Hebrews 4:12

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Dishonest Indignation

Last night the local news had a report about a gambling operation being raided and shut down by the State in Orlando yesterday. The reporters, the law enforcement officials, the state officials, and pretty much everyone else was indignant about how this place was operating against Florida's anti-gambling laws, and that they were ripping people off, because so many people played and lost money, while so few people won anything at all.

A few things about this story bothered me, though it seemed to all be lost on the news reporters and such. First, they talked about the people who ran the operation as if they were armed robbers, forcibly stealing money from unsuspecting innocent people. While I certainly don't approve of what they were doing, and it could almost certainly be classified as stealing, the so called victims were hardly innocent bystanders. These people went to this establishment looking for some easy money, and thinking that they were the ones that would get lucky and strike it rich, knowing full well that in all likelihood, they would leave with less than they came in with. In fact, it looked like most of the people who went there were regulars. Now, I'm not defending the operation in any way, they were preying on the desperate, but let's face it, they did not take the money at the point of a gun, the people handed it over to them willingly.

The other thing that really bothered me was the utter dishonesty on the part of the reporters and the State officials. They were all claiming, be it implicitly or explicitly, to be outraged and disgusted that such an operation is going on in Florida. They were just indignant that there was a gambling operation designed to take advantage of desperate, low income people, where those people would be nearly certain to lose their money and end up with nothing to show for it, or, at best, win back far less than they would lose over the long haul. But maybe I'm being too harsh, maybe they really are outraged, maybe they've never heard of the Florida Lottery!

That's right, the Lottery, in any state, but today I'm talking about Florida, is based on the same principles as the operation that was shut down by the State yesterday. They prey on desperate and low income people, who stand a very low chance of winning anything, and if they do, most of them lose far more over the course of their lives than they will ever win (let's face it, if the Lottery were a good way to make money, rich people would play it too, and they don't). The state makes huge profits off of the Lottery, supposedly for Education, but don't worry, sticky fingered politicians find ways around that (yes even here in Florida, it's not just a New York problem). And that is the real source of the outrage. You see, the Government officials and the reporters and all of them aren't upset because this is going on in Florida, they are upset because somebody was encroaching on their turf. Like a mob boss who is angry when another mob tries to operate in his territory, he's not angry that there crime there, he's angry because he's not getting his cut. It's the same with the State.

Wait, what? Did he just call the State a bunch of Mafia thugs?!? Yes, I basically did. Now, don't get me wrong, it's not that I want places like this operating all over the place, it's just the horrendous display of dishonesty I saw in this news report. Let's be honest about it, the State doesn't want this going on unless they are getting their cut, and that's the truth.

Monday, March 30, 2009

The Tolerance Bargain

The Tolerance Bargain

What happens when a Christian is faced with this unspoken but very real covenant in our culture? If you’re a follower of Christ, you break that covenant. But once you do, you’re going to get the heat from the culture.

By: Gregory Koukl

related articles:
When Tolerance is Intolerant

The Intolerance of Tolerance

related radio broadcast:
February 3, 2008



Do you realize that there are a lot of Christians in this country who, though they love Jesus, they do not see the world through God’s eyes? They should see reality as it is in itself with God as sovereign and the rest of the universe as part of His dominion. This understanding then begins to inform how one views everything in life, whether its politics, economics, law, anthropology, recreation, etc. All of these things ought to be informed by reality, i.e., the truth. Reality is accurately described in the Scriptures because God is telling us what the world is actually like. If we are careful to understand that revelation properly, then we will know what the world is actually like, we will begin to make sense out of things, and live in all areas of life informed by a Christian worldview.

I read an article recently by T.M. Moore titled “From Worldview Programs to Kingdom Movement.” It mentioned that leaders of a movement need to be crystal clear as to what they are trying to overthrow. They must identify their enemy.

Some of you might be thinking that the enemy is those people who disagree with us. You’d be wrong. You might be thinking the enemy is the devil. Well, he is an enemy. There’s no question about that. But I think the enemy, the focus of our efforts, is what the devil is trying to do to change people’s minds so that they believe a lie rather than the truth.

The evil that we are seeking to overturn can be summarized by the words “the lie.” Paul talks about it in Romans 1:21-25. They believed the lie rather than the truth. People suppressed the truth they should have been following and instead believed a lie. Claiming to be wise, they became fools. Following that in Romans is an explicit statement against homosexuality and lesbianism, and a whole rogue’s gallery of vice listed there at the end of Chapter 1 of Romans. All of these come from believing the lie.

What is the truth that the lie denies? The truth is that God is king and sovereign over all His domain, which is everything and everyone, because He created everything and everyone, and therefore, all is His.

The lie says that we are our own. We belong to no one. We are masters of our own fate. We are captains of our own soul. Get out of my way. Don’t cramp my style. And when this lie is believed, what follows is the denial of this central truth that God is king and sovereign.

T.M. Moore goes on to say that the lie itself develops into a worldview where truth is relative and pragmatic. Ethics are utilitarian. The cosmos is an accident. Life is a fleeting and meaningless journey into oblivion. The lie becomes a worldview where man is a product of evolution and the principle concern of man is man. Spiritual concerns are merely private. Christianity is a pliable, changeable thing. Christ is one option among many as a way to eternal life. You see, friends, all those things that follow from believing the lie are contrary views to Christianity.

King and sovereign is just another way of saying king-dom. What’s a kingdom? What does it take to have a kingdom? You need a king and a “dom” or domain. The overarching theme of Scripture is kingdom, God as king over that which is His. He is the ruler, and the foundation of rebellion is a rejection of God’s rulership.

The word relativism might come to mind as the ploy to justify the rebellion. This is one reason why Frank Beckwith and I wrote a book entitled Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Midair. Relativism is the single most powerful ideology against the truth, the single most powerful supporter of the lie. Del Tackett from Focus on the Family said, “Relativism is a silly mind game that we play because it allows us to get our own way.” And this leads to what Tackett calls the “unholy covenant of tolerance.” I’ve written about tolerance in the Relativism book and in articles on tolerance on our STR website, most notably one called “The Intolerance of Tolerance.” But Tackett has identified in a clever way what I spend the article demonstrating. He says, “Our unholy covenant of tolerance amounts to this. It’s an agreement we have with each other. I won’t tell you what you’re doing is wrong as long as you won’t tell me that what I’m doing is wrong. We agree, in this unholy covenant of tolerance, to let everybody do what they want to do.”

What happens when a Christian is faced with this unspoken but very real covenant in our culture? If you’re a follower of Christ, you break that covenant. But once you do, you’re going to get the heat from the culture.

Keep in mind this is a one-way covenant. It’s only honored between relativists. That is, they only tolerate other relativists. They will not tolerate anyone else, which demonstrates how shallow their commitment to tolerance genuinely is. If you don’t keep the covenant, we’re going to injure you and do everything they can to keep you from saying what they’re doing is wrong.

Relativism is really at the heart of postmodernism, which is an attack on truth, and any attack on truth is an attack on the character of God. So I think we, as followers of Christ have a singular task to defeat the lie. Notice I didn’t say to get people saved, because if we think we’ve helped people getting them saved, but they do not bring their lives under the rulership of God, then we are fooling ourselves at having the kind of impact that God wants us to have. We are to make disciples, not only believers. And the fact is, most Christians still believe the lie because their lives are more informed by an ethic that is contrary to Christ rather than one that is consistent with the way Christ saw the world.

Now my question for you is: What are you doing in your life and with your life that is combating the lie? What will you do to oppose the lie? Unless you oppose the lie that God is not king and sovereign, then you’re not making much of an impact for God’s kingdom. The way to sharpen your sword and focus your impact is to go fight the battle where the battle is being fought. And right now the culture where the lie has taken hold is where that is.

My commitment and pledge to you is that Stand to Reason will continue to produce materials to help you defeat the lie wherever you encounter it. And I’m asking for your partnership to do what you can do wherever God places your feet and with whomever He’s placed in front of you. Take what you’ve learned from STR and others, and graciously and incisively, as an ambassador of Christ, go after the lie. Go after anything that denies that God is sovereign over all of His domain, which is everything and everyone.

This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1995 Gregory Koukl

For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org

Friday, March 27, 2009

Where Are They Now?

It's been a few years since we were introduced to the idea of "Hate Crimes." A new and fairly radical idea of supposed justice, where ones actions in the commission of a crime actually become secondary to their motive. Motive is important when establishing that a person is guilty of a crime, sometimes a jury has trouble believing that a person is guilty if they don't understand why that person might have done it. However, with the introduction of hate crimes laws, we see that a persons motive is influencing far more than the verdict of guilty or not guilty, but the actual sentence received if they are indeed found guilty.

The whole idea is truly absurd. If someone kills another person, they should be punished for that crime, regardless of the motive. Is the person who is killed for their race more valuable than the person who is killed for money? Is the Muslim who is beaten for his religion any more a victim than the Atheist who is beaten at random, for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Is the crime truly more heinous because the motive in a certain category? Certainly not. But that is what many would have us believe.

First it started with applying the hate crimes laws to who a person is, things such as their race or gender, and what a person believes, things such as religion. Naturally though, they couldn't even leave it at that, they demanded that it be expanded to cover what a person chooses to do, and so they covered homosexuals. This last one to the point that even saying that you believe that Homosexuality is a sin is considered a hate crime in some places. Still, the point is that by their own definition they want to cover what a person does, so why aren't they trying to protect the AIG execs?

It seems to me that these people are being targeted for where they work, which falls under the category of what they do. Aside from the fact that most, if not all, of the people who were being awarded the bonuses had no part in the failure of their parent company, and had genuinely earned the bonuses that they were being paid, the fact of the matter is that they are being threatened with bodily harm, and even death to themselves and their families because they happen to work at a company where people other than themselves did irresponsible things, and squandered the money that these people had worked so hard to make.

However, even if these were the very people responsible, I think that the expanded hate crimes laws should apply. They are being targeted for what they do, so why haul in all of the people who have threatened them, and all of the people (politicians included) who have incited these feelings of hatred, and charge them with hate crimes, after all, why wait for a crime to be committed, if you're going to punish someone for what they think, instead of what they do, then why not head them off at the pass and lock them all up before they have a chance to hurt anyone. You think I'm joking, but just wait, it won't be long before someone proposes just that, but not for thoughts against just anyone, just against the favored groups of their own choosing.

This brings up one more point though, couldn't this be applied to our very criminal justice system? Couldn't someone say, hey, you protected people from being harassed or harmed for what they do, well, I say you're just arresting and prosecuting me because I'm a murderer and you just hate murderers. Absurd? Yes, but it's the logical conclusion of their own absurd ideas.

Hate crimes laws boil down to just one thing, quelling dissent. That is to say, silencing anyone with a differing point of view, not to protect anyone, not to make society more just, but rather to eliminate freedom of speech, and with it all other freedoms we enjoy.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Temporary At Best

I was watching the History Channel today, and after the show that I had been watching, a show about UFOs came on, and while I was not watching it specifically, I didn't change the channel, and just left it on while I puttered around the house. One thing stuck me more than any other, and really got me thinking. They were talking about US Presidents, and their relationships to UFO information, at least in the minds of UFO fanatics... um, I mean, researchers. Anyway, they talked about something that Ronald Reagan called his fantasy. He believed that if the Earth were attacked by aliens from outer space, the peoples of Earth would lay aside their differences and unite for the good of all mankind, and that this would forge peace.

This thought was not unique to President Reagan, it can be seen in literature and pop culture, for instance, the 1996 blockbuster movie "Independence Day" with Will Smith.

This really got me thinking, would this actually work? If there were and invasion by hostile aliens who would brook no quarter, and were bent on the destruction of our planet and the entire human race, who would not try to enlist some nations or cultures as allies to destroy the rest, but simply move against all of us at once, would we really come together and fight side by side to defeat this threat? Would Hugo Chavez work with the USA? Would Syria fight side by side with Israel? I think that in the face of such an overwhelming enemy, the answer is probably yes. As far as that goes, I can agree with President Reagan, and the others who have posited such a scenario. This works on the principle of, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." However, that's as far as I can go.

Surely, we don't need to talk about what happens if we lose. If we are all dead or enslaved by some alien race, then our difficulties amongst ourselves would be quite unimportant. But what if we won? What if we, as in "Independence Day," managed to utterly destroy the invading hoard? What then? Would the episode really have forged a lasting peace? Would we all really start to get along, and decide that the things that divided us in the past really weren't that big of a deal? I don't think so.

I think that we would see exceptional cooperation during the course of the crisis, and as far as some of those who are not openly hostile to one another, but perhaps hadn't been that friendly, there might be some cooperation to help each other get back on their feet. On the other hand, there are some groups that hate each other so much that they would try to press the issue, and use whatever damage had been done to their lifelong enemy, and very temporary allies, to move in and utterly destroy them.

Even if there were good reason to believe that there might be second wave of attack at some point, the cooperation would still be short lived. You might well not see wars break out across the world right away, as many would be looking to prepare for another attack, but you would see a return to status quo at best, and, if no further attack came, the resumption of strife.

The idea being put forth in these scenarios, is that our differences really don't matter that much, that they are petty, and that some great calamity would cause people to see that and get over the differences. The problem is that this is an overly optimistic view. In truth, the differences do matter, many of them are not petty, and certainly not to the people involved, it would be ignorant to think that people could just get over it in the long term. Basic human nature simply doesn't allow for it. Nor does the nature and history of some of our disputes.

In the case of Ronald Reagan, I think he understood that we had to work hard for peace, that we couldn't just wait for aliens, or some natural disaster, or whatever your calamity of choice, to force people to stop fighting. For some though, I think this can be a dangerous idea, because they don't really understand how deadly serious the issues are that divide us. They really think that it's all petty, and if the hardheaded people out there would just soften up a bit, and maybe be willing to compromise, then everything would be ok. Of course, it simply doesn't work that way. Some principles and beliefs really are that important, they really are worth dying for, and defense of one's self, or one's family, or even one's country, really is worth killing for. Thus, wars will always be with us. Ronald Reagan understood that. As much as he wanted peace, as much as he wanted the end of war, he called it his fantasy because he knew the stark reality that conflict is not so easily shoved aside. He understood that real peace for the USA could only be achieved through strength, yes it would be wonderful if the rest of the world liked us and respected us, and bore us no ill will, but because that too is a fantasy, we can only have peace if they fear what will happen if they attack us.

This is something that we have lost in our current leadership today. The Obama administration has taken on a posture of appeasement. An ideal that everyone will like us if only we bend to their every whim. But as Hitler taught Neville Chamberlain, appeasement will only take you down the road toward more appeasement in the future, and until you stand up and fight, or are ultimately destroyed, there will be no end to appeasement. By contrast, Winston Churchill took a solid position that he would never surrender, and paid for peace with blood, but that peace was real.

The lessons of history are clear, we ignore it at our own peril. It was that great British leader, Winston Churchill himself, who said, "Those who fail to learn from History are doomed to repeat it." If the American people don't wake up soon, we may find "doomed" to be a very appropriate word.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Two Words

I had Fox News on for a few minutes this afternoon, and they were asking people what they want to hear President Obama say during his press conference tonight. They read off several answers that people had sent in to them, and quite a few of them were pretty good, but none of them said what I was thinking. Personally, I don't plan to watch, mostly because I don't need to hear all of the propaganda that I already know is coming, but furthermore, I know that he's not going to say the two words I want to hear him say: "I Quit."

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

Friday, March 20, 2009

Put Conservatism Into Practice


Huck PAC

Enough already of the hand-wringing and night sweats about the demise of the conservative movement!

Conservatives aren't challenged because of the basic principles that define us, but by the failure of the principles being translated into policy and practice.

Gandhi once said, "If Christians would really live according to the teachings of Christ, as found in the Bible, all of India would be Christian today."

I would be so brazen to say that if conservatives would really live according to the principles of classic conservatism, all of America would be conservative today.

The crisis is not one over the precepts, but the practice. It's not that we've failed in our doctrine, but our "doing."

Conservatives believe that the best government is the most local government possible and that the 10th Amendment means something and should be followed. Yet, the supposedly conservative Republican Party has been a drum major for the expanded role of the federal government.

Our founders feared a highly centralized and endowed federal government, instead preferring a system of strong and virtually independent states so that no one person, party, or power broker would exercise a great deal of control.

The inherent danger of allowing too much power in the hands of the few was the heart of the major dispute between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson won, believing that the dispersing of power among the states would by design keep the federal government from becoming too consuming and powerful in its approach to governing. The genius of the 10th Amendment, as is true of all of the Bill of Rights, was that it deliberately limited what the government could do - not what the individual could do.

The 10th Amendment defines the limits of the federal government in 28 words: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Over the past few years, Republicans have been either acquiescing in or encouraging the acquisition of more power and control by the federal government - in policy shifts in education, health care, and even how a driver's license looks.

During my 10 years as a governor, a constant battle raged with my own federal government over such programs as "Real I. D.," which was a federally conceived idea to force states to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to re-format the look of a state-issued drivers license so it would become the equivalent of a federal ID card.

Of course, no member of Congress wanted to come out and advocate an actual federal ID card, so forcing the states to make the driver's license the substitute seemed brilliant to Washington.

What they didn't really think about or seem to care the least about, despite the numerous attempts by governors, Democrat and Republican to explain, was that a state driver's license is just what it claims to be - a license to drive a motor vehicle. It is not proof of citizenship, good behavior or church attendance, and the people who work the counter at the state Department of Motor Vehicles are not trained law enforcement officers, immigration officials, CIA agents or detectives. They are typically entry-level state employees who do their best, but are hardly the choice front line of defense to catch a potential terrorist by discovering their true identity.

Ditto that for reforming the Medicaid program.

Former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner - now Sen. Warner - and I spent many frustrating days on Capitol Hill trying to convince House and Senate members that the Medicaid program was out of control, financially unsustainable, and needed flexibility at the state level. Thanks primarily to Congressmen Joe L. Barton of Texas and Nathan Deal of Georgia, we finally were able to convince Congress that some of the decisions for the program could be made better if made closer to the people being served.

Perhaps no other example is more glaring than having painfully watched so-called Washington conservatives abandon the most fundamental principle of conservatism - fiscal restraint. A Republican administration pushed for and got the authority to spend $700 billion that we had to borrow from our grandchildren's future so we could do what government has no business doing - picking out winners and losers in the private sector marketplace.

It was especially disgusting to me to watch some of the very leaders who had smugly dismissed my candidacy for president because I had the audacity to speak out against the excesses of Wall Street and Washington as early as February 2007 now stand up and flop-sweat as they explained why they were about to support the government taking off the striped shirts of the referee and put on the jersey of a team to play the game for one team against another all in the name of "saving the markets."

By abandoning our bedrock conservative principles, and those of our founding fathers, they risked ruining our country to save the markets.

What gives me hope is my belief that the party of Reagan will reunite behind the consistent conservative policies that have made our country great - policies that empower individuals, families, and entrepreneurs, not government, to shape our own destinies. If we do that, we will not fail.

We don't need so much to redefine conservatism. Just practice the real thing.

Please tell me what you think. Leave a comment on my blog today.

Mike Huckabee

P.S. Mark your calendars for April 1. Huck PAC's new website will launch at 3pm EST.

Help us reach our March fundraising goal. With each contribution of $10 or more online, we will enter your name into a drawing to win tickets to New York to see my FOX television show. The money we raise will be invested in supporting the campaigns of conservatives who are willing to practice what they preach!

Huck PAC, Inc.
P.O. Box 2008
Little Rock, Arkansas 72203
Contributions are not deductible for federal income tax purposes. Corporations, foreign nationals without
green cards, federal contractors, and minors (under 18 years of age) are prohibited from contributing.
Individuals may contribute a maximum of $5,000 per year to Huck PAC. Contributions are not deductible
as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Federal Election Law requires us to report the
name, address, occupation, and employer for contributions that aggregate in excess of $200 in an election cycle.


Paid for by Huck PAC, Inc.
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee
www.huckpac.com

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Cloning Is Cloning

Cloning Is Cloning

Don’t be duped. Cloning is cloning.

Prop 71—the California initiative earmarking $6 billion in bond funds for embryonic stem cell research—succeeded principally because of a bald-faced lie cloaked in a linguistic trick. Propaganda for the initiative stated, “Prop 71 contains strict fiscal and ethical guidelines and prohibits cloning.” Do not be taken in by this kind of language. This is verbal sleight of hand characteristic of ESCR proponents.

The proposition authorized “therapeutic cloning” done for research. It forbade “reproductive cloning” done “to produce babies.” What is the difference? Not a thing. There is no difference in the cloning. The cloning is the same in each case (somatic cell nuclear transfer, described by Ron Reagan last summer at the Democratic National Convention without using the “C” word). All cloning reproduces a human being at the embryonic stage. Therefore, all cloning is reproductive cloning.

The difference is not in the cloning, but in the fate of the unfortunate human being just created. We can let the embryo survive and grow naturally (reproductive cloning). Or we kill the embryo and use it’s cells for research (therapeutic cloning). In simple terms, cloning for killing is fine; cloning for living is not.

This fact is easily disguised for a gullible public. Ron Reagan at the DNC, 2004: “Now by the way, no fetal tissue is involved in this process. No fetuses are created, none destroyed. This all happens in the laboratory at the cellular level.” This is profoundly misleading, and intentionally so. A fetus is a human embryo at eight weeks of development. Reagan merely assured us that scientists will not let the cloned human being live long enough to be called an embryo.

Once again: Don’t be duped.

Saturday, March 14, 2009

Some Further Thoughts

Yesterday I spent quite a bit of time explaining some truth about all the media attention to the Embryonic Stem Cell Research announcement this past week. Today I want to talk about another aspect of President Obama's action.

As part of the announcement that the Federal Government will now fund Embryonic Stem Cell Research, without any regard to Ethical concerns, it was stated that President Obama is against cloning. In order to see why this is a lie, we'll have to talk a little bit about what cloning is.

There are two kinds of cloning, scientifically speaking. There is reproductive cloning, and therapeutic cloning.

First, reproductive cloning. This would involve the creation of an embryo by selectively fertilizing an egg and then placing it inside a woman (unless some way is found in the lab to grow it without a woman being involved) and allowing it to be born as a human infant. While there are some practical concerns about the viability of a person created in this manner (that is to say it's ability to survive and not mutate) but assuming those things could be overcome, one would be hard pressed to argue against this on ethical grounds. I know that's something of a shocking statement, most people believe that reproductive cloning would be terrible, and that somehow we would be playing God by doing such a thing. I can't agree with that assessment though. God created the material universe, and everything in it, including people, out of nothing. Then He gave us a command. In Genesis 1:28a God tells us, "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth..." and while God designed a wonderful and marvelous, you might say miraculous, way for us to do this naturally, there is no prohibition against doing so by other means. To genetically engineer the clone certainly would change the discussion, but just reproductive cloning on it's own is not unethical on it's face. Oddly enough, this is the type of cloning that President Obama is opposed to.

Now, assuming just straight up cloning were perfected, what would make it unethical? Clearly treating the clone as though they had no value as a human being, and/or using them as you saw fit, against their will, would be wrong. Take for instance the idea of cloning a person, growing them into an adult and then killing them so that their organs could be used for transplant for non clones. This would be an unethical and monstrous thing to do. However, in an exaggerated way, I just described therapeutic cloning. That is where you clone an embryo and then destroy it by extracting the Stem Cells, for research, or assuming that someday they actually did find a practical use for them, which seems unlikely today, then for some therapy. That is to say, cloning a human being for the purpose of killing them for the benefit of non clones. Therapeutic cloning is at the heart of Embryonic Stem Cell Research. The research cannot be done without it.

In summary, there are two kinds of cloning, one is ethical, and one is not. President Obama is opposed to the ethical type, but supports the unethical version.

Of course, this is magnified when you consider the fact that there are literally hundreds of uses for Adult Stem Cells already in use, and Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells show even more promise, while there is not a single use of Embryonic Stem Cells yet, nor do they show any promise whatsoever. In fact, Embryonic Stem Cells cause tumors, so, rather than promising to make things better, they make things worse. So why would you support destroying Human beings, or even potential human beings, when there is both no benefit, and the benefits you are hoping for are available from another means which carries none of the moral or ethical qualms?

Doesn't seem to make much sense does it?

Friday, March 13, 2009

Mass Deception

I'm sure that everyone has heard in the media by now that President Obama has reversed President Bush's ban on Embryonic Stem Cell Research. The problem is that in most cases, most, if not all, of the details are lies.

First off, President Bush did not ban the research, in a gesture reflective of his devotion to life he banned the Federal Government from funding such research on lines of Embryonic Stem Cells created after August 9th of 2001. So Federal dollars could not be used to fund the creation and destruction of embryos in ongoing research, but the research did continue. There was funding at the State level, and there was private funding. Bush's so-called ban was a symbolic gesture, nothing more. Certainly it didn't stifle the research, as so many would have us believe. In order to take that argument seriously would be to believe that nothing worthwhile is ever developed without Government funding, and that's just silly.

The second big lie is the idea that only Embryonic Stem Cell Research holds any promise for health care application. The lies don't come much bigger than this one. The fact is that Embryonic Stem Cells have shown little or no promise in practical application, while adult Stem Cells and what are known as Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells have shown tremendous promise for many different applications. In fact, there are some treatments available today that are making use of Adult Stem Cells in repairing debilitating injuries and restoring quality of life to real people in real situations, the same cannot be said for Embryonic Stem Cells, and that is not because there were no Federal dollars funding the research, as I said, the research has been going on, but they face some pretty significant problems, the least of which is the few bucks they may or may not get from Uncle Sam.

The problem, as usual, is that the media can't be bothered with the facts, not when there is a political agenda to be won. They report on this story as though, now that the great President Obama has reversed the backwards decision of that moron that came before him, we'll have cured Cancer inside of a few weeks. It's ridiculous, but that's how they tend to report on things like this.

Another problem with the reporting is that they like to make believe that this is all about religious wackos trying to get in the way of science, but the fact is that there are genuine ethical concerns here that do not have a religious basis. Ethical concerns are always trying to find a balance with scientific research and discovery. They don't test nuclear bombs in Central Park, do they? Of course not, but that's not a practical scientific concern, it's an ethical one. We don't do medical experiments on humans (Fetuses and Embryo's not withstanding) and that also is an ethical, rather than a scientific concern.

You see, you could extract some Adult Stem Cells from me right now, and aside from some minor discomfort, I would be none the worse for wear. You can collect Umbilical Cord blood from newborns, with no ill effect on either the child or the mother (that is another promising source). But to collect Embryonic Stem Cells requires the destruction of the Embryo. But of course, the argument goes, that Embryo's are not people, sure, under the right conditions they could become people, but they're really not people. I would ask, how do you know? This is starting to sound a lot like the Abortion debate isn't it? Well, it should, it's related. The argument from the other side goes that, we don't know when they really become a person, so it's ok to use them as we see fit. This is a stunningly ignorant argument. If you see a burlap sack laying in the middle of the street, and you don't know if it's just a bag of old leaves, or if it's a bag of kittens, does not knowing make it ok to run over that bag, which might be full of kittens? Or would it be correct and ethical to be careful and protect the bag until you were able to look inside and see if it contains live kittens or not? To me the choice is clear.

If you must destroy something that may or may not be human life, is that not enough of an ethical dilemma to tell you that you should hold off on that? Even if it did hold great promise for curing all kinds of diseases and such, which, as I explained before, it does not.

This doesn't even cover all of the lies that are being propagated regarding this issue, but hopefully I've given you something to think about, and hopefully we can get past the lies, and learn the truth.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Sticky Fingers

Millions of people have bought into pre-paid state college funds in order to lock in today's price for college, even if it's 18 years or so until their child will, hopefully, be attending college. I had looked at these at one point, as there are some sure benefits to them, but the thing that held me back was very simple, I would have to entrust that money to a Government overseen account, and trust politicians to keep their grubby hands off of it. For very good reasons, this was not something I felt I could do.

Now, with 8.8 Billion Dollars in the pre-paid college trust fund here in Florida, and a budget shortfall looming, the State Legislature is drooling over that money. These politicians seem unfazed by the fact that this isn't their money to mess around with. It is there for one purpose, and one purpose only, to pay for college for the kids whose parents have put the money into this system. Oh sure, they say they will pay it back, but how will they do that? Where will the money come from the pay it back? If they are such terrible money managers that they can't balance the State Budget now, how the heck are they going to balance the budget and pay this money back down the road? Of course they can't. They will either have to raise taxes at that point, or turn this into another Government run Ponzi scheme where there is only the illusion of security in the system.

What the Florida Legislature is considering here amounts to theft. Think about it. If I sneak into my neighbors house and take a thousand dollars from under his mattress (I'm not claiming my neighbor keeps money under his mattress, I have no idea) no matter how much I swear I'll pay it back in time for him to use it, I would be a thief. What we are talking about is really that simple. Because the State Government, like most Governments, is out of control and can't effectively manage what they have, they intend to steal from others, with the empty promise that they will stand good for it. Well, dummy, if you can stand good for it down the road, how come you can't pay your bills now?

The answer is simple of course, if you don't have the money for something, do without it, don't steal from people so that you can have whatever you want, just learn to live on less than you make.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

I'm Pro-Choice

I'm Pro-Choice


Gregory Koukl

The "coat hanger" argument is one of the most emotionally compelling appeals of pro-abortionists, yet the whole line of reasoning collapses because of the single element deified by pro-choicers: choice.

divider

"We're Afraid For Our Daughters," the headline read. The ad was hard to miss, filling an entire page of my local paper. "Could it really happen?" it continued. "Could our daughters be forced into back alleys and illegal abortions? We need your help. For our daughters, our wives, and our friends, please help keep abortion safe."

Listed in a line down the center of the page were the flowing, hand-written signatures of Cher, Ted Danson, John Denver, Betty Ford, and Cybill Shepherd.

It was a touching appeal. One could almost see Ted Danson's little girl being dragged by her ponytail kicking and screaming into a dark alley, or Cybill Shepherd's daughter gagged and strapped to a table while an unshaven dirt bag in coveralls readies a piece of bent wire.

Surely these children didn't choose this evil fate. It was forced upon them by short-sighted and callused moralists who took away the only option available to them, abortion on demand.

This "coat hanger" argument is one of the most emotionally compelling appeals of the abortionists. It's also among the most specious. It has little real substance and is dangerously misleading.

If we're merely talking about personal, elective surgery this objection is compelling. Why burden a woman with the additional risk of a dangerous, septic environment to have her operation?

When the life of a human child is involved, though, the picture changes dramatically. Should the law be faulted for making it riskier for anyone to kill another innocent human being? The fact that bank robbery is dangerous to the felon isn't a good reason to make grand larceny legal.

Ironically, the whole line of reasoning completely collapses when you consider the one element deified by pro-choicers: choice.

A woman has the right to choose to do whatever she wants with her own body, the argument goes. It's her business and nobody else's; it's her choice. If that's true, then she must take responsibility for those choices, even when they are self-destructive.

Yes, in the past some women chose dangerous, illegal abortions. People choose to do many foolish things when there are other reasonable alternatives available. That's just the point: People choose.

Sometimes they make bad choices, but the choice is still their own. There's no coercion. A woman is no more forced into the back alley when abortion is outlawed than a young man is forced to rob banks because the state won't put him on welfare. Both have other options.

I'd like to believe Betty Ford has raised her children with respect for the laws of the country her husband served. I'd like to think John Denver taught his kids enough down-home, common sense that they won't take the foolish route of a back-alley abortion. I hope Cher instills in her daughter the idea that when liberated adult women make their own decisions, they also must accept the consequences of their actions.

I believe in privacy, but privacy has its limits. I believe in choice, but choice has limits, too. Our right to privacy and our right to choose ends where harm to another individual begins. That's true with every law. Every piece of legislation violates privacy and restricts choice to some degree.

In a sense, I'm pro-choice for the woman. She can choose not to conceive. If she gets pregnant against her choice, she can choose to carry the child to term and then keep her baby. Or she can choose to give the child up for adoption so he will be loved and cared for. But she can't choose the quick way out of a difficult problem by taking the life of that little baby.

I'm pro-choice for the child, too. Cher, Ted, John, Betty, and Cybill, I'm not concerned for your daughters. They have a choice to make and if you trained your children well they'll make a sensible one. I'm concerned for your granddaughters. And your grandsons. They have no choice. And they're dying.

This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©2003 Gregory Koukl

For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Response from Representative Bill Posey

March 9, 2009

Mr. Matthew Wiser
834 Bianca Drive Northeast
Palm Bay, FL 32905-5802

Dear Mr. Wiser,

Knowing of our shared commitment to fiscal responsibility in Washington, I wanted to update you on recent legislation that was approved by the House and is likely to be signed into law soon by the President.

This week, the House leadership brought to the floor for a vote, an Omnibus Appropriations legislation totaling $410 billion in additional spending. I voted against the bill and would like to share with you my comments from the Congressional Record regarding this bill.

The Omnibus Appropriations bill before us today provides an 8% increase for dozens of federal agencies and departments. These tens of billions of dollars in additional spending are in addition to hundreds of billions of dollars just signed into law by the President last week as a part of the "stimulus" bill. Taken together, this amounts to nearly an 80% increase in funding for many of the agencies funded in the Omnibus Appropriations bill. Put another way, spending for these agencies will increase from $378 billion in 2008 to nearly $680 billion in 2009. And all of this increase is "paid for" with borrowed money that our children and grandchildren will have to repay.

Simply put, the American worker isn't getting an 8% pay increase each year, much less an 80% pay increase, and they cannot afford to pay for such expansive government spending.

Are there good provisions in this bill? Yes. Are the objectionable provisions in this bill? Yes. Sadly, no Member of Congress was permitted to offer an amendment to this bill, much less a sufficient amount of time to actually read the bill. The House leadership, which sets the rules of debate, has prohibited any Member of Congress from offering a single amendment. No member of Congress is permitted to rise and ask that even one of the more than 8,000 earmarks in this bill be stricken from the bill.

In just the past four weeks, this Congress has approved over one and one-half trillion dollars in new spending – most of it borrowed money. Sadly, not a single amendment has been permitted to be offered. The Congress is broken and the American people deserve better. We will never get this nation back on track if this Congress continues to consider and approve legislation written by only a handful of leaders in the majority. All Members should have a right to be involved in drafting legislation. It is long past due that the legislative process be allowed to work and that all Members of this Congress be afforded the opportunity to truly represent their constituents. True bipartisanship means allowing input from both sides, not simply take or leave it dictates.

Please be assured, I will not waiver in my commitment to fiscal discipline. For more information on my work in Congress or to sign up to receive my E-newsletter, please visit my website, http://www.posey.house.gov/. If I may be of service to you in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me.


Sincerely,

Bill Posey
Member of Congress

Monday, March 9, 2009

Bumper Sticker Slogans

Bumper Sticker Slogans


Gregory Koukl

divider

The bumper sticker says, "If You Can't Trust Me With A Choice, How Can You Trust Me with a Child?"

There are some choices no one should be "trusted" with in the sense that the decision is up to them. One of them is the choice to kill innocent human beings. Further, no one is "trusting" the mother with a child. She doesn't need permission to get pregnant. Because of the nature of motherhood, this is properly out of the state's control. If it were in the control of the state, many would be denied that trust.

Divider

©1999 Gregory Koukl. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only.
For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org

Saturday, March 7, 2009

I Hope He Fails Too

I know that I've addressed this once before, but there sure do seem to be a lot of people out there who just aren't getting it, so I'm going to take another crack at it.

Rush Limbaugh has taken a lot of heat for saying that the hopes that President Obama fails, and has tried to explain what he means by that. Of course, his problems is that most people don't care what he means. They are the drones who just want to go along with Obama and support everything he does, no matter how destructive to our nation.

Of course, Rush has one other problem. I don't think that he, or most of his defenders, have done a particularly good job of explaining what he meant.

Barack Obama is an admitted Marxist, oh, not is so many words, but again, as I've said before, if you understand Marx, and you listen to what Obama is saying, and what he is pushing, you will see that it can hardly be described by other names. Many would say Socialism, and I've used that word before, because it is accurate, but Marxism is a particular brand of Socialism, so it's a less broad definition.

It is a fact that Socialism has been tried many times over, in many different forms, including Marxism specifically, the world over, and it has never worked. It is a flawed and failed system, and Obama and his administration are trying to put it in place here in the United States. Being that we know that this will be a colossal failure and do horrific damage to our nation, we hope that he fails in that plan.

For President Obama, success means instituting socialism in the the United States of America. Therefore, yes, I hope he fails!

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Desiring God Blog

Desiring God Blog


Over My Dead Body, Son

Posted: 05 Mar 2009 06:30 AM PST

(Author: John Piper)

Come on, dads, have some courage. Just say, "Over my dead body are you going to wrestle a girl." Of course, they will call you prudish. But everything in you knows better.

Yes, I am talking to the boys' fathers. If the girls' fathers don't care how boys manhandle their daughters, you will have to take the lead. Give your sons a bigger nobler vision of what it is to be a man. Men don't fight against women. They fight for women.

First female wrestler in MN state championshipThey called it history-making here in Minneapolis. Yesterday, Elissa Reinsma became the first female to compete in the state high school wrestling tournament. It was not a step forward. Some cultures spend a thousand years unlearning the brutality of men toward women. This is an odd way to make history. Relive prehistory maybe.

One cheerleader said, "I'm sure it's weird for other people, especially if they've never experienced having to wrestle a girl." That's hopeful. Because it is "weird." Most people feel it. But who has the courage to trace this sense of weirdness back to the profound principles of mature manhood and womanhood?

It's just too uncool. The worst curse that can fall on us is to be seen as one of those nutcases who hasn't entered the modern world. This is not about courageous commitment to equality; it's about wimpy fear of criticism for doing what our hearts know is right.

Wrestling obliges you to grab, squeeze, and pull with all your might. If a boy tries not to touch or grasp a wrestler around the chest, or not to let his legs entwine with the other wrestler, or not to slam his full body length on hers, he will wrestle with a handicap. Of course, he is being taught that handicap is not a virtue.

Get real, dads. You know exactly what almost every healthy boy is thinking. If a jock from Northern Minnesota encircles her around the breasts and twists his leg around her thighs, trust me, he will dream about that tonight. Only in his dream she won't have clothes on. And if he doesn't dream it, half the boys in the crowd will. Wake up dads. You know this.

Manly gentleness is not an epidemic in our culture. Rap videos, brutal movies, fatherless homes, and military madness have already made thousands of women the victim of man's abuse. Now we would make the high school version of feministic nature-denial a partner in this undermining of masculine gentleness.

When the apostle of Jesus tells us to live with our wives "in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel" (1Peter 3:7), he dumps a truckload of wisdom that fathers should build into their sons.

There is a way to honor a woman. That's our job as men. This honor "understands" something. It understands that women are the "weaker vessel." This has nothing to do with less personal worth and in many cases not even with physical stamina. It has to do with pervasive realities that shape the way healthy societies work.

It means that we should raise sons to think of themselves as protectors. Tell them they should lay their lives down to protect girls. Help them know that God designed them to grow up to be a picture of Jesus in their marriage. Nurture the instinct of a boy to fight for girls not against them.

I just watched a wrestling instructional video on line, illustrating some basic moves for the takedown and pin. These two guys are pressing and pulling on each other with unfettered and total contact. And it isn't soft. It's what we do not allow our sons to do to girls.

Okay, dads, here's what you tell your son. You say, "There will be no belittling comments about her being 'a girl.' There will be no sexual slurs. If you get matched with her, you simply say to the judges, 'Sir, I won't wrestle a girl. My parents have taught me not to touch a girl that way. I think it would dishonor her. I hope you will match me with a guy. If not, I am willing to be disqualified. It's that important.'"

Be a leader, dad. Your sons need you. The peer pressure is huge. They need manly restraints. They know this is wrong. But then they look around, and the groundswell of conformity seems irresistible. It will take a real man, a real father, to say to his son. "Not on my watch, son. We don't fight women. I have not raised you that way."

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Abortion and Homicide

Abortion and Homicide


Gregory Koukl

divider

Some observers denounce the use of the word "murder" to describe the destruction of a fetus. Yet this "rhetoric" is completely consistent with California law.

Under the category "Crimes against the Person," or a fetus, with malice aforethought." [emphasis mine] After the definition, we find among the exceptions: "This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act which results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply: The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act....The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus."

The only difference between legal abortion and punishable homicide in the state of California is the consent of the mother. How does the mere consent of the mother change the innate value of the unborn human inside her?

However one answers this question, the fact is that abortion is legal in California. But this can't hide a second fact: Apart from the stipulated exceptions, killing the unborn is still homicide. It's murder. Those who do so are prosecuted.

On the fundamental issue, then--the innate value of unborn human beings--pro-lifers are not extreme, but in concert with the law's general assessment of the sanctity of the life of the unborn. Pro-lifers are not inconsistent; the law is.

Divider

©1999 Gregory Koukl. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only.
For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org

Monday, March 2, 2009

Partisan Bickering

Politicians like to use Buzz Words. These are words that either sound good, or sound bad, depending on what emotion they wish to instill in the people, but often how they sound has little or nothing to do with the actual meaning of the words, or with the real world situation that the politicians are talking about.

Lately, one of the big buzz phrases is "partisan bickering." This is something that we hear about all the time on the news, and it's given with the implication that the only reason someone is standing up and arguing against the direction that someone wants to go is because they are in the opposing party, and it's all dismissed as partisan bickering.

The problem is that what they are dismissing is not someone just being obstructionist because of their party affiliation or political ideology, but they are dismissing disagreement. Dissent, which is critical to the functioning of a free society, is being ignored and dismissed, not because the disagreement is not valid, but rather because those in power, and their lapdogs in the media, are afraid that if there is an honest public debate, their side will lose ground. They want to implement all of their ideology without anyone getting in their way, for any reason whatsoever, and so they decry "partisan bickering" every time someone holds an opposing view.

As I said though, debate and disagreement are critical to the functioning of a free society. People will have differing ideas, and they need to be able to stand up and say so, but when they do, in this day and age, they find themselves dismissed as being partisan.

Did you know that the Soviet Union had no Partisan Bickering? Did you know that Nazi Germany had not Partisan Bickering? Communist China has no Partisan Bickering. Burma has no Partisan Bickering. Nor does Cuba or Venezuela. Are we seeing a point here? For anyone too dense to get it, all of these are, or were when they existed, totalitarian regimes where disagreement would get you killed, or still will in some of them. Is this where we are headed? Impossible? It didn't' happen overnight in those countries either. Venezuela is a good example of a place where they aren't all the way down that road yet, but are getting there at an alarming pace.

On top of this we have some Democrats, like the senior Senator from New York, declaring that a totally partisan bill, like the so called stimulus package, is be-partisan, and how dare anyone not go along when he has declared that the Republicans have been met halfway, regardless of the actual truth of the matter.

Disagreement is good, and when it is gone, freedom of speech is not far behind.