The top political stories:
Democrat Governors of five U.S. states beg the federal government to provide $1 trillion in aid to the country's 50 states to help pay for education, welfare and infrastructure as states struggle with steep budget deficits amid a deepening recession.
Another example of liberal Democrats wanting to soak American taxpayers for government spending the politicians allowed to get out of control. Democrats also want to double federal taxes on gasoline at the pump.
"It's clear that the federal government needs to step in and jump-start the economy," said Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts. (Patrick is the politician whose speeches Obama stole for his campaign)
The governors said during a conference call with reporters that the plan had been discussed with Congressional leaders and the incoming administration, which had indicated its willingness to help.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5014F120090102
Republicans plan to confront the theft of the Minnesota Senate seat by failed comic Al Franken.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) threatened Friday to filibuster any attempt to seat Democratic Minnesota Senate candidate Al Franken next week.
The new National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) chairman said he had not whipped votes in the GOP caucus, but added that he could not imagine any members defecting and seating Franken without a certificate of election.
“This is a very, very serious matter,” Cornyn said. “I can assure you that there will be no way that people on our side of the aisle will agree to seat any senator without a valid certificate.”
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/cornyn-promises-filibuster-on-franken-seating-2009-01-02.html
"I checked the Official U.S. Electoral College website today to get an idea of the votes that have come in to date -- Obama is far short of the necessary amount for election.
The deadline for submitting the votes was last week.
Does the unresolved matter of Obama’s missing birth certificate play into this – or are we seeing only procrastination?
What happens next?
Above is from Devvy Kidd’s article: Ignoring The Solutions Won't Fix The Problems
Opinion:
Issues for the GOP as we look ahead:
It could be a rocky ride for Democrats in the months ahead.
These rough roads could provide a highway down which Republicans and normal America can escape liberal extremism and regain their country.
To begin with, Democrats are faced with the embarrassment of their Illinois governor. “Blago” as he has come to be known – has dared to rip the patina of decency and legitimacy off the face of the very political machine that created Barack Obama – the Chicago Democrat Machine – the most corrupt political organization in the country.
Blago is no push over. He has given middle finger salutes to those trying to get him out of office, and pulled a major coup by naming a former Attorney General to the Senate seat being vacated by Obama. Did I mention the appointee is Black? Afro American Black – and in typical fashion, other Black Democrats are rushing to his support.
It’s going to be a rough opening of the new Senate for Harry Reid – the Democrat leader not known for savvy or intellectual brilliance. Reid says the appointee will be blocked. Anyone remember that other Democrat, George Wallace? Perhaps Reid will follow the lead of yet another Democrat governor, Lester Maddox and chase Blago’s Black appointee from the Senate with an ax handle.
I seem to have overlooked the financial crisis – but we tend to shunt aside unpleasant stories – especially since there seems little chance of a cogent response. Expect Congressional hearings, finger pointing, and most of all, a mess. Democrats have not distinguished themselves in this matter – and are burdened with having the infamous Barney Frank leading their House campaign….Barney, meanwhile, wants to slash our ability to defend this country against Islamic terror by a full 25%. He is also famous for having assured the world only a few months back that Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac were rock solid – of course Barney had a conflict of interest since his lover is an official in this cabal and benefited by the bail out.
The GOP can make hay of other issues. Now that they are shorn of John McCain who sponsored amnesty legislation, Republicans are again free to take on the crisis of illegal limmigration – stemming the massive invasion of this country by criminals sneaking across our borders. I DID say “criminals” – every illegal alien chooses to make himself a criminal the moment his or her foot touches US soil.
There is massive – and as yet untapped – emotional sentiment opposing illegal immigration and its products. Amnesty is not an acceptable answer. Those who knowingly hire illegals must be prosecuted. Reflecting on the success the Eisenhower administration had in dealing with the problem – announcing a crackdown on and prosecution of such people (and demonstrating real determination) will result in generating a flood returning across the Southerm border, and headed in the opposite direction. In Ike’s days, these aliens were known derisively as “wetbacks” – terms have changed but the crisis is the same. Perhaps the old answer will work again.
Did I mention Obama, as is the case with all Democrats, supports the illegals, wants to give them driver’s licenses, and will likely underwrite efforts to give them more handouts than some Americans receive from their government. The Americans pay taxes. Illegal aliens do not, of course.
But a really major issue – something of a sleeper – is the growing fanaticism of atheists, led by the anti American ACLU radicals, to impose atheism as a national religion. Of course such a conspiracy violates the First Amendment of the Constitution. But why bother with the Constitution when liberals choose to ignore if. Their president, Barack Obama (and his campaign) have all but declared a guilty plea regarding where he was actually born.
The preponderance of the evidence – especially Obama’s reaction to this issue – clearly shows he is not eligible and was almost certainly born elsewhere.
Not that this matters, the fix is in and even testimony from a midwife who presided over Obama/s birth in Kenya or Vancouver, or wherever it may have occurred, would make a bit of difference.
First Amendment? It means nothing to liberal Democrats and their atheist allies. Constitutional requirements for running for president? Surely you jest. Such considerations are as dated and obsolete as LPs or 45 RPM records. (some of you are too young to have any clue about such a reference)
The liberal war on religion – indeed on God himself – is a critical issue. It speaks to the nation’s basic decency – the existence of a moral compass for our population. Not all Christians are moral people, of course. But most are…and at least they give lip service to a moral conviction.
Atheists have no such moral compass. In their world, there exist no moral codes or guidance. “Free play” gone amok. :”If it feels good, do it”.
Hmmm such behavior sort of reminds us of Blago’s actions, Capitol Hill’s fumbling of the financial crisis, and all the rest. Can the GOP capture and exploit this issue? First it must find real leadership.
We’ll see.
Buddy
The days’ top Blogs:
1.
My challenge to Christopher Hitchens
A response to those who conspire to impose atheism as a national religion
By Donald Hank, redeemed agnostic
The article “How atheism is being sold to America” by David Kupelian, author of the best seller The Marketing of Evil, discusses how atheism is being sold by well-known atheists like Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, to name a few authors whose books have been hot items lately.
2.
Harry Reid v. the Constitution
An Illinois court will eventually decide if Governor Rod Blagojevich is guilty of corruption. But on at least one issue he is more law-abiding than Majority Leader Harry Reid and fellow Democrats: the seating of Roland Burris to replace Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate.
Mr. Blagojevich appointed Mr. Burris to represent Illinois on Tuesday, ahead of the official start of the 111th Congress next week. This was certainly an act of brash defiance given that nearly everyone had warned the Governor not to do so after he was heard on tape contemplating the sale of the seat for personal gain. But under Illinois law, Mr. Blagojevich had every legal right to do so.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123094461932550595.html
3.
Obama’s next quandary – which Church he will grace with his presence. Will it resemble his home church for 20 years?
It has not yet been announced where the Barack Obamas will be worshiping after they move into the White House.
Episcopal bishop of Washington the Rt. Rev. John Chane's Washington Cathedral has recently had such shortages in financial support that in the past two years there have been major layoffs of Cathedral staffers.
Bishop Chane is almost certainly aware of the fact that President-elect Obama's 58-member Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transsexual Leadership Council includes New Hampshire's self-announced homosexual prelate, the Rt. Rev. Vickie Gene Robinson.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=84326
1.
My challenge to Christopher Hitchens
A response to those who conspire to impose atheism as a national religion
Donald Hank, redeemed agnostic
The article “How atheism is being sold to America” by David Kupelian, author of the best seller The Marketing of Evil, discusses how atheism is being sold by well-known atheists like Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, to name a few authors whose books have been hot items lately.
A quote form the article:
…. Hitchens boasts in Vanity Fair that on his nationwide book tour he says to his audiences: "My challenge: Name an ethical statement or action, made or performed by a person of faith, that could not have been made or performed by a nonbeliever. I have since asked this question at every stop and haven't had a reply yet."
Not surprisingly, considering what the Bible says about atheists, Hitchens got it backwards by suggesting that ethical actions by non-believers might somehow disprove the existence of God. And he chose to use the word “ethical” rather than “good,” indicating he does not believe in good or evil. Actually, an atheist cannot believe in good vs evil because those are religious concepts, so if that is the case, he is at least being honest.
So first, let me remind you, Mr. Hitchens, that religion is not about ethics. It is about good and evil, and since you can’t define that and could not believe in the concept, you are disqualified to challenge anyone to “name an ethical statement or action, made or performed by a person of faith, that could not have been made or performed by a nonbeliever,” because you don’t define “ethical” the way we do. It is apples and oranges and is irrelevant.
Let’s look at “ethics” as interpreted by your kind: Peter Sanger, a professor of “bioethics” at Princeton, says it is ethical to kill infants after they are born if they have birth defects.
Obviously, ethics in the eyes of atheists has nothing to do with standard traditional ethics or morality and it is misleading for someone like you to use it in a comparison with religious people because it suggests we would accept such nebulous usage, which of course we would not. You are using words randomly, without definition, and even if you defined them, other “ethicists” would certainly eventually challenge your definition in favor of their own. But if you are asking your audience to look at the world through an atheist’s eyes, then anything can be defined as ethical, so your challenge is meaningless, like your terms.
The real challenge is defining ethics in such a way that the definition sticks and can’t be manipulated at the hands of evil people. You would no doubt say “define evil,” whereupon I would say “define ethics. You used the word without definition.”
When you don’t believe in God, then all is in flux, eternally, and nothing could ever have a stable definition. Your definition of an ethical action today may not be the same as your definition tomorrow.
My challenge to Mr. Hitchens: First, define ethical, and then show how the fact that non-religious people can perform “ethical” actions, is evidence that there is no God.
The fact that non-religious people also do good is in fact hard evidence of what Paul wrote about the heathen following God's laws spontaneously and taking their cue from the very universe to see and understand Him (Romans 1:18-20). You can ban the Bible but you can't ban the universe, and it will proclaim Him.
The fact that non-believers are less altruistic (e.g., give less to charities) is hard evidence that religion is a better source of goodness than atheism.
Thus people who advocate atheism are undermining the greatest source of good known to man. Hitler's strongest opponents were leaders of the Confessional Church and also a few courageous Catholics, some of whom were martyred for their stand.
Now, how does undermining the greatest source of good (or ethics) make people good (or ethical if you insist)?
Now it is clear that you refuse to use the word “good” and no doubt think that word is for the uneducated or superstitious.
If so, then in using the word “ethical” you are attempting to postulate an ethical society parallel to the good or godly society conceived of by ordinary people. But in that case, despite your great sophistry and excessive wordiness, you are in fact only imitating what godly people have already discovered 4,000 years ago.
Which leads to the question: If we religious folk are so inferior to you, why do you so slavishly imitate our concepts, going to great pains to rename them? I therefore further challenge you to construct a philosophical system that does not use parallel terms like "ethical," in imitation of our term "good." Go find your own way. Cut the umbilical cord once and for all. Your writings indicate we are irrelevant in your eyes. Prove you believe that. End this slavish obsession with the religious people whose vocabulary you despise.
I admit it troubles me greatly that the people you may influence to adopt your nihilist views may, like you, adopt a fluid definition of “ethics” (fashionably turning up their noses at the word “good”) and wind up believing that foolish men can reinvent goodness and godliness simply by renaming them and replacing them with what we have always deemed as evil. Honestly, don't you ever find yourself as tedious as others do?
But I tremble when I realize that some of your forebears and sharers in your worldview are: Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, to name but a few, whose salient contribution to mankind so far has been over 100 million innocent lives sacrificed at the altar of sophisticated atheistic constructs remarkably like yours. I tremble at the thought that perhaps you attribute to them a kind of "ethical" conduct of your own invention. After all, nothing stands in the way of doing so should you so choose.
Mr. Hitchens, here is my most important challenge for you: distinguish yourself, if you can, from these your fellow atheists. You trumpet the fact that no one ever rose to your childish challenge, which was hardly a challenge because it was predicated on the laughable assumption that completely undefined “ethical actions” performed by non-believers are somehow proof that God is irrelevant, and that the “ethics” of an atheist could be morally equivalent to the goodness of a godly person. Now, accept my challenge, which trumps yours. Show me that your definition of “ethics,” is any different from that of the above cited bloody butchers. I daresay you cannot and I predict that you will pass on trying to respond.
Finally, Mr. Hitchens, in the name of all that is good and holy, I challenge you to wake up and abandon this senseless pursuit of evil!
2.
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Harry Reid v. the Constitution
An Illinois court will eventually decide if Governor Rod Blagojevich is guilty of corruption. But on at least one issue he is more law-abiding than Majority Leader Harry Reid and fellow Democrats: the seating of Roland Burris to replace Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate.
Mr. Blagojevich appointed Mr. Burris to represent Illinois on Tuesday, ahead of the official start of the 111th Congress next week. This was certainly an act of brash defiance given that nearly everyone had warned the Governor not to do so after he was heard on tape contemplating the sale of the seat for personal gain. But under Illinois law, Mr. Blagojevich had every legal right to do so.
As the Governor said in his announcement, the Illinois public also deserves its full measure of representation in Washington. Mr. Burris is a former state attorney general who is untainted by the charges against Mr. Blagojevich. After the Blagojevich tapes were made public, Democrats who run the state legislature said they'd pass a law to require a special election for the Senate. But their passion for that option ebbed when it became clear that a Republican could win, especially amid this Democratic fiasco. When the legislature failed to act, Mr. Blagojevich saw his opening to name Mr. Burris.
Meanwhile, Mr. Reid and Washington Democrats are refusing to seat Mr. Burris, never mind their lack of authority to do so. As an initial matter, they're hiding behind the Illinois secretary of state, who is refusing to certify the appointment. But Mr. Burris has asked a court to order the secretary of state to carry out what under state law would typically be a nondiscretionary duty.
In any event, Beltway Democrats can't inject themselves into what is clearly a matter of Illinois law
The legal precedent here is the Supreme Court's 7-1 decision in Powell v. McCormack in 1969. Congressman Adam Clayton Powell had been accused of corruption but was nonetheless re-elected in 1966. House Democrats declined to seat him, Powell sued, and the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted unconstitutionally in denying him his seat. Congress could have expelled Powell with a two-thirds vote, as stipulated in the Constitution, but it couldn't deny him the seat in the first instance.
While the Constitution says the Senate can determine its own membership, the Court in Powell interpreted Article I, Section 5 to say that "in judging the qualifications of its members, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution." Nowhere in the Constitution is there a "qualification" saying that a Senator must not have been appointed by an embarrassing Illinois Governor.
Mr. Reid is also attempting the dodge of referring the matter to the Senate Rules Committee, which is run by Democrats, but the Powell precedent ought to be clear even to political lawyers.
If Mr. Reid wants to banish Mr. Burris, he must first seat him and then persuade two-thirds of the Senate to expel him. Needless to say, the last thing Mr. Reid wants to do is create turmoil in his party by expelling an African-American Democrat whose only offense has been to accept an appointment to serve.
But if Mr. Reid does go that route, we'd suggest worthier expulsion possibilities, such as Connecticut's Chris Dodd, who received sweetheart mortgages from Countrywide Financial while sitting on the Banking Committee.
Republicans want Illinois to hold a special election for the vacant seat, and we recommended that ourselves (as did Mr. Obama) when the Blagojevich tapes first became public. But now that Mr. Burris has been appointed, Mr. Reid can't legally deny him his seat. If this is the way Democrats are going to use their new monopoly on Beltway power even against a member of their own party, we're in for an ugly couple of years.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123094461932550595.html
3.
Is this Obama's next anti-biblical church?
© 2008
It has not yet been announced where the Barack Obamas will be worshiping after they move into the White House.
Episcopal bishop of Washington the Rt. Rev. John Chane's Washington Cathedral has recently had such shortages in financial support that in the past two years there have been major layoffs of Cathedral staffers.
Bishop Chane is almost certainly aware of the fact that President-elect Obama's 58-member Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transsexual Leadership Council includes New Hampshire's self-announced homosexual prelate, the Rt. Rev. Vickie Gene Robinson.
This may explain why – in a rather astounding attempt to draw President Obama to regular worship in the financially troubled National Cathedral – Bishop Crane has decided to denounce publicly the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams.
London's Daily Telegraph reported that Bishop Chane denounced the archbishop for "encouraging conservatives who are determined to destroy the Anglican Church – by listening to their demands for a breakaway province."
"Dr. Williams last week met with the primates of Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya and Rwanda, who boycotted this summer's Lambeth Conference and instead held their own conference, called Gatcon, which proposed the creation of a rival global network of traditionalists.
"They have supported moves to set up a new church in America opposed to gay clergy and led by the deposed bishop of Pittsburgh, Bob Duncan.
"It would be folly for the archbishop to even consider recognizing a non-geographical province because it would unleash chaos in the Communion, with theological minorities in every jurisdiction seeking to affiliate with likeminded Anglicans in other provinces." said Bishop Chane.
"Unfortunately, the archbishop has contributed to the confusion and anxiety the leaders of the proposed province have sought to foster by meeting on numerous occasions with (Bob) Duncan and his allies.
"These meetings have bestowed an unwarranted sense of legitimacy on those who seek to deconstruct the Anglican Communion."
The Episcopal magazine The Living Church reported:
Bishop Chane also criticized the New York Times and other media organizations for the prominence with which it reported last week's launch of the new province. "The movers of the proposed new province embarrass themselves, the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion by the self-serving media coverage they have worked so hard to achieve," he said. "To learn that the New York Times considers the complaints of these deposed, retired and irregularly consecrated bishops to be front page news suggests a fixation on 'culture wars' reporting that deprives readers of a true sense of the challenges facing the church in this country."
Will President-elect Obama opt to make Bishop Chane's Washington Cathedral his family's place of regular worship?
Or does he realize that by doing so he would not only seriously offend millions of Anglicans, in Africa, particularly, as well as in the United States, who are appalled by Bishop Chane's anti-biblical defense of sodomy, this nation's leading spreader of AIDS and syphilis?
And, how long would it take controversialist Bishop Chane to find something with which he so disagreed with the new president-in-the-pews that he roasts Barack Obama from the Cathedral's pulpit?
Surely President-elect Obama has learned the great mistake of his 20 years as a parishioner of the Rev. Jeremiah ("God damn America!") Wright.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=84326
Comments