Thanks to President Obama, the tens and thousands of pro-lifers who streamed into D.C. for today's March have another cause to fight: the future of religious liberty. Late Friday, the Obama administration marked the anniversary of Roe v. Wade by cementing one of the biggest attacks on conscience rights the country has ever seen. Starting next year, any organization that offers health insurance to employees will be forced to cover birth control, sterilizations, and abortifacients--no matter what their objections.
Obama's on-going determination to "transform America" (requiring ignoring, by-passing, and trashing the U.S. Constitution) is laid bear in Mark Levin's new book, "Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America." Terence P. Jeffrey chronicles an in-depth interview with Levin that is MUST READING.
The book, released Monday, compares the Utopian and unworkable schemes laid out by political philosophers from Plato to Thomas Hobbes with the vision of natural law, God-given rights, and individual liberty that inspired the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
“Utopianism is not new,” Levin writes in “Ameritopia.” “It has been repackaged countless times—since Plato and before. It is as old as tyranny itself. In democracies, its practitioners legislate without end. In America, law is piled upon law in contravention and contradiction of the governing law—the Constitution.”
Levin’s verdict: Barack Obama and modern American liberals are firmly in the Utopian camp—pursuing a vision fundamentally at odds with limited government and human freedom.
“I believe to a great extent we now live in a post-constitutional country, where much of the Constitution is ignored or evaded,” Levin told CNSNews.com.
“What I want the readers to understand, what I want the public to understand is, this is not new and it’s going to destroy us,” said Levin. “It’s going to destroy us because it is an attack on the individual. It is an attack on the nature of human beings.”
David Satter, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, penned a very helpful article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal titled "Why Putin is Tottering." I hadn't realized the extent of corruption in Russia.
After the chaos of the 1990s, during which many government institutions barely functioned, Mr. Putin succeeded in establishing the authority of the state. But criminality didn't decline—it merely migrated to the organs of the government.
It is normal in Russia to bribe bureaucrats for routine approvals. Within the system of state procurement, kickbacks account for as much as 50% of the cost of purchases. Russians pay bribes to register property, fix a traffic ticket, avoid the draft, and secure places for children in school. According to Transparency International, Russia ranks 154th out of 178 countries in corruption—on a level with Cambodia and the Central African Republic.
Russia faces many other problems also.
Russians are also plagued by a fear of terrorism. . . . Russian insecurity also derives from the absence of the rule of law. . . .
But Russia's unfair legal system touches ordinary citizens too. The acquittal rate in Russia is less than 1% (compared to 15% in U.S. federal courts and 15%-40% in state courts). Many convictions are obtained with the help of beatings, intimidation and blackmail. For this and other reasons, Russians file more complaints with the European Court of Human Rights than people from any other of the 46 countries in the Council of Europe. . . .
Televised congressional hearings often serve as a platform for members of Congress to berate, bloviate and showboat for the cameras, but at a House Natural Resources Committee hearing Tuesday, historian Douglas Brinkley wouldn't stand for it.
The topic at hand was drilling in the the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The trouble began when Alaska Republican Rep. Don Young misstated Brinkley's name after referring to the hearing as "an exercise in futility." In a certain breach of protocol, Brinkley cut him off.
Young didn't like that one bit.
"You just be quiet," Young demanded.
"You don't own me," Brinkley shot back. "I pay your salary!"
Washington Republican Rep. Doc Hastings, the chairman of the committee, tried to break it up, but then Brinkley interrupted him.
"I work for the private sector," Brinkley said.
When the chairman returned the floor to Young, the rumble began anew.
"We're the ones who ask the questions, and you're the one who answers the questions," Young said. "Boy I'm really pissed right now."
Obviously, it's a must-watch; you can see the exchange in the video above.
Me: My, my. As one person suggested, it's worth watching the reaction of the girl sitting behind the Congressman. As far as policy goes, I don't agree with Brinkley, a history professor at Rice University and author of “The Quiet World” about efforts to protect the Alaskan wilderness. He advocates making ANWR a national monument to protect it from oil and gas drilling. But Brinkley is absolutely right. As a taxpayer, he does pay the Congressman's salary! Luke Miller, a spokesman for Representative Young, said the fiery exchange was “nothing more than a publicity stunt by Mr. Brinkley in order to sell books.” If so, it may prove an effective strategy. At the least, I don't think the Congressman's supercilious attitude will play well with the viewing public.
Right now, the federal government is borrowing 42 cents on every dollar it spends--in part, because the Left insists on funneling hundreds of millions of dollars to abortion groups like Planned Parenthood. Decisions like that one have helped rack up more than $14 trillion in U.S. debt. That's a $45,500 "birth tax" to every child born in America this year!
Why is there even an argument about fiscal restraint?
Sen. Shumer attacked FRC on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Leftists (and pro-abortionists) like Shumer need to be engaged and defeated. I very much like FRC's response: (my bolding)
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Family Research Council Action (FRC Action) President Tony Perkins responded today to direct attacks on the floor of the U.S. Senate by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
Sen. Schumer took to the Senate floor today railing against FRC for its opposition to yesterday's vote in the U.S. House of Representatives on a three-week Continuing Resolution that sustains taxpayer funding of abortions in the District of Columbia and fails to cut federal funding for scandal-plagued Planned Parenthood. He compared FRC's efforts to a "heavy anchor bogging down the budget."
In response, FRC Action President Tony Perkins said:
"With all due respect, it is Senator Chuck Schumer and his allies on the Left that mean to not only impose their radical social and fiscal agenda on Americans, but also force Americans to pay for it. Nearly three-quarters of Americans are opposed to the government forcing them to fund abortion. How is respecting the majority's wishes and cutting spending in a budget a 'right wing' move? Removing federal funding of abortion is a centrist move, since the vast majority of Americans hold that policy position.
"Senator Schumer should come clean and tell the American people why six months into the year Congress has yet to adopt a budget for this year. Why would the last Congress which was totally controlled by Mr. Schumer and his party not pass a budget? They failed to pass a budget because they were too busy forcing their far left social agenda on America including taxpayer funding of abortion, government control of health care and open homosexuality in the military. They were busy forcing taxpayers to pick up the tab for a 'far-ranging social agenda.' What was that tab? Annual deficits in the last two years alone that total almost three trillion dollars.
"There is a time and a place to address the misguided policies and deficit spending that Mr. Schumer and his liberal colleagues have been forcing Americans to pay for. Mr. Schumer is wrong. Now is the time and this is the place.
"Of course, the Senator is right in one regard. FRC Action, Heritage Action and the Club for Growth are an 'anchor' in this process. We will do our best to ensure this country drifts no further to the Left and out into the sea of irrelevance where the irresponsible spending he and his colleagues have promoted would send us."
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) went off on big government bureaucrats during the Energy and Natural Resources Committee this week. Paul questioned the Department of Energy’s commitment to protecting consumer choice during consideration of Appliance/Light Bulb Energy-Efficiency Legislation.
You'll enjoy this!
Paul, a Republican, blamed his plumbing conundrum on federal legislation that forces Americans to buy more energy efficient appliances.
“Light bulbs, refrigerators, toilets, you name it. You can’t go around your house without being told what to buy,” Paul said. “You restrict my purchases. You don’t care about my choices. You don’t care about the consumer.
“Frankly, my toilets don’t work in my house, and I blame you and people like you who want to tell me what I can install in my house. I find it insulting.”
Paul was speaking during a hearing on a bill to improve appliances’ energy efficiency and another proposal to repeal a 2007 law that phases out traditional incandescent light bulbs in favor of more energy-efficient options.
From the Family Research Council: (I say "hooray" to these proposed budget cuts and hope they pass.) Update note: I need to clarify. The post below refers to a budget to temporarily fund the federal government, commonly known as a "continuing resolution" (CR).
If there's anyone who doesn't feel the love this Valentine's Day, it's the organizations on the Left. Late Friday, House leaders came back to the table with a second budget--and to the disappointment of most liberal groups, it hit the $100 billion bulls-eye. The casualties of these latest cuts happen to be some of the Democrats' biggest allies: the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (PBS and NPR), the Corporation for National Service (Americorps), Legal Services Corporation, Title X "Family Planning" programs (Planned Parenthood), and others. After some frank conversations, House leaders took the advice of Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and FRC to hack away as much as possible in this first go-round of the continuing resolution (CR). For years, the liberal political establishment has treated the government like an ATM, withdrawing hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars for causes that Washington has no business funding. Most Americans have no idea that this symbiotic relationship between liberal politicians and organizations exists. Yet year after year, Democrats funnel our money to their friends, who in turn, help keep those leaders in power.
Today is the 100th birthday of Ronald Reagan. Alan Sears describes the time and the man well:
Time gets away from all of us, and it’s hard, sometimes, to remember what a pall lay over the United States 30 years ago. The economy was in near ruins. Our enemies abroad had been emboldened to increasing aggressions by the passive “tsk-tsk-tsks” of a president who chided his own people for their moral “malaise.” Even amid celebrations of its 200th year of liberty, the country seemed downcast and disenchanted at the prospects of a bleak and listless future.
Then he walked in.
“It’s morning in America,” he said, with a smile like the rising of the sun. He embraced his nation and its destiny, unfazed by the waning economic indicators and the rattling sabers of Communist armies and insurgents around the globe. He exuded joy and hope and confidence … and looking on themselves through his warm gaze, Americans began to share his belief that this nation’s best years might still lie ahead. . .
It will go down as one of the great marvels of history that President Reagan, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II all achieved positions of crucial leadership at almost exactly the same moment. Together, by the grace of a merciful God, that extraordinary trio accomplished what seemed impossible: the thwarting of the Communists’ global agenda, and the toppling of the theretofore impregnable Soviet government.
These compilations from a variety of sources by the Family Research Council continue to offer interested people a gold mine. A new edition appears every two weeks. Readers will find in each a wealth of information not readily found elsewhere. For previous reviews I've posted, click here. For a complete list of articles from this latest edition, click "continue reading" below.
Meanwhile here's a quote from Hadley Arkes' article on Ave Maria University in south Florida: (my underlining)
But a collision of worlds – and a serious challenge – came out at dinner with a dear friend, an accomplished professor, a graduate of Harvard transplanted from the Northeast. He has two daughters at Ave Maria and he said, when I pressed him, that he wouldn’t send any of his children to Harvard. The new sexual ethic, whether on pornography, promiscuity, abortion, homoeroticism, is so pervasive, touching every aspect of life, that there is little room for those who will not pay homage to that reigning ethic. I do think that it is mainly the schools with a religious character that can offer now real academic freedom and a course of study in the humanities not warped by ideology.
Me: What an extraordinary admission! For "real academic freedom" and a "course of study in the humanities not warped by ideology," it is to religious schools one must go.
I found Steven Hayward's blog post exceptionally interesting, especially his mention of a bright young Egyptian lady in his class. Hayward writes:
For five years I taught a course in constitutional interpretation as an adjunct professor with the Fund for American Studies/Georgetown University Capital Semester program, which brings students from other universities to DC for one semester to experience internships along with a full course curriculum. The stars of the program were often foreign students, which the Fund recruited especially from eastern Europe and the Middle East. In general the foreign students in the program came to class better prepared and were more serious than the American students, which may not be surprising as the fundamental questions of political order and social progress are more urgent in the young democracies of eastern Europe and the non-democracies of the Middle East. . .
So the central objective of my course was to get students to grasp the principles of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the underlying institutional and theoretical problems inherent in delineating and protecting individual rights. . .
Above all, I tried to get students to learn the ability to make distinctions between the principles of the Constitution and its compromises, and thereby have a deeper appreciation of the prudence or moderation of statesmen as Aristotle had in mind. This is extremely difficult to convey to students even over the course of a semester. It is almost impossible, for example, to get students to understand that the odious "three-fifths" clause of the original Constitution was actually a compromise that limited the power of slave-holding states, who wanted slaves counted as whole persons to increase their numbers in the House. Most students have simply marinated too long in the cliché that the Founders considered slaves as only three-fifths of a human being. They were usually stumped when I asked them if they'd have felt better about the Founders if they'd counted slaves as whole persons and thereby increased the political power of slaveholding states. . .
A pro-life Hill aide points out more Omnibus outrageousness:
$327 million is allocated for the Title X Family Planning Program which provides funding to groups like Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the nation. This is a $10 million increase over last year (FY10 level was $317 million) and a $44 million increase over the last four years (FY07 level was $283 million). (page 979)
Other similar bonuses include:
$710 million is appropriated for international family planning/reproductive health which provides funding to organizations that promote and perform abortion overseas. This is a $62 million increase over last year (FY10 level was $648 million) and $270 million increase over the last four years (FY07 level was $440 million). (page 1379)
There’s also this:
The bill establishes an Office of Global Women’s Issues at the department of State headed by an Ambassador-at-Large, and the position of Gender Integration and Development Advisor at USAID. In prior efforts to establish these positions and offices, pro-life leaders have expressed concern that the offices will support international efforts to promote abortion. (pages 1449-1453)
And there’s even more along these lines — including a stealth undermining of abortion funding in the District of Columbia.
Me: Ichabod! The stench of Hades hangs over this lame duck Congress. Evil has never been more bold and obvious in our government than now. A lame-duck Congress should not exist. As another has written,
No Founding Father could ever have predicted this scenario. In the 18th Century, there weren't 737s or SUVs. They designed the lame-duck to give new members time to travel by horse or wagon to the Capitol to take their seats. Framers never expected it to be an extension of the current Congress.
A pro-life Hill aide points out more Omnibus outrageousness:
$327 million is allocated for the Title X Family Planning Program which provides funding to groups like Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the nation. This is a $10 million increase over last year (FY10 level was $317 million) and a $44 million increase over the last four years (FY07 level was $283 million). (page 979)
Other similar bonuses include:
$710 million is appropriated for international family planning/reproductive health which provides funding to organizations that promote and perform abortion overseas. This is a $62 million increase over last year (FY10 level was $648 million) and $270 million increase over the last four years (FY07 level was $440 million). (page 1379)
There’s also this:
The bill establishes an Office of Global Women’s Issues at the department of State headed by an Ambassador-at-Large, and the position of Gender Integration and Development Advisor at USAID. In prior efforts to establish these positions and offices, pro-life leaders have expressed concern that the offices will support international efforts to promote abortion. (pages 1449-1453)
And there’s even more along these lines — including a stealth undermining of abortion funding in the District of Columbia.
Well, that was the title Justin Taylor gave a recent blog post describing a sermon delivered by Pastor Mark Dever on September 19th at Capital Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C. Dever's text was Mark 12:13-17 - "Jesus Paid Taxes." It's length was 70 minutes. How many pastors today deliver 70 minute sermons, and in particular, one that could be described as "a biblical theology of Christians and the state, at once full of unction, intellectually challenging, and affecting the heart"? Remarkable indeed.
For those without 70 minutes to spare, Collin Hansen has provided an overvew. David Crowe, a visitor that day, blogged "Capital Hill Baptist Church - Reflections From a Visit." I thought it noteworthy that 750 people jammed the church, and pre-teens were found - not doodling - but taking notes on the sermon!
What strikes me is the great value of the internet! Not many clergy are capable of delivering such meaty messages, but because of the internet, a message such as this can be heard by anyone anywhere in the world. What resources are at our disposal! Are we making use of these resources? I need to take much better advantage of them myself. An iTunes podcast of Dever's sermon is available here.
Some time ago I posted a video of Pastor Mark Dever offering a video tour of his library. Click here. You'll find it fascinating.
Speaking of Christianity and politics, the other day I happened to be at Barnes & Noble and there I thumbed through a copy of Wayne Grudem's just-published Politics - According to the Bible. I found it quite intriguing. I hope to browse more on a future visit. Another recent publication that has caught my eye (which I haven't had a chance to browse yet), is City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era by Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner with a foreward by Tim Keller. Justin Taylor has posted blurbs and some principles from the book, plus Tim Keller's foreward. In addition to the book's foreward, the preface in PDF format can be found here.
I was speaking to an
emergency room
physician this morning. He told me that a woman in her 20’s came to the
ER with
her 8th pregnancy. She stated “my momma told me that I am the
breadwinner for
the family.” He asked her to explain. She said that she can make babies
and
babies get money for the family. The scam goes like this: The grandma
calls the
Department of Child and Family Services and states that the unemployed
daughter
is not capable of caring for these children. DCFS agrees and states that
the
child or children will need to go to foster care. The grandma then
volunteers to
be the foster parent, and thus receives a check for $1500 per child per
month in
Illinois. Total yearly income: $144,000 tax-free, not to mention free
healthcare
(Medicaid) plus a monthly “Linx” card entitling her to free groceries,
etc, and
a voucher for 250 free cell phone minutes per month. This does not even
include
Wick and other welfare programs. Indeed, grandma was correct in that her
fertile
daughter is the “breadwinner” in the family.
I hope you share
this
story with your listeners so that they know how the ruling class spends
their
tax dollars.
Also, many thanks for the fine service you
provide in
educating people about the merits of conservative thinking.
Cheers,
Sebastian J. Ciancio, M.D. Urologist, Danville
Polyclinic,
LTD.
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.
Honoring a book on current political and economic questions is
unusual for WORLD. Our books of the year in 2008 and 2009 were The
Reason for God and The ESV Study Bible. We generally rate
timeless higher than timely—but sometimes we have to pay attention to
the immediate. Samuel Johnson said, “Depend upon it, sir, when a man
knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind
wonderfully.” As the United States careens toward a crucial fall
election, The Battle is concentrating minds.
WORLD’s 2010 Book of the Year makes a compelling case that the clash
between free enterprise and socialism is a moral battle. Read the whole review here.
Update: 6/23/10 - Kathryn Jean Lopez conducts a major interview with Arthur C. Brooks here. Lopez interview with Brooks, part 2.
Mighty important. According to Burton Folsom, Jr., professor of history at Hillsdale College (and author ofNew Dealor Raw Deal?), President Obama has a seriously deformed understanding of American history
and economics. This has enormous repercussions and leaves him with a skewed ideological perspective. Folsom writes:
“What bothers me,” President Obama told
the graduating class at the University
of Michiganlast month, “is when I hear people say
that all of government is inherently bad.”
Folsom reponds:
Only anarchists
think all of government is inherently bad. Government has a useful
constitutional function in protecting contracts and providing for the
national defense. We need a government strong enough to protect our
private property.
The problem is when government oversteps its
constitutional limits and politicians try to micromanage the economy.
That is where President Obama and the Founders disagree. President Obama
in his speech defended the government’s interference in railroad
building and in the Great Depression. “When we needed a
We are at a remarkable moment. We have an open, 2,000-mile border to our
south, and the entity with the power to enforce the law and impose
safety and order will not do it. Wall
Street collapsed, taking Main
Street's money with it, and the government can't really figure out what
to do about it because the government itself was deeply implicated in
the crash, and both political parties are full of people whose political
careers have been made possible by Wall Street contributions. Meanwhile
we pass huge laws, bills so comprehensive, omnibus and transformative
that no one knows what's in them and no one—literally, no one—knows how
exactly they will be executed or interpreted. . .
This is not the old, conservative and long-lampooned "I don't trust
gummint" attitude of the 1950s, '60s and '70s. It's something new, or
rather something so much more broadly and fully evolved that it
constitutes something new. The right never trusted the government, but
now the middle doesn't. . . (more . . .)
Rob Schwarzwalder makes pertinent points in his short USA Todayarticle. Excerpt:
Ethnicity and race . . . define
neither humanness nor citizenship, character nor value.
America's charter text affirms that "all men are
created equal." The Constitution is premised on this assertion, in that
it assumes human dignity and the right of representative
self-government. Thus, the census is needed to assure that such
self-government can be expressed accurately within the context of the U.S. Congress.
Instead, the Census form categorizes people not
by citizenship and place of residence, but fundamentally by race and
ethnicity. This is un-American.
Human beings are made in the likeness of their
Creator. This, with their citizenship and home address, is really all
the Census Bureau needs to know.
Here's a three-minute video of a citizen springing a pop-quiz on Congressman Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey The point is these men and women are sworn to "uphold the Consititution of the United States." That's mighty hard to do if you don't know what it says. Shame.
The point here, of course, is to demonstrate what an afterthought the
Constitution has become for members of Congress. No surprise, then,
that the item that’s currently getting the most votes for the proposed
tea party “Contract from America”
is the one demanding that each new bill cite
the section of the Constitution that empowers Congress to act.
Although how useful would that be, really? No matter what the purpose
of the bill is, the citation will always, always be to the
Commerce Clause. It entitles Congress to do anything it wants, don’tcha
know.
Since she cannot serve two masters, the government and her patients, she chooses the latter. Daniel Foster reports:
An M.D. in family practice passed along this letter she sent to her
patients after Obamacare became law. She relates that, so far, "100% of
those who have contacted me about it have supported me and accepted the
new conditions."
March 23, 2010 My Dear Patient,
As you must know,
Congress has just passed extensive legislation governing health care
delivery and insurance systems. Whether you agree with what it does or
not, we are all now subject to this law and its sweeping changes.
I
have always conducted my medical practice with my patient’s best
interests as my first priority. Although not legally obliged to do so, I
have routinely provided you with a receipt that has all the codes
necessary to bill your own health insurance company for any
reimbursement to which you are entitled. Until now, that insurance
company was a free enterprise despite the fact that it was heavily
regulated by state and federal laws. Now the situation is quite
different. Through the new law’s mandates,
WASHINGTON, March 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/
-- Phyllis Schlafly,
president and founder of the conservative grassroots public policy organizationEagle Forum, made
the following remarks after the public announcement that formerly
pro-life Democrat Bart
Stupak (D-MI) will cast a "yes" vote for the Senate health care bill
today in the House:
"It is naive for any elected
official, especially one who describes himself as 'pro-life,' to
expect that a promise to issue an Executive Order that reasserts the
intentions of the Hyde
Amendment will be fulfilled by the most pro-abortion president to
ever sit in the White
House. Perhaps Mr. Stupak and his fellow pro-life Democrats
forget that President Obama's first Executive Order was the repeal of
the Mexico City Policy
to allow for international funding of abortion."
"Not only would an Executive Order be rendered meaningless in the face
of Congress passing legislation which actively provides
We've gone from providing jobs in profit-making private industry to
providing jobs in profit-eating government work. Toward the end of
2007, the total number of government jobs exceeded the total number of
goods producing jobs. Welcome to the government payroll economy.