forced to drop, and that they then leaked the story to the press in order to besmirch her reputation. But I have looked into the facts, and they conclusively disprove this charge. These prosecutors didn’t leak this story, and I believe that not just because they told me; I believe it because the reporters themselves have said so. Kane should know that too, because those reporters have explicitly advised her office that these prosecutors were not the source of the story.
And there’s another problem with this theory: The case files were not in her office when Kane became attorney general. I have been told that before she took office, the files had been given to federal authorities, and they have stated that they never made a conclusion as to the merits of the case. No one left her with a potentially embarrassing decision to make; all she had to do was leave the investigation in the hands of federal authorities. But she didn’t do that. Instead, she asked for the files back. And then, after going out of her way to reclaim the investigation, she shut it down.
For whatever reasons, Kane has been largely silent about this important fact. She has repeatedly claimed that it was federal prosecutors who ended the investigation, and that they did so because they concluded that it was without merit. I believe that to be untrue.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#aUyPTCkdv8mZYgWj.99
also have to address another conspiracy theory advanced by the attorney general. She says these career prosecutors are just out to get her. She says they were mad at her because she criticized their work on another high-profile case: the investigation of Jerry Sandusky, a former coach at my alma mater, Pennsylvania State University.
Kane alleges that these prosecutors, out of revenge, left her holding a damaged political-corruption case that she was forced to drop, and that they then leaked the story to the press in order to besmirch her reputation. But I have looked into the facts, and they conclusively disprove this charge. These prosecutors didn’t leak this story, and I believe that not just because they told me; I believe it because the reporters themselves have said so. Kane should know that too, because those reporters have explicitly advised her office that these prosecutors were not the source of the story.
And there’s another problem with this theory: The case files were not in her office when Kane became attorney general. I have been told that before she took office, the files had been given to federal authorities, and they have stated that they never made a conclusion as to the merits of the case. No one left her with a potentially embarrassing decision to make; all she had to do was leave the investigation in the hands of federal authorities. But she didn’t do that. Instead, she asked for the files back. And then, after going out of her way to reclaim the investigation, she shut it down.
For whatever reasons, Kane has been largely silent about this important fact. She has repeatedly claimed that it was federal prosecutors who ended the investigation, and that they did so because they concluded that it was without merit. I believe that to be untrue.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#aUyPTCkdv8mZYgWj.99
I also have to address another conspiracy theory advanced by the attorney general. She says these career prosecutors are just out to get her. She says they were mad at her because she criticized their work on another high-profile case: the investigation of Jerry Sandusky, a former coach at my alma mater, Pennsylvania State University.
Kane alleges that these prosecutors, out of revenge, left her holding a damaged political-corruption case that she was forced to drop, and that they then leaked the story to the press in order to besmirch her reputation. But I have looked into the facts, and they conclusively disprove this charge. These prosecutors didn’t leak this story, and I believe that not just because they told me; I believe it because the reporters themselves have said so. Kane should know that too, because those reporters have explicitly advised her office that these prosecutors were not the source of the story.
And there’s another problem with this theory: The case files were not in her office when Kane became attorney general. I have been told that before she took office, the files had been given to federal authorities, and they have stated that they never made a conclusion as to the merits of the case. No one left her with a potentially embarrassing decision to make; all she had to do was leave the investigation in the hands of federal authorities. But she didn’t do that. Instead, she asked for the files back. And then, after going out of her way to reclaim the investigation, she shut it down.
For whatever reasons, Kane has been largely silent about this important fact. She has repeatedly claimed that it was federal prosecutors who ended the investigation, and that they did so because they concluded that it was without merit. I believe that to be untrue.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#aUyPTCkdv8mZYgWj.99
But I’m familiar with the newspaper reports, and with the attorney general’s extensive comments disparaging her own case. Her central complaint, as I understand it, is that she couldn’t possibly prosecute, no matter how obvious the corruption, because the witness who recorded the payoffs was offered immunity for serious criminal charges he himself was facing.
In other words, she apparently has electronic recordings of numerous elected officials taking money while promising their votes – and she has to let them off scot-free because she would be incapable of convincing a jury of their guilt?
Prosecutors around the country – local, state, and federal – regularly and successfully bring cases based on the testimony of some very bad men, sometimes even men who have been granted complete immunity after committing multiple murders. But the attorney general of Pennsylvania drops a case supported by hundreds of hours of devastating tapes because the main witness got a deal on a bunch of government fraud charges.
As a district attorney, I think this might be the most disturbing aspect of the whole sordid spectacle. You don’t have to be a prosecutor to know this is how it’s done. The way to take down organized crime or major drug distribution – or political corruption – is to get someone on the inside, someone who has been part of the enterprise, to give evidence in exchange for favorable treatment. It happens all the time, in prosecutors’ offices everywhere – including in Kane’s own.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#7qVaLy6LQYZc98V1.99
But I’m familiar with the newspaper reports, and with the attorney general’s extensive comments disparaging her own case. Her central complaint, as I understand it, is that she couldn’t possibly prosecute, no matter how obvious the corruption, because the witness who recorded the payoffs was offered immunity for serious criminal charges he himself was facing.
In other words, she apparently has electronic recordings of numerous elected officials taking money while promising their votes – and she has to let them off scot-free because she would be incapable of convincing a jury of their guilt?
Prosecutors around the country – local, state, and federal – regularly and successfully bring cases based on the testimony of some very bad men, sometimes even men who have been granted complete immunity after committing multiple murders. But the attorney general of Pennsylvania drops a case supported by hundreds of hours of devastating tapes because the main witness got a deal on a bunch of government fraud charges.
As a district attorney, I think this might be the most disturbing aspect of the whole sordid spectacle. You don’t have to be a prosecutor to know this is how it’s done. The way to take down organized crime or major drug distribution – or political corruption – is to get someone on the inside, someone who has been part of the enterprise, to give evidence in exchange for favorable treatment. It happens all the time, in prosecutors’ offices everywhere – including in Kane’s own.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#7qVaLy6LQYZc98V1.99
But I’m familiar with the newspaper reports, and with the attorney general’s extensive comments disparaging her own case. Her central complaint, as I understand it, is that she couldn’t possibly prosecute, no matter how obvious the corruption, because the witness who recorded the payoffs was offered immunity for serious criminal charges he himself was facing.
In other words, she apparently has electronic recordings of numerous elected officials taking money while promising their votes – and she has to let them off scot-free because she would be incapable of convincing a jury of their guilt?
Prosecutors around the country – local, state, and federal – regularly and successfully bring cases based on the testimony of some very bad men, sometimes even men who have been granted complete immunity after committing multiple murders. But the attorney general of Pennsylvania drops a case supported by hundreds of hours of devastating tapes because the main witness got a deal on a bunch of government fraud charges.
As a district attorney, I think this might be the most disturbing aspect of the whole sordid spectacle. You don’t have to be a prosecutor to know this is how it’s done. The way to take down organized crime or major drug distribution – or political corruption – is to get someone on the inside, someone who has been part of the enterprise, to give evidence in exchange for favorable treatment. It happens all the time, in prosecutors’ offices everywhere – including in Kane’s own.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#7qVaLy6LQYZc98V1.99
But I’m familiar with the newspaper reports, and with the attorney general’s extensive comments disparaging her own case. Her central complaint, as I understand it, is that she couldn’t possibly prosecute, no matter how obvious the corruption, because the witness who recorded the payoffs was offered immunity for serious criminal charges he himself was facing.
In other words, she apparently has electronic recordings of numerous elected officials taking money while promising their votes – and she has to let them off scot-free because she would be incapable of convincing a jury of their guilt?
Prosecutors around the country – local, state, and federal – regularly and successfully bring cases based on the testimony of some very bad men, sometimes even men who have been granted complete immunity after committing multiple murders. But the attorney general of Pennsylvania drops a case supported by hundreds of hours of devastating tapes because the main witness got a deal on a bunch of government fraud charges.
As a district attorney, I think this might be the most disturbing aspect of the whole sordid spectacle. You don’t have to be a prosecutor to know this is how it’s done. The way to take down organized crime or major drug distribution – or political corruption – is to get someone on the inside, someone who has been part of the enterprise, to give evidence in exchange for favorable treatment. It happens all the time, in prosecutors’ offices everywhere – including in Kane’s own.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#7qVaLy6LQYZc98V1.99
Wandering Views 
#6. As I said WRT another subject.
There is no bottom to the pit of evil.
#4. Whatchawanabet the University does not discipline this woman? She is exercising her free speech right to prevent free speech.
LikeLike
Chas, The university must go easy on this woman. What would it do if it lost a professor of Black Studies, Pornography and Sex Work?
LikeLike
Mohler on the World Vision announcement:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/03/25/pointing-to-disaster-the-flawed-moral-vision-of-world-vision/
He addresses the distinction WV cited between “church” and other ministries (pointing out why that argument simply doesn’t apply here).
And from the piece:
“World Vision has made a decisive difference in millions of lives around the world. Its humanitarian work is urgently important in a world of unspeakable need. Last year the organization had a total financial reach of almost $3 billion. Its scale and expertise are unprecedented in the Christian world. That is what makes this policy shift so ominous and threatening. …
“The shift announced yesterday by World Vision points to disaster. We can only pray that there is yet time for World Vision to rethink this matter, correct their course, stand without compromise on the authority of Scripture, and point the way for evangelical Christians to follow once again.”
LikeLike
The chancellor sent an email to all student emphasizing the prof’s actions were wrong, particularly because this was a free speech area.
My daughter showed me the email. I appreciated his message but it was backhanded, taking a swipe at the outside agitators (wink, wink) and reminding students to be respectful, just as his mother had taught him as a child.
Message good, voice ugly.
Yesterday she got an alert of a shooting on campus. She’ll miss college when she graduates but is ready to move on this summer.
LikeLike
On continued giving to WV, particularly with children involved:
http://mereorthodoxy.com/whether-christians-keep-supporting-world-vision/
LikeLike
Personally, I would not stop sending money to support a child if I were currently in that WV program. After the time ended, I’d definitely reassess sponsoring through another organization.
But on that same topic, a number of us from out local church have been waiting to hear from a ministerial staffer at our church who for several years has provided legal counsel for WV. He had an interesting (initial) response he posted today on FB:
“On the issues involved in the recent World Vision Announcement regarding the hiring of gay staff, I am in communication with staff and gathering careful information. This issue is not a new one for the organization, as you might imagine with an organization with 50,000 employees in over 100 countries. The first thing I would say is don’t jump to hasty conclusions. Everything here is not as it appears in the media. Richard Stearns does not speak for the whole, or even the majority of the organization. His over site is over just 1000 of the 50K employees worldwide. The people who will suffer or perish from a hasty Christian retreat from their service obligations could be in the hundreds of thousands. We need to be slow to anger but also bear with a bit of awkward ambiguity for a time. With that, I am putting together an explanation of some of the finer points of this decision and what it means for the organization and the world. Because it’s a very important issue I feel the freedom to give myself a few days to talk to people, think a bit and gather information”
LikeLike
FoxNews is reporting that Russia has been kicked out of the G8. That’ll show them.
That’s how we do business in the 21st century.
In Moscow, Putin is crying his eyes out. No no!! That’s a crying sound you hear.
Leastwise that’s the way it will be reported.
LikeLike
It is too bad World Vision didn’t decide to move to some relatively unperverted place such as Texas or Alabama. On second thought, since we are still under federal occupation, Chile would have been a safer option.
Meanwhile, I have been polling my friends and family, asking: Would you prefer Obama or Putin as our president? Obama hasn’t received a single vote.
LikeLike
World Vision said they would hire “gay Christians” who are homosexually married. Will they hire “Christian” bigamists, “Christian” prostitutes and “Christian” child-molesters? International Christian charities need to seriously consider relocating to a nation that is not hostile to orthodox Christian beliefs.
LikeLike
What I’ve read on it says that this only affects the World Vision employees in the United States.
LikeLike
Karen, that’s right. Guess our pastor is going to stop giving (he’s a longtime supporter);
Could be enough fallout that WV will reconsider, but then they’ll reap a whirlwind from their newfound fans.
For an issue most of us hope would somehow just go away, gay marriage certainly seems to be one of the most emotional wedge issues of our time that is dividing Christians and even the church itself now. 😦
LikeLike
2. Hindsight is 20/20 ie Monday morning quarterbacking here. In all likelihood a Republican administration would have done the same (esp McCain). Its American policy to ensure complaint gov’ts in energy rich countries.
3. Both sides disparage each other including their opponents military service or lack there of.
4. Freedom of speech on campus is a myth. Back in the 50s and 60s gov’t actively suppressed the left. With the introduction of corporate sponsors censorship has been extended. Beyond the power of the purse, a little knowledge creates arrogance — profs, dept heads, deans etc all like to foist their opinion since of course they are right after all they’re educated.
“Free Speech” zones are an admission that free speech has limits and censorship is real.
5. Someone can correct me but I’m under the impression that many fertilized eggs don’t implant, and are “discarded” monthly. If one is to claim that all fertilized eggs are fetuses and hence according to many pro-lifers, human, then there are multitudes of miscarriages. Not only that, if you believe all humans have a soul then there’s a multitude of souls which never experience human life.
LikeLike
ricky — many of your friends probably decry Obama as some type of dictator yet now they endorse a real dictator. If they want someone to ignore Second Amendment, Putin is their man. It appears some Texans do want a strong almost dictatorial leader but only if they like his policies.
LikeLike
Donna J, I believe the issue of homosexual marriage is not dividing the church or Christians. It is revealing the church and Christians. Christians believe God’s Word. Those who don’t may meet in a building with a cross on it, but they are not the church.
LikeLike
HRW, You made interesting comments on Texans and you may be right in some cases. My Dad (who was an old Cold Warrior) always wanted a strong President.
I would prefer a weak federal government as existed during the first 75 years of the US along with a limited electorate as also existed during the early years of the Republic. Universal sufferage combined with an increasingly stupid electorate has made me question whether a monarchy might be preferable to the current arrangement.
I don’t know exactly why my family and friends prefer Putin to Obama, but if he comes to power, he better not try to take their guns.
LikeLike
It is further isolating Christians. And WV, while it may have had a worldly drift already in play, is considered a major Christian — and, yes, evangelical — organization of many years in good service.
But on a more promising note, sounds like the Hobby Lobby arguments went well before the Supreme Court today. We will see ….
http://m.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=42244
“We’re hopeful that the court will end up in the right place and protect religious liberty here, and they had an awful lot of difficult questions for the government,” said Mark Rienzi, senior counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which has represented Hobby Lobby.
“I won’t make guesses, but it felt like a good day,” Rienzi told Baptist Press outside the court building. “It felt like they asked really good questions, and we’re happy with it.”
LikeLike
Upon a little reflection, I think I may understand my friends’ position.
First, I have never heard any of them call Obama a “dictator”. They see him as a dunce, sort of a black Jimmy Carter. They are consistently embarrassed by his statements/actions with other world leaders and believe he makes all of us look bad. On domestic policy, he is assigned all the blame for the socialism, tree-hugging, perversion-promoting, race and gender preferences, and other liberal nonsense that has gone on since Reagan left office. Putin is seen as one who grows his economy at 6% a year, keeps perverts away from kids, acts in his country’s best interest, throws weirdos who blaspheme during church services in jail and does not make idle threats.
LikeLike
Donna, That is good news on Hobby Lobby.
World View just follows the Boy Scouts, the US military, US public education, US popular culture. The one thing that the US values most is perversion. Christian para-church organizations that desire to stay Christian need to get out of the US as soon as possible.
The reason for World View’s apostasy remains murky. However, it is very interesting that it received funds from the US government and had received pressure from the government to become pro-perversion.
LikeLike
Hwesseli at 7:09 pm item 5.
Yes, there are many miscarriages. You seem to imply that the loss of many lives means that those whose lives were lost were less than human. The fact that millions died in concentration camps during World War 2 does not mean that every one of those men, women and children were not fully human, valuable because they were made in God’s image. We must not say that since so many died, it does not matter if a few more die. When life is entrusted to us, it is a sacred duty to care for that life until the Creator decides to take it back. We must not usurp His place.
LikeLike
Carter?? That’s a compliment in my books.
We tend to project our disdain onto others — Many people were constantly embarrassed by Bush’s behavior overseas and thought he made all Americans look bad. Now a different group has the same ideas about Obama.
Putin manages a petrol state — if the oil market bottoms out so does the Russian economy. It doesn’t take a genius to run an oil state — just pump the stuff out.
LikeLike
didymus — no just attempting to understand the logic behind #5 …..
If preventing implantation is usurping God’s place, is all intervention usurping God? Does this including typical medicine or Viagra? (hey if God doesn’t want “it” to happen we shouldn’t interfere anymore than if “it” does happen we shouldn’t change the results)?
LikeLike
Hwesseli. The logic is simple: since I believe that human life begins at conception, I should not do anything that will deliberately snuff out that life. The “typical medicine” you are referring doesn’t deliberately snuff out human life, does it?
LikeLike
Careful, HRW. You live in a petrol state.
http://www.energy.ca/users/folder.asp?FolderID=2500
Carter is what Texans and all Southerners hate the most: a whiny, wimpy Southern male. We expect a Barney Frank or two from Massachusetts, but Carter is the shame of Georgia.
LikeLike
Overall mining (which includes oil and gas and much more) makes up 11% of Russia’s GDP. This is not much different from Canada or the US. The more you read, the more you discover that much of what we are told about Russia and Putin is wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia
LikeLike
HRW, Just because you don’t agree with a religious belief doesn’t mean the government has the right to force people to choice between those beliefs and the ability to make a living.
LikeLike
Overall mining including oil and gas makes up 8% of Canada’s GDP, very similar to Russia. Yet, John McCain calls Russia a “gas station masquerading as a nation”. He should look in the mirror. His country is a homosexual bath house masquerading as a nation.
LikeLike
5. The left has gone from asking for tolerance, to insisting on affirmation, to demanding participation.
LikeLike
KBells, I will always have a soft spot in my heart for Hobby Lobby and its customers. I’ve only been there one time (with my son) looking for a present for my wife. We were the only males in the store and were only buying one item. When we came to check out, all the women in one line stepped aside and let us check out first. We were treated like royalty.
LikeLike
Ricky — I know. Its my main source of criticism when my Conservative friends brag about the Cdn economy under PM Harper. I tell them to google “Dutch Disease” …. the rise of a currency based on natural resources which leads to the decline of secondary industries such as electronics and autos. It doesn’t take a genius to run the Cdn economy but it does take some brains to plan for the future. The only petrol state with long term plans is Norway.
Didymus — I understand but I find it slightly hypocritical for people to argue for God’s plan for life yet allow for medication to create life when its not necessarily part of God’s plan. We can get involved in solving ED but can’t prevent conception.
kbells — there is an interesting case in front of the Cdn Supreme Court — do institutions (non-profit or for-profit) have a right to religious freedom.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/03/23/montreal-catholic-school-fighting-for-the-right-to-teach-ethics-and-religious-culture-in-its-own-jesuit-style/
Quebec more than any other province is ardently secular. I think in this particular case they will lose as they already have in the lower courts. However the question of religious freedom for corporations is interesting — in terms of schools, churches, charities etc I would agree but in terms of publicly traded corporations who’s purpose is not religious I would probably answer in the negative.
LikeLike
HRW, Canada and Russia both have diversified economies of which oil and gas is a small but important segment. So why did McCain make the gas station comment? Is he that stupid? Probably, but I am really tired of our government’s leaders demonizing the leaders of other countries be they Iraqi, Syrian, Russian or Ugandan. I don’t trust anything they say.
I’m also tired of the press failing to do its job. You say it is because of corporate ownership. I say it is because there is no demand for in-depth reporting. Our people have become too intellectually lazy to demand factual reporting. The classic case is healthcare. Well over 95% of Americans don’t understand the basics of our system.
LikeLike
Following a long fb discussion begun by my pastor on the World Vision topic today — some who are engaged are not Christians, but others clearly are and they disagree on the issue of gay marriage.
So I still say this issue is, sadly and indeed, dividing some Christians and some churches at this point (and one can be a believer but be ‘wrong’ on some points of ethics — it doesn’t mean they’re not true believers, only that they’re misunderstanding what the Bible teaches on a particular point, perhaps due to some very powerful cultural messages and pressure).
LikeLike
Part of the gap is generational — it also is caused (in my view) by a weak grasp of the Bible, what it teaches and basic sound doctrine which isn’t always taught in today’s western churches.
Put all those factors together — and add to it a cultural tidal wave that has swept over the nation with stunning speed, essentially demonizing and marginalizing anyone who objects — and you have a fair number of people who are professing believers siding with what is an unbiblical (but highly popular) view, a view that “sounds” loving and even Christ-like to many.
LikeLike
HRW, business people should have just as much religious freedom. You shouldn’t have choose between your relationship with almighty GOd and the ability to feed your children. This is what is happening.
LikeLike
Pertinent piece from World Magazine:
http://www.worldmag.com/2014/03/out_on_a_limb
“… The dismantling of biblical truth that began in liberal seminaries becomes official and assumed with anti-biblical laws—and the battle appears to be lost. Our culture is captivated by its own beauty, power, and corrupt wisdom. One last push, and down goes the ladder. … “
LikeLike