What’s interesting in the news today?
1. Bad idea?
From TheDailyMail “House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is set to appoint a Muslim lawmaker to the Intelligence Committee, congressional aides said Tuesday, giving him access to some of America’s most closely held secrets in the war on terror.
The move will come as the world is still grappling with an al-Qaeda death squad’s massacre last week of journalists at the French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo, executed because they had published a cartoon of the Muslim prophet Muhammad.”
“In a Huffington Post interview two months ago, he reflected on his time as a police officer assigned to track terrorism and conduct counter-intelligence.
‘What I learned is that in the U.S., as in the UK, it is impossible to fight the threat of global terror without help from Muslims,’ the congressman said.
‘But there is a problem with institutional bigotry.'”
_____________________________________
More here, from BizPacReview “U.S. Rep. Andre Carson, an Indiana Democrat, may be one of Nancy Pelosi’s handpicked selections to serve on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, but he has a lot of explaining to do on who made political contributions to his campaign — and a history of racially charged, inflammatory statements.
According to the Daily Caller, Carson, the first Muslim to get a seat on the committee, spoke to the 37th Annual Islamic Circle of North America-Muslim American Society Convention in Hartford, Conn., declaring the need to incorporate some Islam-based practices into the U.S. system.
“America will never tap into educational innovation and ingenuity without looking at the model that we have in our madrassas, in our schools, where innovation is encouraged, where the foundation is the Quran.””
“Carson also made a racially charged statements about the tea party members of Congress suggesting, “Some of these folks in Congress right now would love to see [blacks] as second class citizens. Some of them in Congress right now with this tea party movement would love to see you and me…hanging on a tree.””
And as you’d expect, he also has questionable donations from questionable Islamic sources. I believe the wording used was “unindicted co-conspirators.”
______________________________________
2. The first western reporter to embed with ISIS is talking about the experience.
From Breitbart “Todenhofer lived side by side with the jihadist fighters for ten days in the Islamic State-stronghold city of Mosul, Iraq. He was accompanied only by his son, who served as his cameraman.
“I always asked them about the value of mercy in Islam,” but “I didn’t see any mercy in their behavior,” explained Todenhofer. He added, “Something that I don’t understand at all is the enthusiasm in their plan of religious cleansing, planning to kill the non-believers… They also will kill Muslim democrats because they believe that non-ISIL-Muslims put the laws of human beings above the commandments of God.”
The German reporter then elaborated on how shocked he was about how “willing to kill” the ISIS fighters are. He said that they were ready to commit genocide. “They were talking about [killing] hundreds of millions. They were enthusiastic about it, and I just cannot understand that,” said Todenhofer.”
______________________________________
3. Barry’s not gonna like this….
From TheWashingtonExaminer “As talks over Iran’s nuclear program resumed Sunday in Geneva, lawmakers in Congress moved forward with legislation to impose new sanctions on Tehran, defying a veto threat from President Obama.
The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee announced that it would meet Thursday to consider bipartisan sanctions legislation by Sens. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and Bob Menendez, D-N.J.
It’s an indication that the two senators have lined up enough support to deliver Obama a humiliating defeat on the issue just days after he publicly threatened to veto any proposed sanctions. Last month, Kirk told the Washington Examiner that he and Menendez were aiming for legislation that could receive bipartisan support sufficient to overcome any presidential veto.”
“Support for sanctions is strong in both chambers of Congress, in spite of intense administration lobbying on the issue. Legislation to impose new sanctions on Iran passed the House in July 2013 by a 400-20 vote. In the Senate, an earlier version of the legislation by Menendez and Kirk had majority support last year but was blocked by then-Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.”
Further proof that it was Reid who was the real obstructionist in the legislature.
______________________________________
4. Will the Obama White House try to bury the Bergdahl report?
From FoxNews “Last Sunday, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, indicated that he expected a decision “fairly soon” on whether the Army will court martial Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for allegedly deserting his post in Afghanistan, or has cleared him, paving the way for separation from the service and back pay in excess of $200,000. Moreover, a decision to clear Bergdahl may well open the door for him to be designated a former prisoner of war, ensuring him substantial monthly pay, medical and educational benefits for the rest of his life.
To those who have followed all angles of Bergdahl’s case, it appears the Army has a true dilemma on its hands, as does the Obama administration. By now the investigating team has done an in-depth look into the circumstances surrounding Bergdahl’s disappearance from his post, has probably interviewed every witness with credible information, has looked at every piece of physical evidence and has reviewed hundreds of classified intelligence reports regarding his captivity. Its conclusions are long overdue.”
“In White House terms, not charging Bergdahl means that he was indeed worth the trade for the Taliban Five. But charging him on any level means that releasing the five Taliban was an error of monstrous proportions, one the administration will never be able to explain away satisfactorily.
Watch for the announcement, in all likelihood on a Friday afternoon. If Bergdahl is charged, the administration will hope it’s old news by Monday. If he’s not charged, it will be big news for a long time to come.”
______________________________________
Wandering Views 
Donna quoted this from her link last night…
“” … What should we do in the meantime? Continue to assault the foundations of the Sexual Revolution, love your neighbor who may strongly disagree, build strong families, vote, get connected to a local church, worship weekly, and remember that Jesus, not Justice Kennedy, sits at the right hand of the Father. Remember also that a church in exile is never a church in retreat.
“Whether the Court rules, the church must be prepared, as it did in its infancy, to work among the cultural ruins to reaffirm our commitment to the value and immutability of marriage. …”
That is what Christian Libertarians would say. It is up to Christians to espouse & model God’s ways, & not to trust in the government to uphold those values.
LikeLike
Karen, I think your Christian Libertarian friends need to understand the history of civil marriage a little more. I don’t usually endorse Wikipedia, but their article on the history of civil marriage gives some idea of how complex the issue is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_marriage
In all this hoopla over marriage, much has been said about the economic benefits of civil marriage (tax deductions, inheritance laws, etc.). Little has been said about the protection of society. There is a serious reason, as I once heard a female United Church Minister say, for that line which is often joked about, “If any one knows of any reason these two may not be lawfully joined together, let him speak now, or forever hold his peace.” Incest, bigamy, underage marriage – to sum up, sexual abuse of the vulnerable under the guise of marriage – are all things which that statement is seeking to stop. Government records are an efficient way of ensuring that a man cannot marry one woman in one county or state, and another woman in another county or state. Every society needs to be involved in a marriage, as there must be accountability in marriage. In Gambian culture, marriages were negotiated and sealed by the families involved – the imam only gave prayers and wasn’t an actual officiator – but the community leaders would get involved in negotiating a divorce.
I know a young couple, in both years and faith, who were persuaded by such “Christian Libertarians” to only have a religious ceremony. When my family learned that they had never got a license or read the banns (reading the banns is equivalent to getting a license in Canada) we were horrified. You see, we knew the history of this couple. The girl was only eighteen when she was married. The young man had been interested in her since she had reached puberty. No, he wasn’t a pedophile (that is for children under puberty), she was just entirely unprotected – her father repeatedly deserted her family and her mother was emotionally unstable and promiscuous (it was and still is an ugly situation). This young man had tried to help her in her schooling, and developed “feelings” for her. He told the un-ordained pastor of his church, who encouraged him to marry her, but advised him to wait, especially as the girl mother refused to give consent (I think it is 16 with parental consent). So he waited. This girl stumbled up, barely finished high school (home schooling was disastrous in this family’s case) and walked straight into marriage. Now, you can imagine, knowing the history of desertion and illegitimacy (not all her siblings had the same father) that this girl came out of, how we felt, knowing she had no legal protection. The ‘church’ that had encouraged this did her not favours. One of my family members spoke to the girl about it, when we learned about the lack of a license. Thankfully, they have since had a civil ceremony as well. But as messy as it gets with civil marriages (and I live in Canada, which legalized gay marriage) it would be messier still without it.
LikeLike
I think there are a lot of problems with libertarianism in a nation such as ours. I’m hoping that the least severe of those sentiments that seem to be gaining popularity can be blended with a rational conservatism; but I’m afraid for now it appears to be just one more splinter movement.
I realize we don’t always agree politically on this blog and I’m sure this will be hashed out some more as the national election approaches. 😦
LikeLike
Roscuro & Donna – Thank you for your input. As I said in a comment last night, I’m not completely comfortable with the whole Libertarian view, but am coming to understand it more. The more extreme stances in it will probably never come to fruition, but many of its guiding ideas could be helpful.
As I also said, I wish Cameron or Kyle were here to explain some of these things better than I can. I’m still in the learning & thinking phase. Well, hopefully the thinking phase never ends.
One point I have read is that we are so used to government being involved in so many aspects of our lives that we take it for granted, & don’t realize that it wasn’t always so, & isn’t always necessary.
LikeLike
I don’t comment often on this thread, but I do enjoy reading the conversations on here, and the one today is no exception. Thank you, ladies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I doubt big government can be made small again. We can’t go back to being colonies. The best we can hope for is to stop or slow the growth.
But what we have is here to stay, pretty much. A lot of the over-regulation is more than unfortunate. It happened piecemeal and has added layer upon layer to an already too-big bureaucracy. But undoing that now is probably not going to happen.
And, frankly, we’ve all grown accustom to government doing some things that we now rely on — and the things that really aren’t needed now employ probably tens of thousands of people, making it unlikely those departments will go away anytime soon, either.
What’s done is done.
So libertarianism (even if it were attractive to me) simply is not feasible in my mind — I do think there is a legitimate role for government. Libertarian ideas like drug legalization leave me cold and, while foreign involvement can be unnecessary and we need to be wary of that in the future, I think a U.S. retreat from the world (which is what I hear so often from Libertarian candidates) will only embolden the violent forces that are out there wreaking havoc, slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocents.
So basically I just have a philosophical difference with libertariansm. Big government is not a good thing. But a next-to-no government isn’t desirable to me, either, especially with regard to a biblical understanding of human nature.
LikeLike
And part of the problem lies with the Republican party which for some reason cannot get its act together, it seems unable to articulate a compelling vision for government in recent years.
There’s been a real leadership gap. I suspect the rise of populist Libertarianism owes much to that vacuum. So I do understand the frustration.
The country seems to be (actually is) rudderless — and conservatives can’t seem to offer much in the way of an attractive alternative.
LikeLike
Donna – I used to feel that way, too, about the idea of legalizing drugs. From what I understand, one of the ideas behind drug legalization is that it is its illegality that leads to the drug cartels, & the violence associated with them, like the gangsters during Prohibition, but worse. The idea isn’t that people taking dangerous drugs is fine & dandy, but that making them illegal has led to more crime & violence. The U.S. has spent how much money (millions? billions?) on the “War on Drugs”, but the problem is still there & always will be.
I’m too tired right now to think as clearly as I’d like, but I’m pretty sure I’ve seen articles about the positive effects of legalizing drugs in some country that legalized them. (See what I mean about being tired? What a clunky sentence!) And I’m sure there are negatives as well, because there’s never a perfect, fool-proof solution for these issues.
Good night, dear friends. If any of what I’ve written comes across as too argumentative or snippy in any way, please know that was not my intent. Just throwing these ideas out there for consideration.
LikeLike
Thanks for your thoughts, Karen. And you don’t sound argumentative or snippy at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Karen, once again, your friends strike me as extraordinarily naïve. It wasn’t always so? To which time period and which country are they referring? When Henry II of England had the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas a Becket assassinated in 1170, the Pope brought down the very worst punishment he could inflict. He excommunicated the entire kingdom, meaning that no priest would perform marriages, baptisms or burials. This caused such great distress to the people that the king was forced to do penance in sackcloth, literally. Your country’s Puritan forefathers viewed marriage as a civil union, not a religious one, in reaction to what they perceived as papist elements in the Anglican wedding service: http://www.austincc.edu/jdikes/Marriage%20Ways%20ALL.pdf Marriage has always been regulated by some societal pressure.
Karen and Donna, I have had growing doubts about Libertarianism ever since I encountered its supporters on World. I remember having strong objections to an economics columnist’s post there once, and telling him that it struck me that laissez-faire government and economic policies were rooted in evolutionary concepts. I found out, when studying my history course, that I had been right. Hebert Spencer, the leading Social Darwinist, argued for less government regulation in the areas of public education, work safety regulations, welfare, and taxes, calling socialism “slavery”. Essentially, he believed that people should be left to struggle for themselves, that in economics, as in nature, the fittest would survive (he objected to any private charity that would support the propagation of the unfit). He has had a considerable influence on libertarians and laissez-faire capitalists. Assuming that nature, or the market, or society will regulate itself is to flying in the face of natural and spiritual law – the laws of entropy and human depravity. Libertarianism, taken to its logical end, ends up being every man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Roscuro: “Assuming that nature, or the market, or society will regulate itself is to flying in the face of natural and spiritual law – the laws of entropy and human depravity. Libertarianism, taken to its logical end, ends up being every man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost.”
That’s been my take as well, it strikes me as very “evolutionary” in its theory.
I keep also going back to the idea of loving our neighbors. Laws can protect us (and our neighbors) from all kinds of harm. People are not “basically good,” we are prone to go astray. Legal repercussions may prevent some from going in that direction.
Legalizing drugs (and, frankly, normalizing gay marriage, for that matter) puts many at risk, I’m afraid, of taking a road that they might normally not have gone down.
LikeLike
I think a valid function of the civil law is to put restraints in place, legally, some of those behaviors. Of course, people are still free to use drugs and engage in all kinds of debauchery. And they will. No one’s stopping them.
But some won’t go there because the civil law says it’s wrong. As a society, we’ve drawn that line.
Abortion comes to mind …
LikeLike