Muddling Toward Maturity Blog

THE BIBLE AND FREEDOM: INDIVIDUAL AND NATIONAL

Viahal Mangalwadi, one of the most original and important public intellectuals speaking today, presents yet another illuminating lecture.  Notes on this lecture appear below the video.   Note:  On April 28, 2022,  Jordan B. Peterson interviewed Mangalwadi for an hour and 45 minutes on the topic "India, Europe & Biblical Revolution."   

Aug 27, 2024   (From the internet site)

The Bible and Freedom: Individual and National

Dr. Vishal Mangalwadi highlights the significant role the Bible played in shaping modern society, particularly in the context of family, freedom, and political structures. discusses how the modern concept of the family, particularly in the West, was influenced by Martin Luther's teachings, especially his "table talks," which offered a new understanding of the family rooted in biblical principles.

Dr Mangalwadi emphasizes that freedom is at the heart of the Bible's message. He references John 8 and Galatians 5:1 to illustrate that true freedom comes from abiding in the word of Christ. He traces the development of individual and national liberty in the West and India back to biblical teachings, particularly through Luther's exposition of the book of Galatians.

He argues that the concept of political freedom in the West, including the American Revolution and the creation of nation-states like the USA, Holland, and Switzerland, was deeply influenced by biblical principles. These nations rejected the imperialism of ancient empires, which were often based on Greek and Roman political ideas, and instead embraced the idea of nationhood as ordained by God.

WATCH: 65-Year-Old Woman Violently Arrested in Texas Bank of America for Not Wearing Mask, Despite Mandate Being Lifted

From The Gateway Pundit:

A 65-year-old woman was violently thrown to the ground and arrested in a Texas Bank of America for not wearing a mask — despite the fact that the mandate was lifted in the state.

Shocking body camera footage of the incident was released by Galveston police.   Story below the video:

The woman, 65-year-old Terry White, went to the bank on Thursday without a mask, the day after Gov. Greg Abbott lifted the mandate. In the footage, a bank manager directs the officer to White, who explains that the state has lifted mandate.

The officer tells the woman that under Gov. Abbott’s directive, businesses can still require people to wear masks inside.

The Gateway Pundit report continues:

THE PATH TO TOTALITARIAN AMERICA - WE ARE WELL ON THE WAY

Rod Dreher has been doing yeoman work tracing the conditions that gave rise to the totalitarian Communist and Nazi regimes.  He is studying the social and ideological conditions that incubated and fostered these movements.  In September Dreher will publish the results of his research in a new book, Live Not By Lies.  [Note:  Many will recall Dreher's 2018 book that stirred great interest, The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation.]

In a current blog post, Dreher writes:  Last year, I spoke to a Soviet-born scholar who teaches in an American public university. . . .   This morning, she sent me this e-mail, which I reproduce here with her permission:  [my emphases]

I know from your blog that the work on your new book is going well and I’m glad because, boy, it’s so needed. I’m observing some disturbing developments on my campus, and we are really not one of those wokester schools for spoiled brats one normally associates with this kind of thing.

 

This academic year I’ve had an opportunity to work with some early-career academics. These are newly-minted PhDs that are in their first year on the tenure-track. What’s really scary is that they sincerely believe all the woke dogma. Older people – those in their forties, fifties or sixties – might parrot the woke mantras because it’s what everybody in academia does and you have to survive. But the younger generation actually believes it all. Transwomen are women, black students fail calculus because there are no calc profs who “look like them,” ‘whiteness’ is the most oppressive thing in the world, the US is the most evil country in history, anybody who votes Republican is a racist, everybody who goes to church is a bigot but the hijab is deeply liberating. I gently mocked some of this stuff (like we normally do among older academics), and two of the younger academics in the group I supervise actually cried. Because they believe all this so deeply, and I’d even say fanatically, that they couldn’t comprehend why I wasn’t taking it seriously.

 

The fanatical glimmer in their eyes really scared me.

ANASTASIA LIN - A TRUE BEAUTY

Jay Nordlinger writes in a short article the following about Anastasia Lin - 

Anastasia Lin is an extraordinary beauty queen. She is also an actress. And a human-rights advocate.

Last year, she was crowned Miss World Canada. But the international competition was held in China — and the dictatorship blocked her from coming. They declared her “persona non grata.”

She earned that designation from these monsters: She has spoken out against their crimes — their persecution, their killing, their organ-harvesting — and has acted in films depicting those crimes.

After she was crowned Miss World Canada, her father, who still lives in China, was subjected to terrible pressure. Evil is the regime that breaks up families, or tries to. Evil is the regime that holds a population in the grip of lies, and tries to smash any truth-teller.

At the Oslo Freedom Forum, I recorded a Q&A with Anastasia Lin. For that podcast, go here.  She has profound things to say about, among other subjects, the West’s constant appeasement of the Chinese Communist Party.

Do we have to be complicit in the CCP’s crimes? No. It’s that we choose to.

NC GOV SAYS LGBT GROUP 'MORE POWERFUL THAN NRA'...

From Breitbart:

The embattled governor of North Carolina says the anti-Christian Human Rights Campaign is more powerful than the National Rifle Association, which is arguably the most powerful issue group in the United States.

Republican Governor Pat McCrory tells NBC that the powerful gay group has “…millions of dollars, which makes me want overturn [Citizens] United, because I don’t know who their donors are, either. But they are putting on a lot of pressure, instead of having a good dialogue.”

McCrory said, “I don’t think the government should be telling the private sector what their restroom and shower law should be, to allow a man into a woman’s restroom or shower facility at a YMCA, for example.”

McCrory is under continued assault from a highly organized and very rich coterie of homosexual organizations and their friends in business and the entertainment world for his defense of women and girls who do not want biological men urinating and showering with them.  

VIDEO: HILLSDALE COLLEGE SINGS AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL

 

Ed Morrissey offers pertinent comments:

This particular verse seems relevant at the moment:

O beautiful for pilgrim feet,
Whose stern impassion’d stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America! God mend thine ev’ry flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!

Our body politic lacks plenty of self-control these days on all sides, but the last line is key. The only way to confirm liberty is to rely on the rule of law, not the rule of whim. When courts take it upon themselves to redefine the constitution based on the prevailing cultural whims rather than have legislatures address the law to conform to democratic self-government, we have begun marching down the latter road toward autocracy. When government officials levy ruinous fines over wedding cakes based on their own personal vindictiveness, we are walking back toward the “swarms of Officers [sent] to harass our people, and eat out their substance”noted in the Declaration of Independence. Our recourse is in the rule of law created by a self-governing free people, even though that does seem at times to be a nearly impossible goal.

That does not mean our best days are behind us. It just means that our hard work remains, as it always has, ahead of us. In the meantime, we’ll fly the banner of the free and remember why we sought independence from far-flung autocrats in the first place.

IS MATT DRUDGE'S INFLUENCE SECOND ONLY TO THAT OF THE PRESIDENT?

Brent Budowsky, a columnist for "The Hill," says the Drudge Report "determines the content of debate in our national discourse on an hourly basis."  I  agree.  I read the Drudge Report several times a day, as do millions of others.  If you listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio, it seems to me he gets a substantial percentage of his topics from the Drudge Report.  But so do liberal outlets.  Budowsky writes:

While as a liberal, I do not suggest the following with a great deal of pleasure, but Matt Drudge is by far the single most influential person in the American media, and it is fair to ask: Is he the second most influential man in America?

For more than any individual in the media, Drudge dominates his competitors to the degree that he has no competitors, and determines what you watch on television, what you read in newspapers, what you hear and radio, and even what you read on the Internet about politics more than any single person in American history.

MSNBC may claim it is liberal and Fox News may be the house organ for conservatives, but if you turn on either in the morning, you will often see the guiding hand of Drudge. The New York Times may consider itself the finest newspaper in the world, but while one of the Times' political reporters is reduced to writing ditties complaining that Hillary Clinton does not answer her questions, one entry on the Drudge Report can trigger 100 questions to any politician in America. Network anchors come and go, but Drudge remains, the omnipresent force who is required reading for political editors, television producers and campaign managers from all parties.

RIGHTEOUS HATRED AGAINST JIHAD SAVAGERY

David French writes passionately and persuasively:

The New York Times has peered into Pamela Geller’s heart — and found it full of hate. I’ll let others make the argument that it’s unseemly to so viciously attack the victim of an attempted murder just three days after the attack — to accuse her of intentionally provoking the attempt on her own life and the lives of her friends and supporters, no less. And Rich Lowry has offered a convincing argument that Geller was motivated not by hate, but rather “defiance.” Let me instead offer a defense of hatred. 

But first, a confession. I’m far more hateful than Pamela Geller. In fact, I’d argue there’s no way that she could hate jihad more than I do. I’ve seen jihad up-close, in an Iraqi province where jihadists raped women to shame them into becoming suicide bombers, where they put bombs in little boys’ backpacks then remotely detonated them at family gatherings, where they beheaded innocent civilians while cheering wildly like they were at a soccer match, and where they shot babies in the face to “send a message” to their parents. I’ve seen the despair in the eyes of the innocent victims of jihad, and — believe me — that despair is infinitely greater than the alleged “anguish” caused by a few cartoons. 

FEDERAL COERCION

Bosch Fawstin cartoon:

PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS IN CHINA HAS REACHED ALL TIME HIGH

Angie Chui writes in the UK publication Christian Today:

 T
he persecution of Christians has reached an all time high in China and the government is contributing to the suffering of the faithful, according to the 2014 annual report released last week by Christian human rights organisation China Aid.

Based on the report, there were 572 documented cases of persecution against individuals from different religions last year compared to 143 cases in 2013, equating to a 300 per cent increase.

The report told of government sanctioned modifications or demolitions of Christian property under the guise of eradicating illegal structures.

"The increase in government-sanctioned persecution against religious practitioners and human rights lawyers and advocates reflects the overall political transformation that is occurring within the Communist Party in China (CPC), namely an orchestrated effort to consolidate power and suppress dissent and any perceived threats to the Chinese government, including the growth of religion in China," China Aid stated.

As for the number of religious practitioners who suffered from abuse, 17,884 reported being persecuted in 2014 compared to the previous year's 7,424. The number of persecuted church leaders also rose to 2,682, compared to 800 in 2013.

Based on the statistics, one of the most alarming changes reported was the huge increase in the number of 'dissidents' sentenced by the government, from just 12 people in 2013, to a total of 1,274 individuals in 2014.

QUICK TAKES

Links from the Drudge Report:

     -  Ann Arbor priest urges his parishioners to get concealed carry licenses   

                    He titles his letter, "We're Not In Mayberry Anymore."

     - USDA urges citizens to eat expired food.

                   I've always known "expiration dates" needn't be observed.

    - Google allows you to see everything you've ever searched!

                   With all that data available to people and advertisers, your life is an open book 

    -  Facebook takes another step in controlling media content.

                  "In a post entitled, “News Feed FYI: Balancing Content from Friends and Pages,” Facebook Product Manager Max Eulenstein and User Experience Researcher Lauren Scissors lay out how “media content” will be altered under the site’s newest algorithm."  Translation:  Facebook is the boss!  

     - Report: JPMorgan Chase Bans Storage of Cash In Its Safety Deposit Boxes

                   Wow.  A sign of a growing "war on cash."

Article:  As of last month, Chase has also instituted a new policy which, “restricts borrowers from using cash to make payments on credit cards, mortgages, equity lines, and auto loans,” writes Professor Joseph Salerno of the Mises Institute.

The news arrives on the back of comments by Citi’s Willem Buiter, who recently advocated abolishing cash altogether in order to “solve the world’s central banks’ problem with negative interest rates”.

Last month we also reported on how the Justice Department is ordering bank employees to consider calling the cops on customers who withdraw $5,000 dollars or more.

Efforts to impose restrictions on the use of cash by banks are seen by many as an attack on anonymity and an example of how financial institutions are positioning themselves to handle the fallout of the next economic crash – at the expense of customers.

LEFTIST INTOLERANCE OF CHRISTIAN HIGHER EDUCATION

- Update 2/10/15:  Gordon College not in danger of losing accreditation  but there still seems be a question.  (See also the National Review Online editorial.)

- Original post:

David French draws attention to the persecution of Gordon College.    As leftists go after restaurants (Chick-Fil-A) or craft stores (Hobby Lobby), on the basis of the Left's sexual orthodoxy, the right takes action. But not many know about isolated colleges in the northeast being hounded and persecuted and under threat of losing their accreditation because it has a policy they believe sex should be in marriage only.  

French suggestrs a remedy:

The new conservative congressional majority must put the Department of Education on notice that it will not be permitted to “recognize” any accrediting agency that seeks to impose an ideological litmus test on private, religious colleges. If the New England Association has given Gordon College a year to toe the leftist line, Congress should give the Department of Education and the New England Association six months to reaffirm its regulatory requirement to respect Gordon’s religious mission.

OS GUINNESS - A FREE PEOPLE'S SUICIDE

Dr Os Guinness delivered this important talk at Socrates in the City, September 13, 2012.  It is based on his book, A Free People's Suicide: Sustainable Freedom and the American Future.

 

 Many of the salient points Guinness makes in his talk are repeated in this valuable interview that Os Guinness gave to Kathryn Jean Lopez - 

AMERICA'S HISTORIC ROLE IN SUSTAINING WORLD STABILITY

I hope people in the White House and State Department pause to take in Victor Davis Hanson's recital of the historical and current role the United States plays in keeping the world stable and relatively peaceful.  He titles his piece "Obama's World Disorder."   We in America generally have no idea how utterly strategic America  has been and remains in protecting nations, keeping aggressors at bay, and shaping world history for good.   Millions and millions of people depend on us.  Panic and fear now grip nations because their trust and reliance on American protection now looks misplaced and tenuous.  I prayBarack Obama reads Hanson's piece.  Obama's policies are creating world chaos that will doom many small nations and invite the destruction and enslaving of billions of people.   We live in a time of grave historical ignorance and miscalculation.  

Hanson's piece treats of Europe, Russia, China and the East and the stability the United States has fostered. The following short excerpt does not begin to do justice to the full piece..

The United States offered resistance to illiberal and autocratic regional powers that have at time challenged the protocols of the postwar order. And that pushback has allowed weaker nations—such as Poland or the Baltic States—to escape the orbit of post-Soviet Russia, while in the Pacific ensuring that an Australia, New Zealand, or the Philippines is not bullied into subservience by China

This strange postwar world ushered in the greatest advancement in prosperity amid the general absence of a cataclysmic world conflagration or continental war since the dawn of civilization. For the first time since the rise of the Greek city-state, most nations have been able both to prosper and to assume that their boundaries were inviolate and their populations mostly free from attack. A system of international communications, travel, commerce, and trade is predicated on the assumption that pirates cannot seize cargo ships, terrorists cannot hijack planes, and rogue nations cannot let off atomic bombs without a U.S. led coalition to stop them from threatening the international order.

For the U.S. to continue this exceptional role of preserving the postwar system in times of economic weakness and spiritual exhaustion, it is critical for the Obama administration to articulate to the American people exactly what the United States has accomplished, how the postwar order arose, and what precisely are the benefits that justify such enormous sacrifices in blood and treasure. . . 

Hanson notes at the end of his piece the following:

The Obama administration declares climate change the chief global threat. That new inanimate target is welcome news to aggressive nations that had once feared that their own reckless behavior might have been so singled out.

Americans did not fully appreciate the costly postwar global order that the United States had established over the last seventy years. Maybe they will start to as they witness it vanish.

JONAH GOLDBERG - "WHAT IS SOCIAL JUSTICE?"

Jonah has produced a fabulous short video below.  It's part of PragerU, an initiative of Dennis Prager.  Goldberg says: "For a much lengthier discussion of the subject, including its history, you could always buy my last book."

 

Other recommended talks at PragerU:

  -  "Are People Born Good?" by Dennis Prager

  - Dennis Prager Interviews historian Paul Johnson

  -  More videos . . .

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON - "THE IDOL OF EQUALITY"

Hanson's analysis of the pursuit of equality is pure gold.  He subtitles his piece, "To put equality ahead of liberty is to war against human nature."

He begins by quoting Alexis de Tocqueville:

“There is, in fact, a manly and lawful passion for equality which excites men to wish all to be powerful and honored. This passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom.”

Hanson says:

If we keep Tocqueville’s advice in mind, we can appreciate why and how the present war against personal liberty in service to mandated equality may become the greatest danger of the 21st century. The theaters of battle already extend to every segment of American life; and every weapon is employed, from government coercion to the progressive media to the Orwellian effort to change the meaning of language itself.

I can't commend this article highly enough.

AMERICA'S DWINDLING ECONOMIC FREEDOM

Terry Miller reports:

World economic freedom has reached record levels, according to the 2014 Index of Economic Freedom, released Tuesday by the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal. But after seven straight years of decline, the U.S. has dropped out of the top 10 most economically free countries. 

For 20 years, the index has measured a nation's commitment to free enterprise on a scale of 0 to 100 by evaluating 10 categories, including fiscal soundness, government size and property rights. These commitments have powerful effects:   [more . . .]

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 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."

CHINESE REFUGEE CHEN GUANGCHENG AND SPINELESS NEW YORK UNIVERSITY

From the editors at the National Review:

Not since the Olsen twins had something so big hit New York University. In May of last year, Chen Guangcheng arrived there from China. Now he is being asked to leave, and the question is, “Why?” Is it merely because his fellowship has expired? Or is he being forced out, because the university wishes to please Beijing?

Chen, recall, is the “blind peasant lawyer” who is one of the bravest people in the world. He blew the whistle on China’s forced abortions and sterilizations. He endured four and a half years in prison, being subjected to the usual horrors the state visits upon its political prisoners. Then there was a year and a half of house arrest, which included equal horrors. Last year, Chen and his wife, Yuan Weijing, escaped to the U.S. embassy. After about a month of negotiations, they were allowed to fly to America.

Chen’s main patron was Jerome A. Cohen, a veteran China scholar and law professor at NYU. The university was undoubtedly good to take Chen in. At the same time, the university got something out of the deal too: A genuine world hero was in its midst. Now there has been a bitter split.

Great Article by David Mamet in Newsweek

I know that's not the greatest heading, but it will have to do.  Please go and read the entire article.  It will do you good, and enhance your sense of logic and good sense.  The article begins:

Karl Marx summed up Communism as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This is a good, pithy saying, which, in practice, has succeeded in bringing, upon those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery, and death.

For the saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia. The agency is called “The State,” and the motto, fleshed out, for the benefit of the easily confused must read “The State will take from each according to his ability: the State will give to each according to his needs.” “Needs and abilities” are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to “the State shall take, the State shall give.”

All of us have had dealings with the State, and have found, to our chagrin, or, indeed, terror, that we were not dealing with well-meaning public servants or even with ideologues but with overworked, harried bureaucrats. These, as all bureaucrats, obtain and hold their jobs by complying with directions and suppressing the desire to employ initiative, compassion, or indeed, common sense. They are paid to follow orders.  [more . . .]

MARTIN LUTHER KING AND THE MORAL LAW

Martin Luther King appealed to "God's law" which surpassed human law.  His Biblical roots and Biblical perspective are generally overlooked today.  The late Charles Colson sets the record straight:

Listen Now | Download

More than forty years ago, on August 28, 1963, a quarter million people gathered in front of the Lincoln Memorial. They marched here for the cause of civil rights. And that day they heard Martin Luther King Jr. deliver his famous “I Have a Dream” speech, a speech in which he challenged America to fulfill her promise.

“I have a dream,” he said, “that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.’ ”

While we know of the speech, most people are unaware that King also penned one of the most eloquent defenses of the moral law: the law that formed the basis for his speech, for the civil rights movement, and for all of the law, for that matter.

In the spring of 1963, King was arrested for leading a series of massive non-violent protests against the segregated lunch counters and discriminatory hiring practices rampant in Birmingham, Alabama. While in jail, King received a letter from eight Alabama ministers. They agreed with his goals, but they thought that he should call off the demonstrations and obey the law.

King explained why he disagreed in his famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail. “One might well ask,” he wrote, “how can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer “is found in the fact that there are two kinds of laws: just laws … and unjust laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws,” King said, “but conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

How does one determine whether the law is just or unjust? A just law, King wrote, “squares with the moral law of the law of God. An unjust law ... is out of harmony with the moral law.”

Then King quoted Saint Augustine: “An unjust law is no law at all.” He quoted Thomas Aquinas: “An unjust law is a human law not rooted in eternal or natural law.”

This is the great issue today in the public square: Is the law rooted in truth? Is it transcendent, immutable, and morally binding? Or is it, as liberal interpreters argue, simply whatever courts say it is? Do we discover the law, or do we create it?

Many think of King as a liberal firebrand, waging war on traditional values. Nothing could be further from the truth. King was a great conservative on this central issue, and he stood on the shoulders of Augustine and Aquinas, striving to restore our heritage of justice rooted in the law of God.

Were he alive today, I believe he’d be in the vanguard of the pro-life movement. I also believe that he would be horrified at the way in which out of control courts have trampled down the moral truths he advocated.

From the time of Emperor Nero, who declared Christianity illegal, to the days of the American slave trade, from the civil rights struggle of the sixties to our current battles against abortion, euthanasia, cloning, and same-sex “marriage,” Christians have always maintained exactly what King maintained.

King’s dream was to live in harmony with the moral law as God established it. So this Martin Luther King Day, reflect on that dream—for it is worthy of our aspirations, our hard work, and the same commitment Dr. King showed.

Further Reading and Information

Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963.

Read the text of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech.

Visit the Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute website.

St. Augustine, City of God (Penguin Classics reprint, 2003).

Me:  Thank God for all that Martin Luther King did to rectify wrongs towards the Black people of this nation that had been enshrined in law and carried out in practice.  But there remains much work to be done, as Brian Brown (President of the National Organization for Marriage) reminds us.  Citing King's moral stance (as did Colson), Brown applies that same moral stance to other areas today.  He writes:

Marriage is the very type of relationship that Dr. King would no doubt have recognized as just, rooted as it is in the moral law, observed over thousands of years as an eternal law, in perfect harmony with the law of God. It is a profoundly just institution that brings men and women together and provides children with the best opportunity to be raised by a mother and a father.

So many of our laws and policies today are out of harmony with natural law and nature's God. The killing of the preborn innocent in the name of privacy; the euthanizing of the infirm in the name of compassion; the destruction of embryonic humans in the name of advancement; the protection of pornography purveyors and the merchants of violence in Hollywood and the video game industry in the name of free speech; and the restructuring of instutions like marriage to provide emotional satisfaction to politically powerful adults, even as they strip from the law the right of children to a mother and father.

WILL OBAMA STAND UP TO CHINA ON BEHALF OF CHEN?

President Obama gloats over killing Osama bin Ladin.  Now comes a real test.  Will he stand up to China on behalf of blind human rights activist Chen Guangcheng?  He wants to meet with Secretary Hillary Clinton who is now in China.  The Financial Times reports:  (HT: Drudge)

The fate of blind Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng was injected into the US presidential election on Thursday after Republican challenger Mitt Romney described the incident as “a day of shame for the Obama administration”.

Mr Romney joined a series of Republican lawmakers who piled criticism on the Obama administration after an agreement to allow Mr Chen to remain in the country appeared to collapse.

The Obama administration was forced into damage limitation after Mr Chen said he had changed his mind and now wanted to leave China, one day after the state department announced a deal with the Chinese authorities to allow him to reunite with his family and attend law school.

In a telephone interview with the FT, Mr Chen said that he wanted to leave on the same aircraft as Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, who is in Beijing for an annual economic and security summit.

Mr Chen, a 40-year-old self-taught lawyer, took refuge in the US embassy last week after making a dramatic escape from house arrest in a rural area 300 miles from the capital.

Mr Romney said that it appeared US officials had “sped up” Mr Chen’s departure from the US embassy in Beijing because of the summit meeting being attended by Mrs Clinton and had not put in place measures to assure Mr Chen’s safety once he left the embassy.

“If these reports are true, this is a dark day for freedom,” he said.  . . . 

The administration also came under intense criticism from Republican lawmakers and some human rights groups at a specially called congressional hearing on the case. Christopher Smith, a Republican congressman from New Jersey, said that the administration had “dropped the ball significantly” and that it would be “scandalous” if the US did not do everything it could to protect Mr Chen.

Bob Fu, who runs ChinaAid, a Texas-based Christian group that has worked extensively on human rights issues, added to the pressure on the administration. “Secretary Clinton, this is the moment to deliver on what you promised over the last few years,” he told the hearing. . . . [more...]

Me:  Now, it seems to me, is a test of the importance President Obama places on freedom and human rights.    Is anyone brimming with confidence?

U.S. PEPPERED WITH SPY-PLANE LAUNCH SITES

The U.K. Daily Mail published a major article today titled:"Is there a drone in your neighbourhood?  Rise of spy planes exposed after FAA is forced to reveal 63 launch sites across U.S."  (HT: Drudge)   Wow.  Freedom in America is in huge danger.

Read more...

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S MT. OLYMPUS BUREAUCRATIC EDICT FROM "HUD"

We live in a top-down, in-your-face administration, that doesn't seek Congress' permission or support for its own edicts imposed on the American people.  (Is this government "of the people, by the people, for the people?")  I wouldn't have known about the latest domestic edict if I hadn't received an email report from the Family Research Council.  Consider:

If you think the administration is liberal now, just want until next year when the President is not facing reelection. For the most radical White House in history, there is no limit to the damage he could inflict on this country. Even now, in his third year, Americans are only slowly learning what the administration has already done in secret. New abuses are trickling out every day, including this latest announcement from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The President decided that if he can't pass a non-discrimination policy, he'll implement one anyway. On Friday, the administration handed down a new rule, ordering HUD to add "sexual orientation" to the non-discrimination policy on housing applications.

Under this edict, faith-based groups such as Catholic Charities, who operate housing complexes in partnership with HUD, would be forced to abandon their beliefs on marriage and accept homosexual couples--or end their grant with the federal government. Last year, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops urged HUD to not to create a "new protected classification" that flies in the face of congressional policy. But, once again, the administration proved that it would risk services for the most vulnerable just to advance their radical social agenda. Barbara McQuade, one of the lobbyists on the issue, congratulated the President for barging ahead on the new language without the legislature's approval. "I really applaud the administration, which isn't waiting around for Congress," she told reporters. Ironically, that was the fulfillment of another Obama promise--one that he made quite publicly. "Where they won't act," the President warned, "I will." Even, it appears, if he lacks the constitutional authority to do so.

Me: Why "wait around for Congress" when you can assume dictatorial powers?  That rhetorical question summarizes Obama's philosophy of governance.  It's what scares many of us, and should scare all of us.  We are in the process of throwing away our heritage of freedom and self-government.  We are living through a crucial historical testing point of whether we will survive as a free, self-governing people or as a nation of sheep shoved around by unelected bureaucrats posting edicts and mandates under Presidential direction. 

QUOTE OF THE DAY

Ken Blackwell -  [my bolding]

It would not be a stretch to call Mr. Obama’s health care Mandate a "kulturkampf."  If he can force Catholic institutions—hospitals, schools, and para-church ministries—to provide drugs that can cause abortions now, why wouldn’t his next move be to mandate they actually provide for surgical abortions next year? And why not force all of us to pay for sex change operations, too?

Me:  Why not indeed?  There is no logical stopping point to curtail government's expanding power to mandate whatever it wants over the will of the American people.

SENATE DEMOCRATS VOTE TO RESTRICT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN AMERICA

I've borrowed the title of this post from Jim Loft over at Gateway Pundit who wrote:

The vote today suports Barack Obama’s HHS Mandate that forces religious institutions to provide free birth control, abortion drugs and sterilizations. This goes against church doctrine.

He posted the following MUST VIEW video:

Loft further wrote:

Americans United for Life is launching this educational video along with a website to help people understand the manipulative policies in the pending healthcare law that are forcing both an abortion mandate and an abortion-inducing drug mandate on all Americans — regardless of their personal beliefs. In a public relations bait-and-switch tactic, the administration pretends that this is about contraception. It is not.

GLENN BECK - "WE'RE ALL CATHOLICS NOW"

Beck is absolutely right.  And the issue is huge.  He writes in today's Washington Post, "Why we are all Catholics now":

[..] The the state is telling the Catholic Church to violate its principles and teachings. So if you are a person of faith, you must call yourself a Catholic.

Today, the Catholic Church is defending a historic American freedom. We tend to forget that many of America’s earliest European settlers were religious refugees. Europe was not a kind place to the faithful if the state didn’t approve: Jews in Spain, Puritans in England, Protestants in France and so on. You were cast out, or worse.

Our Founding Fathers remembered this. They knew if you can’t serve God as you choose, you are not free. And so they enshrined that right in the First Amendment of the Constitution: The state “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

This is why Americans are offended by the ruling from the White House that would force church-run institutions to pay for birth control and morning-after pills, which are tantamount to abortion. The so-called compromise is no compromise – under government-approved health insurance plans that the church pays for, abortifacients would be covered. Sin by proxy – that’s the compromise.

This isn’t a fight over abortion or birth control. This is about whether the state can force someone to pay to have their religious beliefs violated.

GLENN BECK - "WE'RE ALL CATHOLICS NOW"

Beck is absolutely right.  And the issue is huge.  He writes in today's Washington Post, "Why we are all Catholics now":

[..] The the state is telling the Catholic Church to violate its principles and teachings. So if you are a person of faith, you must call yourself a Catholic.

Today, the Catholic Church is defending a historic American freedom. We tend to forget that many of America’s earliest European settlers were religious refugees. Europe was not a kind place to the faithful if the state didn’t approve: Jews in Spain, Puritans in England, Protestants in France and so on. You were cast out, or worse.

Our Founding Fathers remembered this. They knew if you can’t serve God as you choose, you are not free. And so they enshrined that right in the First Amendment of the Constitution: The state “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

This is why Americans are offended by the ruling from the White House that would force church-run institutions to pay for birth control and morning-after pills, which are tantamount to abortion. The so-called compromise is no compromise – under government-approved health insurance plans that the church pays for, abortifacients would be covered. Sin by proxy – that’s the compromise.

This isn’t a fight over abortion or birth control. This is about whether the state can force someone to pay to have their religious beliefs violated.

MUST READ - "CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER ON PRESIDENTIAL DECREE #1"

Read it here.  I hope to get back to the article to put up excerpts, but meanwhile, read it for yourself.  It's that important.  It's truly unbelievable what is happening to this nation; how so many swallow the flimsiest of justifications.  We are a nation devoid of clarity and logic.  Time to look up from our diversionary technological devices and begin THINKING.  

Here's HotAir's summary:

Consider the constitutional wreckage left by Obamacare:

First, the assault on the free exercise of religion. Only churches themselves are left alone. Beyond the churchyard gate, religious autonomy disappears. Every other religious institution must bow to the state because, by this administration’s regulatory definition, church schools, hospitals and charities are not “religious” and thus have no right to the free exercise of religion — no protection from being forced into doctrinal violations commanded by the state.

Second, the assault on free enterprise. To solve his own political problem, the president presumes to order a private company to enter into a contract for the provision of certain services — all of which must be without charge. And yet, this breathtaking arrogation of power is simply the logical extension of Washington’s takeover of the private system of medical care — a system Obama farcically pretends to be maintaining. …

Third, the assault on individual autonomy. Every citizen without insurance is ordered to buy it, again under penalty of law. This so-called individual mandate is now before the Supreme Court — because never before has the already hypertrophied Commerce Clause been used to compel a citizen to enter into a private contract with a private company by mere fact of his existence.

JAY NORDLINGER - SUPER BOWL HALFTIME OBSERVATION

Nordlinger observes:

At the end of the halftime show, they displayed the words “World Peace.” They never, ever say “World Freedom,” do they? Never.

In a different vein, Nordlinger notes the music used in Super Bowl commercials:

1) I wish Beethoven could know they were using his music to sell Coca-Cola during the Super Bowl. (“Coca-Cola? Super Bowl?”) (The music was from his Fifth Symphony.)

2) There was a hint of Wagner in a Lexus commercial. (A motif from The Ring.)

3) There was Verdi in a Doritos commercial. (“La donna è mobile,” from Rigoletto.)

4) There was Bach in a Time-Warner Cable commercial. (C-major prelude from Book I of The Well-Tempered Clavier.)

INSIDE N. KOREA'S PRISONS: MOMS KILL CHILDREN TO SURVIVE

From today's 700 Club:

SEOUL- South Korea -- Meet a woman who has witnessed unspeakable evil and lived to tell about it.

For 28 years, Kim Hye Sook languished as a prisoner inside North Korea's oldest concentration camp. She saw daily executions, mass starvation, and mothers killing their children to survive. 

Kim granted CBN News the first American television news interview. We must warn you that the images and content of this report are not suitable for children. 

 

Languishing in Prison

Kim is perhaps the longest serving prisoner ever to escape from North Korea.

"I went to the prison camp when I was only 13 years old and I got out when I was 41," she said.

THURSDAY IN CUBA - WIVES AND SUPPORTERS OF CUBAN POLITICAL PRISONERS ATTACKED

Jay Nordlinger posts:

The Ladies in White, as you know, are the family members and friends of Cuban political prisoners. Dressed in white, they walk quietly and peacefully through the streets, hold vigils, and so on. Needless to say, they have been the targets of vicious attacks, by state security and the mobs they work up. The Cuban dictatorship is terrified of these women. Otherwise, they would not be so intent on beating them. A totalitarian dictatorship countenances no opposition whatsoever.

This was Thursday:

In the streets of Neptuno and Hospital, at around 4:30 P.M., mobs instigated by the Cuban regime brutally attacked a group of almost fifty pro democracy women dressed in white as they were about to march through the streets of Havana to advocate on behalf of Cuban political prisoners and the freedom of all Cubans. As the “Ladies in White” set off from the house of Laura Pollan located at Calle Neptuno No. 963 between Aranburen and Hospital, following their monthly “Literary Tea”, they were dragged, beaten, kicked, spit upon, scratched, pushed, and had their hair pulled as well as their clothes ripped off by paramilitary mobs. The violence forced them back inside the home they consider their headquarters.

To read this report in full, go here.

FREEDOM IN THE 50 STATES

 #1 - New Hampshire.  #50 - New York   - See how the rest rank.  Click here.  Veronique de Rugy offers commentary.

NORWAY FEELS STING OF CHINA'S NOBEL ANGER

 Bjoem H. Amland of the AP reports:

OSLO — Norway used to be China's top fresh salmon supplier, sending steadily growing volumes to exclusive restaurants in Beijing and Shanghai.

But since the Norwegian Nobel Committee gave the Nobel Peace Prize to imprisoned Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo, Norwegian salmon exporters say their fish is being held up for days or even weeks by Chinese food safety inspectors — devastating its freshness.

"We cannot get fish in there at all," said Henning Beltestad, the CEO of Norway's Leroey Seafood Group. . .   [more...]

Me:  China plays for keeps ...

RONALD REAGAN VS. THE CURRENT REGIME

HT: Gateway Pundit

SHOCK VIDEO: DEM CONGRESSMAN BRAGS: 'FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN DO MOST ANYTHING IN THIS COUNTRY'...

HT: Drudge   Wow.  This is pretty amazing.  The Federal Government has become a monster eating up liberty.  The Constitution no longer offers any restraints in the eyes of many members of congress.

CUBA ELECTED VICE-PRESIDENT OF U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

This is sick.  One looks for an exit from the current mad house.  Except it's for real.  Our president is part of the cast of characters making it all possible.  From Jay Nordlinger:

Have you heard the latest news from the U.N. Human Rights Council — the most exalted body within the most exalted body in all the world? Cuba, as a nation — as a government, rather — has been elected vice president of the council. In celebration, the Cuban government put out a statement:

“The election of Cuba to this important post recognizes the exemplary work of the Cuban Revolution in favor of the human rights of its people and the world. It also shows respect for Cuba’s active and committed work as a founding member of the U.N. Human Rights Council in defense of truth and justice and for its leadership in favor of the noblest causes.”

Bear in mind that Cuba is a one-party dictatorship with a gulag. (Therefore, it’s perfect for the U.N. Human Rights Council.)

Can you stand a little more news? Miguel d’Escoto, the old Sandinista foreign minister, and a classic anti-American and anti-Semite, has just been appointed to the council’s advisory panel. Of course.

And, in this article, Anne Bayefsky tells us this: “With the adoption of yet another resolution critical of Israel, the Council has adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than all other 191 UN member states combined.”

Our previous president, George W. Bush, thought that the United States should have nothing to do with this council — that it was too disgraceful to join. Too contrary to the U.N.’s founding principles to dignify. His successor, President Obama, immediately had the U.S. join the council. The argument of Team Obama was that the U.S., by its presence, would improve the council.

Sure! Nice going, guys.

THE BRITISH LEGACY OF LIBERTY AND PROSPERITY

Mark Steyn posts:

Look at those Heritage rankings of economic freedom . . .

1) Hong Kong
2) Singapore
3) Australia
4) New Zealand
5) Ireland
6) Switzerland
7) Canada
8) United States
9) Denmark
10) Chile
11) United Kingdom
12) Mauritius

Nine out of the Top Twelve jurisdictions are current or former realms of the British Crown — and the Top Five are a clean sweep. Given its contribution to liberty and prosperity in the world, the self-loathing of modern England and its disdain for its own inheritance is perverse and, ultimately, crippling.

Me: Spot on! (As they say..)

EU CREATES HISTORIC & UNDEMOCRATIC NEW POST: "PRESIDENT OF EUROPE"

That's the headline Joel Rosenberg gives his latest post.  The European Union chose Belgium Prime Minister Herman van Rompuy over Britain’s Tony Blair to be  “President of Europe.  Rosenberg:

If you’re thinking, “van who?”, don’t worry — you’re not alone. In one of the most undemocratic developments in recent history, the new leader of a half-billion Europeans is a name only 12% of them have even heard of. He was chosen unanimously by a council of other EU leaders, not by popular vote, and will take office January 1, 2010.

Rosenberg again:

EU leaders didn’t bumble into this appointment. They are determined to create an unrivaled superpower. They are determined to create the world’s most powerful political position in the presidency. But they want an EU-fanatic, not a British lone ranger. I’d never heard of van Rompuy until Thursday, but I have no doubt the EU leaders who chose him unanimously knew exactly what they were doing. I expect this guy to be a problem for the U.S., for freedom, and for Israel. Time will tell for certain.  [more . .]

The London Telegraph asserts "Herman Van Rompuy's quirky exterior conceals a ruthless political operator who will stop at nothing to get his way as president of the European Union.

Mr Van Rompuy is a supporter of the creation of an EU federal state, with its own anthem, flag and with powers to collect taxes on car fuel or financial transactions from Europe’s citizens.”

WHY DO WE HEAR SO LITTLE ABOUT THE TREATMENT OF DISSIDENTS IN CUBA?

Jay Nordlinger writes:

On the House floor last night, Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R., Fla.) gave a speech. His subject was the persecution of Cuban democrats, and the general ignoring of this persecution by the American press. This has been a longstanding grievance of Cubans and Cuban Americans, and their supporters: Horrible things take place on that island, 90 miles from our shore; and yet we tend to look away (and wear our Che Guevara T-shirts). If a Palestinian kid skins his knee in Ramallah, we hear about it. But what about torture in

TODAY MARKS THE 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FALL OF THE BERLIN WALL

UPDATE  - Ed Morrissey over at HotAir has terrific coverage, including a YouTube video of President Reagan giving one of the most impassioned speeches ever delivered by an American President.  There are other videos also.   Go to this website immediately!  That President Obama (or even Vice-President Biden) are not participating in the commemoration is, in Morrissey's words, "disgraceful"!

-Original post) -  I posted previously concerning Prsident Obama's failure to appear in Berlin to mark the occasion.  Now I would like to simply record Bill Bennett's remarks on the significance of the Berlin wall's collapse:

Today marks the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. But even that phrase doesn’t do the story justice: The wall did not fall—it was pushed. I’m currently writing a history of the past 20 years, and have a good deal about the Berlin Wall in that book—here is some of what will be published:

In 1961, the East German government erected a physical Iron Curtain, an ugly combination of cement and electrified fencing with armed guards, an internal barricade that separated the two nations and their brethren on each side. But at midnight, 9 November 1989, the government of East Germany finally gave permission to its citizens to peaceably pass through the gates of the Berlin Wall. East Germans “surged through, cheering and shouting, and were be met by jubilant West Berliners on the other side. Ecstatic crowds immediately began to

HOW IMPORTANT IS "HUMAN RIGHTS" IN OBAMA'S FOREIGN POLICY?

Answer:  Not Important at All.

I find that disgusting.  Chuck Colson's report is an eye-opening, important read.  I knew about Obama's refusal to meet with the Dalai Lama, following are some things I didn't know:  (excerpts)

Obama and his aides have also reportedly refused to meet with a representative of Iranian opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi.

And now we learn that the President has been quietly cutting off aid to groups that monitor human rights abuses and fight on behalf of human freedom—especially in Iran.

Colson says:

In the Wall Street Journal, David Feith and Bar Weiss write that the administration has eliminated millions of dollars in funding for the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, Freedom House, and the State Department’s Iran Democracy Fund.

These actions go against everything America stands for. Our worldview is largely informed by our Christian heritage—one that puts human dignity first. Has this administration forgotten that human rights have always been America’s greatest export?

Colson points out rightly,

We believe that all humans are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, as our Declaration of Independence says. We can’t just write off these rights for the sake of climate change or the economy; they’re central to who we are.

[More . . .]

BRUCE BAWER ANALYZES THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF EUROPE'S RIGHTWARD TURN

- Update 6/16/09 - Between the Covers produced a short audio interview with Bawer, the author of Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom.  Bawer is an American, currently making his home in Norway.

- (Original post) - Bawer offers a major survey in the Spring, 2009 City Journal.

OBAMA & TYRANTS: HOW DOES IT LOOK TO THE BOYS IN THE CAMPS?

Update 4/23/09 - Daniel Henninger expands on the theme in his Wall Street Journal article, "Obama Among the Dictators."

(Original Post) - What does that mean? you ask.  Jay Nordlinger explains,

"That is the line attributed to Vladimir Bukovsky, the great Soviet dissident. When making policy or holding meetings, Westerners should pause to consider, “How will it look to the boys in the camps?”

Nordlinger says,

I imagine that, if they know, they are demoralized. What’s next? Necking with Kim Jong Il? Reagan and Bush rocked the boat, to a degree. And that was extremely heartening to political prisoners. Natan Sharansky (then Anatoly Sharansky) writes about this in his book Fear No Evil. Many others have testified to it as well.

In his article, Nordlinger points out how far we have moved from Bush's 2nd inaugural address when he declared:

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you. . .   [more]

Update:  Jamie Glazov's article, "Remembering Ortega's Gulag," recounts the Sandinista terror instituted by Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua.  This is the man who lectured Obama for 50 minutes at the Fifth Summit of the Americas! 

Update 4/21/09 - Mitt Romney accuses Obama of being "a timid advocate for freedom" who has failed his early foreign-policy tests.  

-- Mona Charen says, "By extending a friendly handshake to Hugo Chávez, Obama diminished his own moral standing, and by extension, ours."  She notes, among other things, Chavez' brutal treatment of Jews, about which I blogged previously.  

OBAMA'S EXPANDED AMERICORPS - REALLY CREEPY !!!!!

- Update 3/27/09 - RedState dissects the legislation: National Service - Soviet Style

- Update - Michelle Malkin posted an article on the GIVE Act (“Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act”) and was later  interviewed today (video) by Glen Beck.

(Original Post)  - This DC Examiner editorial really scares me!  In truth, it's not the editorial that scares me, but the legislation with all its authoritarian vibes that it exposes!  Talk about a threat to liberty!  Here's the Examiner's editorial (my emphases):

With almost no public attention, both chambers of Congress in the past week advanced an alarming expansion of the Americorps national service plan, with the number of federally funded community service job increasing from 75,000 to 250,000 at a cost of $5.7 billion. Lurking behind the feel-good rhetoric spouted by the measure’s advocates is a bill that on closer inspection reveals multiple provisions that together create a strong odor of creepy authoritarianism. The House passed the measure overwhelmingly, while only 14 senators had the sense and courage to vote against it on a key procedural motion. Every legislator who either voted for this bill or didn’t vote at all has some serious explaining to do.

Last summer, then-candidate Barack Obama threw civil liberties to the wind when he proposed “a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the regular military. The expanded Americorps is not quite so disturbing, but a number of provisions in the bill raise serious concerns.

 

To begin with, the legislation threatens the voluntary nature of Americorps by calling for consideration of “a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people.” It anticipates the possibility of requiring “all individuals in the United States” to perform such service – including elementary school students. The bill also summons up unsettling memories of World War II-era paramilitary groups by saying  the new program should “combine the best practices of civilian service with the best aspects of military service,” while establishing “campuses” that serve as “operational headquarters,” complete with “superintendents” and “uniforms” for all participants. It allows for the elimination of all age restrictions in order to involve Americans at all stages of life. And it calls for creation of “a permanent cadre” in a “National Community Civilian Corps.”

 

But that’s not all. The bill also calls for “youth engagement zones” in which “service learning” is “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.” This updated form of voluntary community service is also to be “integrated into the science, technology, engineering and mathematics curricula” at all levels of schooling. Sounds like a government curriculum for government approved “service learning,” which is nothing less than indoctrination. Now, ask yourself if congressmen who voted for this monstrosity had a clue what they were voting for. If not, they’re guilty of dereliction of duty. If yes, the implications are truly frightening.

Me: This bill portends very difficult days ahead.  Liberty?  Is it becoming a thing of the past?

THE UNDEVELOPED MUSLIM WORLD

Mark Steyn answered a critic of an article of his by saying that he (Steyn) had simply quoted the prime minister of Malaysia, Dr. Mahathir Mohammed "one of the least worst Muslim nations."  Dr. Mohammed had said:        

"We produce practically nothing on our own, we can do almost nothing for ourselves, we cannot even manage our wealth," he added... In spite of a number of Muslim nations being extremely wealthy, there is not a single one of them that can be classified as "developed" by any criteria. "[We are] lagging behind in modern knowledge, financial and technological skills and in many instances, effective governments," he lamented. In addition to poverty, ignorance and instability have become such common features in the Muslim world that its detractors assume these afflictions are the natural consequences of following the teachings of Islam, Mahathir said.  [Steyn's emphasis]

To which Steyn added:

He's right . . . The "Muslim" world is not politically developed, economically developed, intellectually developed, scientifically developed - objectively speaking.  Nor is it "free". I mention in America Alone  the 2005 Freedom House rankings of personal liberty and democracy: Five of the eight countries with the lowest "freedom" score were Muslim. Of the 46 Muslim majority nations in the world, only three were free.Of the 16 nations in which Muslims form between 20 and 50 per cent of the population, only another three were ranked as free: Benin, Suriname, and Serbia & Montenegro (which has now split into its constituent parts). As I add, "It will interesting to follow France's fortunes as a fourth member of that group."