Muddling Toward Maturity Blog

Stephen Meyer and Michael Ruse Debate "Darwin's Doubt"

I am a great fan of Stephen C. Meyer whose intellectual work consistently dazzles.   He earned his Ph.D. from Cambridge in the Philosophy of Science and has published the acclaimed The Signature of the Cell:DNA and the Case for Intelligent Design, Does God Exist: Bulding the Scientific Case (TrueU), (a 10-part series especially designed for high school and college students), and his latest book, highlighted below, Darwin's Doubt, which I own and have found to be an extraordinary tour de force.

From Evolution News & Views:

On Public Radio's "Interfaith Voices," Stephen Meyer and Michael Ruse Debate Darwin's Doubt

David Klinghoffer August 27, 2013 5:50 AM | Permalink

Here's a very thoughtful and entertaining discussion of Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design with Stephen Meyer and atheist philosopher Michael Ruse, on public radio's "Interfaith Voices." I appreciate the way host Maureen Fiedler makes clear the three-way distinction and contrast of intelligent design versus creationism versus Darwinian evolution. It's an amazing thing to reflect on that few in the media are able to do so.

She solicits arguments from Meyer and Ruse respectively and then turns around and asks the other for a response -- yes, a proper debate, and a civil, informative and even amusing one! Kudos to Dr. Ruse for agreeing to have such a direct confrontation.

THINKING CLEARLY ON SYRIA - Bill Muehlenberg

Bill Muehlenberg, one of the most perceptive Christian bloggers writing today, offers a helpful analysis of the Middle East Syria crisis. He titles his piece simply "On Syria" and writes:

One thing that can be said with some degree of certainty is that the situation in Syria is a mess. Then again, that largely describes things in all of the Middle East as well. This is one messed up part of the world, and no easy solutions present themselves to any number of problems found there.

But the situation has just been ratcheted up a notch – indeed, a huge notch – by Obama wanting to take America into war again. His insistence on taking some sort of action – no matter how ill-conceived or little thought through – makes this whole scenario now the stuff of front page news.

Indeed, with all the sabre-rattling going on now from a number of players, talk of WWIII erupting is not mere rhetoric. So this is serious stuff which needs sober analysis. And that is largely lacking in so many quarters. There seems to be far too much sloppy thinking and confusion about all this.

While I do not claim to be an expert on the matter, I am happy to draw upon the expertise of others as I very briefly examine a number of relevant points in this debate. They are by no means the only considerations here, but they are some crucial ones nonetheless.

Where is the anti-war left?

Given the fact that at any moment Obama may have military strikes being launched against Syria, one of the most obvious questions to be asked is just where are all the peaceniks and lefties? Just imagine if this were Bush in office: all hell would have broken loose by now, and there would be rioting in the streets.

Every lefty in the nation would be doing mass protests with all the usual lame rhetoric: “Stop US imperialism,” “End the occupation,” “No blood for oil” etc. Yet all we seem to hear at the moment is crickets chirping. So evidently American aggression overseas is not wrong in itself – only if Republicans do it. But if Obama is behind it, then it must be just fine. Yes, I understand how the left thinks here. What was that word starting in ‘h’ and ending in ‘ypocrisy’?

CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHER J.P. MORELAND ANSWERS QUESTIONS (VIDEO)

I appreciate Moreland's deep learning and wisdom and his ability to express himself clearly and succinctly.  The following Q&A is a great treat.

 

BENEFITS OF A BIBLICAL LIFESTYLE

Articles published by Reasons to Believe written by psychiatrist James C. Petterson II (which include footnotes to studies):

- “Religion and Mental Health: Going to Church Is Good for You” 

- “Live Long and Prosper: Going to Church Increases Lifespan” 

- “God Makes You Glad: Positive Christian Attitude Linked to Happiness” 

- “Going to Church Helps You Stay Clean”

EGYPTIAN CHRISTIANS' "RADICAL" RESPONSE TO ISLAMISTS

This five minute report is well worth viewing.  From CBN news:

 

TEXAS SENATOR TED CRUZ'S FATHER IS A CONSERVATIVE SENSATION

You'll enjoy reading this report.  (HT: Drudge)

DR. BEN CARSON - MLK WOULD BE DISHEARTENED BY ASPECTS OF AFRICAN AMERICAN CULTURE

Dr. Carson, professor emeritus of neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University, is always worth listening to.  Here is his take on how he thinks Martin Luther King, Jr. would view American culture 50 years after his "I Have a Dream" speech. 

- Robert L. Woodson, Sr., offers his reflections on today's march on Washington.  Woodson is the founder and president of the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise. 

WHAT THE GIRL WITH THE HIJAB WITNESSED IN AN ANGLICAN CHAPEL

I love this story, posted by Justin Taylor from a Carl Trueman post.  Here's Taylor's excerpt:

Carl Trueman recounts an experience of worshipping with his son in the famous Chapel of King’s College, Cambridge, sitting next to a young Spanish woman wearing a hijab.

Yet here is the irony: in this liberal Anglican chapel, the hijabi experienced an hour long service in which most of the time was spent occupied with words drawn directly from scripture. She heard more of the Bible read, said, sung and prayed than in any Protestant evangelical church of which I am aware—than any church, in other words, which actually claims to take the word of God seriously and place it at the centre of its life. Yes, it was probably a good thing that there was no sermon that day: I am confident that, as Carlyle once commented, what we might have witnessed then would have been a priest boring holes in the bottom of the Church of England. But that aside, Cranmer’s liturgy meant that this girl was exposed to biblical Christianity in a remarkably beautiful, scriptural and reverent fashion. I was utterly convicted as a Protestant minister that evangelical Protestantism must do better on this score: for all of my instinctive sneering at Anglicanism and formalism, I had just been shown in a powerful way how far short of taking God’s word seriously in worship I fall.

You can read the whole thing here.

Me: This was my experience also when attending an Episcopal church for a period of my life.  There was more Bible reading in the worship service than in any evangelical church I had been in.  There were problems, of course, but the primacy of the Bible in the worship service was not one of them.

NIGERIA: MUSLIM GROUP MURDERS 44 VILLAGERS BY SLITTING THEIR THROATS

Jihad Watch reports:

"When you meet the unbelievers, strike at their necks..." -- Qur'an 47:4

"Extremists Slit Throats of 44 in Northeast Nigeria," from the Associated Press, August 24:

          An official says suspected Islamist extremists killed at least 44 villagers in continuing attacks in an         Islamic uprising in northeast Nigeria.

The official of the National Emergency Management Agency says the attackers hit Dumba village in Borno state before dawn Tuesday and slit their victims' throats — a new strategy since gunfire attracts security forces.

He said the attackers gouged out the eyes of some victims who survived. The official spoke Saturday on condition of anonymity because he is not allowed to give information to reporters.  [more...]

Me: More actions from the "religion of peace."

IS OBAMA THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER?

Hugh Hewitt asks the questions and answers it "yes"!  Read his article for his reasoning.

BRITAIN'S NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE A DISASTER!

Read about it here.  And the U.S. is determined to follow the same path?  Insanity.

GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD IS A BAD THING, RIGHT?

That's what I thought, but this article has caused me to be much less sure.   

ELIZABETH KENDAL - "EGYPT: A TIME TO WEEP, MOURN AND PRAY"

Elizabeth Kendal's analyses offer insight on troubled areas around the world and ways to pray for  Christians suffering persecution and martyrdom.  Here's her report on the current situation in Egypt.

The present crisis in Egypt is the culmination of several strategic trends, particularly the arrival of 'democracy' after decades of Saudi-sponsored Islamic radicalisation in a State that is hurtling towards collapse. Egypt's population has exploded, doubling in one generation to more than 92 million. With a massive youth demographic, high unemployment (40 percent), high illiteracy (45 percent), critical food and fuel shortages and looming bankruptcy, Egypt is on the brink of becoming a failed State. Saudi money keeps Egypt afloat and the Saudis want their nemesis, the Muslim Brotherhood (which advocates republicanism), not just out of power, but crushed. In this, the interests of the Saudis, the Egyptian military and the Salafis converge.

As noted in RLPB 218 (10 July), the military staged their coup under the cover of anti-Morsi protests, ensuring that anti-Morsi elements would bear the blame and the brunt of reprisals. And 'no soft target so clearly represents opposition to Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) as the Coptic Church'. The military's actions may have halted the Muslim Brotherhood's consolidation of power and guaranteed the flow of Saudi aid, but their actions are making the situation worse. Violence against Christians has exploded. The military may even exploit this, rather than prevent it, to legitimise military violence, military rule and requests for military aid. As the guardians of the Suez Canal and the Sinai, the Egyptian military is essentially a law unto itself, something Morsi and the MB have failed to appreciate.

A REVIEW OF THE DVD "EVOLUTION VS. GOD"

Dr. Jeff. Zweerink of Reasons to Believe, a science-oriented apologetics organization, isn't thrilled with the new DVD pushed by the American Family Association featuring Ray Comfort attacking evolution.  Even though Reasons to Believe doesn't subscribe to macroevolution, Zweerink issues cautions about this new DVD.  He says,

A number of Christians are promoting evangelist Ray Comfort’s new DVD, "Evolution vs. God." Although the video contains some valid content, its questionable treatment of science and scientists—with an attack mindset and a goal to make scientists look stupid—causes me to advise extreme caution. Bluntly, I see this video as counter to our evangelistic mission. I cannot think of one biblical example where Jesus ridiculed nonbelievers who held erroneous views—although he harshly rebuked the religious leaders who were supposed to guide people toward Him.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie Undermines Freedom By Banning Sexual Orientation Therapy

When I heard the news, my first reaction was "Christie doesn't know the facts and is a victim of homosexual activist propaganda."  The Family Research Council comments:

Family Research Council (FRC) today voiced disappointment with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's decision to sign into law Assembly Bill 3371, which forbids licensed professional counselors in the state to "engage in sexual orientation change efforts with a person under 18 years of age."

A similar bill in California has been put on hold by the federal courts after its constitutionality was challenged in two lawsuits (now pending on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals). U. S. District Court Judge William B. Shubb, in the case of Welch v. Brown, declared that "because it appears that [California's] SB 1172 is content-and viewpoint-based and unlikely to withstand strict scrutiny, plaintiffs have established that they are likely to prevail on the merits of their claim that SB 1172 violates their rights to freedom of speech under the First Amendment."

Family Research Council's Senior Fellow for Policy Studies Peter Sprigg made the following remarks:

"The New Jersey bill strips away a core ethical principle of the counseling profession-the right of the client to set his or her own goals for therapy. Under this bill, even if a young person, the person's parents, and the therapist all agree on the goal of seeking a change in sexual orientation, the iron hand of the state will forbid it. This law tramples on the rights of minors, parents, and therapists alike.

"Gov. Christie has accepted a distorted view of what the research shows. There is abundant evidence that therapy can be effective in helping some people to achieve a personal goal of changing their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. The claims of harm resulting from such therapy are, on the other hand, almost entirely anecdotal. And any weighing of risks and rewards must include consideration of the risks associated with homosexual conduct itself, such as high rates of depression and anxiety; high rates of tobacco, alcohol and substance use; a higher prevalence of certain cancers; and among men, high rates of sexually transmitted diseases."

Connie Mackey, President of FRCAction PAC, made the following comments on the political implications of the governor's decision:

"Governor Christie's poorly informed decision not only undermines the rights of minors, parents and therapists but I predict that it will also ultimately undermine any of his national political ambitions.   

"Values voters are looking for candidates who will lead the way to preserve the right to live out one's faith.  Unfortunately, Governor Christie has decided to join with those seeking to restrict the free speech rights of those deemed to hold politically incorrect views. His endorsement of this shocking invasion into the privacy of the relationship between therapist and client should cost him the support of libertarians as well," concluded Mackey.

THE MOVIE "THE BUTLER" DISTORTS RACE RELATIONS

I'm always bothered when movies rewrite history.  Most moviegoers accept the screen story as accurate.    Richard Epstein tells the true story.

ANGEL ARRIVES AT ACCIDENT SCENE SAYS USA TODAY AND THE UK DAILY MAIL

(Update 8/27/13) - The priest has been identified as Fr. Patrick Dowling who is very human.

The priest, from the Jefferson City diocese, said, “I try to be a priest, not a hero...And I did what a priest does. And every priest that I know, if they would pass by an accident, they would stop and do what I did.”  [more...]

(Update 8/12/13) - ABC News with Diane Sawyer carried the story (with video).  I can't ever recall a national TV news program carrying a serious story about angelic help before.   One "Nightline" story, a few months ago, suggested an individual's brain had special capacities, but in the case of this current angelic help, the "angel" was seen by many people and not the subjective experience of just one person.

(Original post) I wonder if you saw this amazing story reported in two major dailies as the headline above indicates.  (HT: Drudge)  The headline from the Daily Mail reads:

"The riddle of the 'angel priest': Holy man appeared from nowhere to pray with trapped girl and rescuers in traffic accident, told them she would be OK and then vanished."

The Daily Mail summarizes the story this way:

Katie Lentz was hit head-on by a drunk driver on Sunday morning on an isolated stretch of Missouri highway

Emergency workers battled for over an hour to rescue her but they couldn't free her from the car wreck

Lentz requested a moment of prayer and a priest appeared - even though the road was blocked off

He prayed and told the rescuers that Lentz would now be freed - and she was

They turned to thank him - but he was gone

Click through for numerous photos, videos, and for the complete story.

 

USA Today picked up the story as well, utilizing both video and text.

What's particularly interesting to me is that two nights ago I had looked at a YouTube interview with Judith MacNutt (below) recounting angelic appearances she wrote about in her book Angels Are For Real: Inspiring True Stories, and Biblical Answers. 

I confess I've been skeptical of reported angelic appearances through the years, but I have a high regard for Judith MacNutt and then came the story posted above.  It's mind-stretching for us with naturalism in our bones (as C.S. Lewis put it), but Scripture and experience both testify to aid rendered by angels.   The naturalistic worldview is much too narrow and confining.  Yet it surrounds us like smog and so we need to monitor our thinking constantly.

 

DAVID FRENCH ARGUES THE MORAL NECESSITY FOR A NUCLEAR STRIKE ON JAPAN IN WW2

See if you don't think David French's historical review and analysis compelling. 

RUSSIA'S PUTIN MAKES SPORT OF OBAMA'S PRETENSIONS

Victor Davis Hanson cogently analyzes Putin's take on Obama's ineptitude:

Barack Obama’s cancellation of his Russian visit is the normal sort of diplomat payback for insult and injury — in this case the asylum offered Edward Snowden in the face of administration pleas to send him home for punishment. But with Obama, as with everything with Obama, the about-face invokes irony, hypocrisy, and paradox, because it is just the sort of normal Neanderthal tit-for-tat that was not supposed to happen under an Obama pathbreaking foreign policy.

He entered office chastising the Bush administration for its failure to talk with the Iranians and Syrians. The subtext was that Bush lacked both his own charm and insight into human character that together would produce results that Texan right-wingers stuck in Cold War prisms could hardly appreciate.

The Snowden putdown proved the proverbial icing on the cake, given that the Obama administration had always combined the worst of both diplomatic worlds with Putin, as it so often does with its empty redlines and deadlines: loud sermonizing without commensurate toughness.

Dropping the Eastern Europeans on missile defense, negotiating with the Russians on reducing strategic arms without much concern for our obligations to our non-nuclear allies that quite easily could become nuclear without our huge umbrella, the open-mic assurances of post-election flexibility, or pleading with the Russians to be reasonable on Iran and Syria was juxtaposed with loud lectures to the Putin authoritarians on human rights, tolerance of dissent, and proper behavior at the U.N.

Putin — earlier than other leaders — grasped that the U.S. was back to a utopian Jimmy Carter mode. And so, not content in finding advantage, he also seeks fun in publicly humiliating the U.S. He was always an unapologetic Russian nationalist, stung by the loss of prestige after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but reenergized by huge oil revenues. His stock and trade has always been pointing out Western moral hypocrisies — from supporting cruel anti-democratic Islamists to distorting U.N. resolutions on no-fly zones and humanitarian aid in Libya.

In that sense, he is the perfect antithesis to Obama. The sanctimonious Al-Arabiya interview, the Cairo Speech, and the missionary declarations on Libya all presupposed that Obama alone was sensitive to diverse cultures and had both the charisma and moxie to win over those who were previously alienated due to less-sophisticated American leaders.

The result is not just chaos in the Middle East — an unbound Iran, the Syrian quagmire, the Somalization of Libya, Benghazi, the closing of an unprecedented number of embassies, the Egyptian flip-flop-flips, another doomed Israeli-Palestinian initiative — but a global sense that most countries either politely tune Obama’s soaring rhetoric out, or enjoy finding ways to expose the lack of commensurate concrete consequences. 

Putin knows that and positions himself as the sort of realist that mocks Obama’s pretensions. And while most abroad accept that he is a thug, they nevertheless seem to enjoy watching Putin, in spider-and-fly fashion, deflate our moral pretenses.

In light of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Communist insurgencies in Central America, the Iranian revolution and the taking of hostages in Tehran, and the Chinese invasion of Vietnam, Jimmy Carter committed to upping the defense budget, dropped his lectures on inordinate fears of communism, issued the “Carter Doctrine,” and gave up on coaxing Khomeini.

But for a variety of reasons, Obama is no Carter, and I doubt he will make such eleventh-hour adjustments.

AP COVERS UP OBAMA GAFFES

Update:  Rush Limbaugh weighs in with media treatment of Sarah Palin compared with President Obama, and lists additional Obama gaffes papered over by the AP and other media outlets.

(Original post) - The media jumps on Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin in never-ending mockery for minor verbal slips, but covers up for Obama.   You can read about Obama's slip here and here (assuming it was a slip!)  Obama stated that Charleston, Jacksonville, and Savannah were on the Gulf of Mexico!   (HT: Drudge)

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: OBAMA AND NIXON COMPARED

Wow.  Lots of parallels.  VDH's article makes acute reading:  Denial, evasion, “Let me be perfectly clear” — is this 2013 or 1973?

In my opinion, we are witnessing the unfolding of the greatest presidential debacle in U.S. history.  Because the media now extends beyond the collusive Obama protectors (the mainstream media), the truth will eventually come out and I expect the nation will collectively wring its hands and cry in sorrow over the devastation wrought by the Obama presidency and its Congressional allies.

WAS IT VALERIE JERRETT, OBAMA'S ADVISOR, WHO GAVE THE ORDER TO STAND DOWN IN BENGHAZI?

WOW.    This is big news if it turns out to be true.  Rush Limbaugh devoted a segment of his radio program to Doug Ross's post, "Benghzi Bombshell: Valerie Jarrett, Commnder in Chief."

Confidential sources close to Conservative Report have confirmed that Valerie Jarrett was the key decision-maker for the administration, the night of the Benghazi terrorist attack on 9/11/2012.

The chronology of the evening of 9/11 are as follows:   [more...]

FREE AUDIOBOOK OF THE MONTH: JOHN STOTT'S “BASIC CHRISTIANITY"

Download it here.     HT: Justin Taylor

As many of you are no doubt aware, John Stott's Basic Christianity is a classic book laying out the fundamentls of the Christian faith.   This is a really wonderful gift made available by Christian Audio,

MARK STEYN - "THE CRINGING SUPERPOWER"

Mark Steyn writes:

Today, across Africa, Araby and Asia, from Nouakchott to Dhaka, the diplomatic facilities of the United States are closed. There’s a Tsarnaev out there, somewhere – could be the Mahgreb, the Levant, the Horn of Africa, the Indian sub-continent – who knows? So, as Richard Fernandez writes, “Shelter in place, this time globally.”

Maybe it will work. Maybe by the end of the day there will be, unlike Benghazi a year on, men in custody. But if not? Daniel Pipes:

Don’t know about you, but I find this pre-emptive cringing unworthy of a great country, even humiliating. Why do we allow a bunch of extremist thugs to close us down, rather than the reverse? For what purpose do we pay for the world’s best military and largest intelligence services if not to protect ourselves from this sort of threat?

He’s right: This is unseemly and, for a supposedly serious power, deeply damaging. You can always tell the US consulate from those of other western governments pretty much anywhere on the planet – from the line of US citizens outside the gates shuffling slowly but patiently along the sidewalk in hopes of penetrating the security perimeter before everybody goes home for the day. It’s not a consulate or embassy as those terms were traditionally understood; it’s a fort. That’s why the municipal authorities prefer new ones to be built out on the edge of town as far away as possible, rather than wrecking and disfiguring everything in the heart of downtown.

So we no longer fly the flag on Main Street, but build ugly, impenetrable fortresses walled off from the communities they’re meant to be part of – the antithesis of “diplomacy”, in many respects. So Daniel’s question deserves an answer: What’s the point of building fortresses if they “pre-emptively cringe” before terrorist threats?

The United States is “sheltering in place” across the entire Muslim world. How is that not a victory for our enemies – and one bought without having to blow up a single thing?

Me:  This administration has made an unbelievble hash of foreign relations.   Can the U.S. ever recover?  It constitutes a mighty challenge for any future administration.

STEVE GOREHAM: CLIMATISM THE "GREATEST GLOBAL DELUSION IN HISTORY"

Goreham, author of Climatism! Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century's Hottest Topic   (New Lenox Books, 2010) and The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania (New Lenox books, 2012), appeared July 25, 2013 on the 700 Club

 
Goreham maintains an interesting website - www.climatism.net

THE NEW YORK TIMES SERVES AS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATIONS "PRAVDA"

Brent Bozell titles his important  piece, "Neglect at the New York Times."  It deserves a stronger title, since what Bozell exposes is the Pravda-like behavior of the most influential newspaper in the United States.  Bozell writes:  (HT: Drudge - my bolding)

After a long three-year gap since their last exclusive sit-down interview with President Obama, you might think The New York Times would be ready to ask tough questions on the most contentious issues of the day, beginning with the deepening Obama scandals.

Wrong. Instead, the Times defined the "news" in this interview to be Obama's counter-attacks. Their stories focused on Obama's accusations that (a) the Republicans are liars about Obamacare, (b) the Republicans exaggerate the benefits of building the Keystone XL pipeline and (c) the Republicans oppose his use of executive power because he has the "gall to win the presidency."

The national media are faithfully executing their Obama second-term call to preserve and protect his legacy. They are steering clear of any story that might imply that the president has in any way cut an ethical corner or abused his power. More: House Republicans investigating Obama scandals must be viewed as an assembly line for organized character assassination, not congressional oversight.

This is especially true at the Times, which sees the president as a far too special historical figure to get the punishing scrutiny applied to people the Times thinks are slack-jawed country bumpkins, such as Mike Lee, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. They see Obama as a Jackie Robinson figure, a racial pioneer who endures the angry, spitting fury of the right-wing mobs with great courage and flair.

The tea party apparently deserves punishing investigations by the IRS because their opposition to Obama is clearly based on racism, just like the people who spat on Jackie Robinson. In his interview with the Times, when asked about over-enthusiastic use of executive power, Obama sneered at conservatives. "Some of those folks think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency. And I don't think that's a secret." He added: "But ultimately, I'm not concerned about their opinions — very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers."

Instead of asking one solitary question about scandals, the Times decided it was more important to ask the most obvious question imaginable about Martin Luther King: "March on Washington coming up soon.

Are you going to do anything to mark it? Are you planning on being a part of the 50th anniversary?" Why, yes, Obama stressed: "I have a copy of the original program in my office, framed."   . . .

. . . just as the Times tried to move mountains to ruin President Bush, they are also rabidly partisan in seeing themselves as life preservers for Democrats. Why anyone would see this as a "prestige" newspaper while its news coverage careens wildly from abuse to neglect is a mystery.  [Read the whole article]

After a long three-year gap since their last exclusive sit-down interview with President Obama, you might think The New York Times would be ready to ask tough questions on the most contentious issues of the day, beginning with the deepening Obama scandals.

Wrong. Instead, the Times defined the "news" in this interview to be Obama's counter-attacks. Their stories focused on Obama's accusations that (a) the Republicans are liars about Obamacare, (b) the Republicans exaggerate the benefits of building the Keystone XL pipeline and (c) the Republicans oppose his use of executive power because he has the "gall to win the presidency."

The national media are faithfully executing their Obama second-term call to preserve and protect his legacy. They are steering clear of any story that might imply that the president has in any way cut an ethical corner or abused his power. More: House Republicans investigating Obama scandals must be viewed as an assembly line for organized character assassination, not congressional oversight.

This is especially true at the Times, which sees the president as a far too special historical figure to get the punishing scrutiny applied to people the Times thinks are slack-jawed country bumpkins, such as Mike Lee, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. They see Obama as a Jackie Robinson figure, a racial pioneer who endures the angry, spitting fury of the right-wing mobs with great courage and flair.

The tea party apparently deserves punishing investigations by the IRS because their opposition to Obama is clearly based on racism, just like the people who spat on Jackie Robinson. In his interview with the Times, when asked about over-enthusiastic use of executive power, Obama sneered at conservatives. "Some of those folks think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency. And I don't think that's a secret." He added: "But ultimately, I'm not concerned about their opinions — very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers."

Instead of asking one solitary question about scandals, the Times decided it was more important to ask the most obvious question imaginable about Martin Luther King: "March on Washington coming up soon.

AD FEEDBACK

Are you going to do anything to mark it? Are you planning on being a part of the 50th anniversary?" Why, yes, Obama stressed: "I have a copy of the original program in my office, framed."

Obama's critics on the Left were upset that Times reporters Jackie Calmes and Michael Shear failed to ask about surveillance programs and the Snowden case. They failed to upbraid him about his Justice Department's crackdown on journalists or requiring Bush-trashing/Pulitzer-winning Times colleague James Risen to testify in court. What about drone attacks? These lines of inquiry are reserved for the dreaded warmongering "neoconservatives" of Team Bush.

Obama isn't the only Democrat who is being awarded with feigned ignorance by the Times. The "newspaper of record" looked ridiculous when disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner was forced to admit he kept right on "sexting" strange women who were not Mrs. Weiner after he resigned and promised to end his creepy online sexual misbehavior with strange women. In April, they published a gooey cover story in The New York Times Magazine titled "Huma and Anthony: The private life of a former power couple."

THE CREEPING AUTHORITARIANISM OF BARACK OBAMA

Dennis Henninger of the Wall Street Journal hits the nail on the head with his piece, subtitled, "Imposed law replaces checks and balances."  Anyone paying attention to Obama's demagogery, lawlessness, and tactical manipulations will find Henninger's piece a well-written presentatiom of what many already recognize and abhor.  Here's what Henninger writes: [my bolding]

If we learned anything about Barack Obama in his first term it is that when he starts repeating the same idea over and over, what's on his mind is something else.

The first term's over-and-over subject was "the wealthiest 1%." Past some point, people wondered why he kept beating these half-dead horses. After the election, we knew. It was to propagandize the targeted voting base that would provide his 4% popular-vote margin of victory—very young voters and minorities. They believed. He won.

The second-term over-and-over, elevated in his summer speech tour, is the shafting of the middle class. But the real purpose here isn't the speeches' parboiled proposals. It is what he says the shafting of the middle class is forcing him to do. It is forcing him to "act"—to undertake an unprecedented exercise of presidential power in domestic policy-making. ObamaCare was legislated. In the second term, new law will come from him.

Please don't complain later that you didn't see it coming. As always, Mr. Obama states publicly what his intentions are. He is doing that now. Toward the end of his speech last week in Jacksonville, Fla., he said: "So where I can act on my own, I'm going to act on my own. I won't wait for Congress." (Applause.)

The July 24 speech at Knox College in Galesburg, Ill., has at least four references to his intent to act on his own authority, as he interprets it: "That means whatever executive authority I have to help the middle class, I'll use it." (Applause.) And: "We're going to do everything we can, wherever we can, with or without Congress."

USA TODAY COLUMN - SEXUAL ORIENTIATION THERAPY NOT UNETHICAL

Nicholas Cummings, past president of the American Psychological Association, writes:

The Southern Poverty Law Center has done amazing service for our nation in fighting prejudice. But it has gone astray in its recent New Jersey lawsuit charging JONAH, formerly Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing, a group that offers to help gay people change their orientation, with committing consumer fraud. The sweeping allegation that such treatment must be a fraud because homosexual orientation can't be changed is damaging. The lawsuit is the opening salvo of a wave of activism intended to discredit therapy offered in 70 clinics across 20 states, according to the SPLC.

When I was chief psychologist for Kaiser Permanente from 1959 to 1979, San Francisco's gay and lesbian population burgeoned. I personally saw more than 2,000 patients with same-sex attraction, and my staff saw thousands more. We worked hard to develop approaches to meeting the needs of these patients.

Individual's goals

They generally sought therapy for one of three reasons: to come to grips with their gay identity, to resolve relationship issues or to change their sexual orientation. We would always inform patients in the third group that change was not easily accomplished. With clinical experience, my staff and I learned to assess the probability of change in those who wished to become heterosexual.

Of the roughly 18,000 gay and lesbian patients whom we treated over 25 years through Kaiser, I believe that most had satisfactory outcomes. The majority were able to attain a happier and more stable homosexual lifestyle. Of the patients I oversaw who sought to change their orientation, hundreds were successful.