15 Beliefs of the Modern Republican Party

As Republicans work strategically to take the White House in 2016, it will be important for the party to articulate their vision for leading America into the future.  But indeed, the GOP already has a well-defined ideological platform, with clear stances on both domestic and foreign affairs.  In fact, many political strategists believe that the Republican’s platform is currently much more defined than that of the Democrats, and this could give the GOP an advantage in 2016.  With this in mind, let’s take a look at the Republican Party’s core beliefs.

1. Economy: Supporting Small Businesses

Currently, small businesses are an integral part of the U.S. economy, as these businesses are responsible for employing millions of hardworking American laborers. But domestic entrepreneurial start-ups are occurring at levels lower than they have been in 30 years, and no doubt this is a result of the Obama administration’s heavy regulation and taxation of small businesses. In contrast, the GOP is firmly committed to decreasing regulation and taxation of small businesses in order that they may prosper more fully.

2. Economy: The Budget Must Be Balanced

Going forward, the Republican party believes that the American government needs a reformative overhaul with regard to how it handles budget affairs. The GOP sees Medicare as extremely financially unfeasible over the long run, and so they desire to enact structural reforms in order to make the program more sustainable. Furthermore, to the GOP, spending cuts across the board must be combined with further research into technologies that make the day-to-day operations of the government more efficient and more affordable.

3. Economy: Supporting American Businesses in the Global Marketplace

As American corporations presently experience the highest corporate tax rate in the entire globe, this reality greatly hinders the prosperity of American companies competing throughout the world’s economy. Republicans are committed to lessening the excessively high tax rate that is currently being levied upon American companies in order to ensure they have more flexibility in their endeavors. Through the GOP’s plan to lower the corporate tax rate, companies will be able to create thousands of jobs, increase wages, and fund further investments.

4. Energy: Comprehensive Energy Policy

As America presses forward into the 21st century, the Republican party firmly believes in a comprehensive “all-of-the-above” energy policy. With such a wide variety of excellent energy resources to choose from, the GOP believes it would  be irresponsible for the country to not invest in both traditional and alternative energy resources. The GOP recognizes that in order to further actualize the dominance of America’s energy sector and to create thousands of new jobs, the country must invest in any and all energy resources available.

5. Energy: Pursue Coal Research

The GOP readily recognizes that coal is extremely abundant on earth and is extremely affordable to convert into energy. For this reason, the Republican party considers that it is of the utmost importance that America further invests in coal production, as well as in technologies that make coal energy cleaner and more efficient. To turn away from such a vital resource now, as the Democrats would have it, would be a true mistake for the country’s energy sector. Thus, Republicans plan to rally around coal for years to come.

6. Environment: Remove Excessive EPA Regulations

Over the past several decades, the Environmental Protection Agency has exponentially increased the amount of regulations that it imposes upon American businesses, which has cost American companies billions of dollars. The GOP is dead-set determined to remove excessive EPA regulations in order to help American businesses, and the party is also strongly dedicated to ensuring that the EPA acts with more transparency and has adequate levels of congressional oversight.

7. Reform: Restructure Medicare and Medicaid

As millions of Americans currently depend on Medicare and Medicaid for their health needs, the Republicans recognize that is of the utmost of importance to ensure that these critical programs are restructured with sustainability in mind so that they may continue to serve Americans for generations to come. Currently, these programs are structured in a way that is absolutely unsustainable, as Medicare has nearly $40 trillion in unfunded responsibilities. The GOP is committed to getting Medicare and Medicaid back on the right track.

8. Reform: Modernize the Federal Civil Service

As the American Civil Service system has not been significantly restructured in its 130 history, it is ill-equipped and ill-prepared to meet the demands of modernity in the 21st century. Since Obama became president in 2008, the number of federal employees making more than $150,000 a year has doubled. Going forward, the GOP is highly motivated to reform the Federal Civil Service in order to make it more efficient and more sustainable. For example, the GOP is committed to paying public employees according to what they would receive in the private sector.

9. Reform: Ensuring Legal Immigration

As Republicans are firmly dedicated to the rule of law, they are adamant that the immigration laws of this country must be respected. Legal immigration is best for everyone, in that it allows a prescribed method for foreigners to come to America to start a new life. Legal immigration boosts the economy, protects American laborers, and enriches the cultural diversity of the country. Furthermore, legal immigration will mean that every applicant is treated equally, and thus the GOP feels that this is the fairest and most realistic option.

10. Defense: Countering Russian Aggression

The GOP views Russia’s militaristic actions in Ukraine as provocative, destabilizing, and extrajudicial. Since the Republican party views the violation of Ukrainian sovereignty by Russia as a grave act of aggression, the party is fundamentally determined to use all available methods to counter Russia’s nefarious geopolitical ambitions. With this in mind, the GOP strongly desires further rounds of crippling sanctions against the Russian economy as a reminder to Moscow that breaking international laws leads only to being ostracized.

11. Defense: Invest Further in Space

With Russia’s nuclear forces now more robust than America’s, and with China’s heavy investments in militarized space technologies, the GOP realizes that the United States needs to invest in space now more than ever in order to maintain strategic superiority. Investing in space will not only yield mineral resources, such as through mining asteroids, but it will also allow us to competently counter the military operations of enemies, whether it be by knocking out their communication satellites or by using laser-equipped satellites to shoot down ICBMs.

12. Defense: Staying Tough in Cybersecurity

The entertainment company Sony was recently hacked by IP addresses originating in North Korea, and such a hack resulted in $62 billion dollars of losses for the company. This type of malicious attack underscores the reason the GOP wants to stay tough in cybersecurity: the American government and American corporations are the biggest targets for cyber attacks in the entire world. With this notion in mind, the Republican party knows that it will be absolutely essential to bolster our nations cybersecurity defenses in the years to come.

13. American Values: Repeal Obamacare

With Republicans now controlling the House of Representatives and Senate, and perhaps the presidency in 2016, the party is sure to revisit its campaign to repeal Obamacare. With a large portion of the American population now having negative opinions of Obamacare, the GOP is dedicating to giving the majority of American people what they want: the repeal of Obamacare. Whether the GOP will defund the program in parts or whether the party will systematically repeal the entire law remains to be seen, but what can be sure is that they party will certainly do their best to take Obamacare down once and for all.

14. American Values: Protect Traditional Marriages

As the Republican party is founded upon conservative values, it is determined to do its best to protect the integrity of such values. Thus, ensuring the vitality of traditional marriage is a fundamental tenet of the GOP’s platform. Tradition holds that the sacred act of marriage can only be between one man and one woman, and any actions taken to undermine this traditional covenant will be firmly rebuked by members of the Republican party.

15. American Values: Improve the FDA

The Food and Drug Administration serves a critical role in determining the safety of food and medical products that Americans must consume everyday. For this reason, it is absolutely critical that the FDA is ran efficiently. But in recent years, the organization has been plagued by contradictions, unpredictability, and a lack of transparency. To this end, the GOP is strongly committed to reforming the FDA in order that the organization can perform its important duties with the utmost efficiency and openness.
  

Early Greenpeace Leader Offers Alternative Take on Climate Change

In eye-opening testimony, an early leader of the Greenpeace movement questioned assertions that carbon dioxide emissions from human activity are solely responsible for global warming.

Patrick Moore, Ph.D., testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee: "There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years."  Moore who, in his Senate testimony, recounted his early involvement with Greenpeace, beginning in 1971, says he left the organization in 1986 because Greenpeace  "took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective."

Moore says, 

Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of “extreme certainty” [regarding climate change] is to look at the historical record....  When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time.  Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today....  The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.

Climate change activists, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have asserted that: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”  

However, Moore counters with the observation that, 

The increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970-2000.  Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910-1940 to "human influence."  They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase "since the mid-20th century."  Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by "human influence," when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910-1940?

Citing what many scientists accept regarding the swing in temperatures throughout the earth's history, Moore observes, "Today we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age, with an average global temperature of 14.5oC.  This compares with a low of about 12oC during the periods of maximum glaciation in this Ice Age to an average of 22oC during the Greenhouse Ages, which occurred over longer time periods prior to the most recent Ice Age."

Based on these temperature swings, Moore questions the dire predictions of some environmentalists regarding global warming:  

During the Greenhouse Ages, there was no ice on either pole and all the land was tropical and sub-tropical, from pole to pole.  As recently as 5 million years ago the Canadian Arctic islands were completely forested.  Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.  There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.

Moore concludes, 

It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a 2oC rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species.  We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist.  The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing.  It could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age.  It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.

I would add the observation that, despite the many disagreements between creationists and evolutionists, biblical creationists believe that, in the period prior to the Noahic Flood, the earth was surrounded by a water vapor canopy in the upper atmosphere, so that the earth was very much like a tropical greenhouse from pole to pole--a view that is consistent with the fossil evidence and with what evolutionists believe about the earth's early history.

The claim of some scientists and politicians today that global warming is "settled science" has resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs in industries such as coal mining and continues to hamper the efforts of developing countries to become energy independent.  While Al Gore last week stated in a speech that "climate change deniers need to be punished" and that we should "tax carbon emissions," a more responsible view is that we need to insist that our politicians not adopt "solutions" to a problem, the existence of which is still anything but "settled science."  In fact, it is politicians like Al Gore (whose "carbon footprint" is ten times as large as anyone reading this column) who need to be punished until they accept the need to come to reasonable rather than coercive and politically-motivated positions regarding the world's climate. 

(Patrick Moore is the author of a number of books, including, Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist. (2011) Beatty Street Publishing Inc. ISBN 978-0-9864808-2-9)
 

Annual Litigation Survey for the Episcopal Church (USA) 2015

Attorney A.S. Haley has just published his annual survey of litigation for the Episcopal Church (USA) 2015.

In it he lists 83 lawsuits where the Episcopal Church has sued departing parishes or dioceses and 8 lawsuits where the Episcopal Church has been sued by departing congregations or parishes.  In the latter case, suits were filed by the departing congregations or dioceses usually to regain possession of assets that had been seized or frozen by the Episcopal Church (such as when the Episcopal Church threatens a bank with legal action if it disburses funds to which the Episcopal Church has laid claim).

Since some of the 83 lawsuits filed by the Episcopal Church involve whole dioceses or other groups of parishes, the actual number of parishioners affected by the litigation is considerably higher than one would normally think might be involved in 83 such suits, numbering in the tens of thousands. 

It cannot be repeated too often how shameful a legacy this is for a Church body--an entity that frequently talks about sharing of resources and preaches generosity--to spend millions of dollars suing to claim church buildings it does not need and cannot use, merely to deprive Christians with whom they disagree of their places of worship.

Haley does not give a tally of the costs of this litigation in this current article.  However, in a survey of litigation in January 2014, he estimated the cost of this litigation to be $21,650,000.00.  To be sure, that cost has increased since then, as the Episcopal Church has continued to press lawsuits and filed appeals in the cases where it has lost, sometimes refusing to take "no" for an answer, even in cases where it has exhausted the appeal process. 

Surely some accountability should be demanded for this enormous expense, especially as it is being incurred by a shrinking and financially strapped denomination where Georgia Bishop Scott Benhase recently opined: "The one elephant in the room we do not seem to be addressing clearly is our financial resources," leading commentator David Virtue to observe "that the Episcopal Church is mired in ecclesiastical muck and the money won't be there in the future to dig the Church out... or even to continue 'God's mission' in any meaningful sense."

As Katharine Jefferts Schori ends her tumultuous tenure as Presiding Bishop, it is time for the Episcopal Church to reassess its priorities and consider carefully whether it wants to maintain Jefferts Schori's "scorched earth" litigation strategy or pursue the course of reconciliation and return to using its funds for the Church's true mission.
 

Obama: Islam ‘Woven into the Fabric of Our Country Since Founding’

Then Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, dressed in traditional Muslim garments during a visit to Kenya in 2006.

The President hits bottom and keeps digging.  I haven't seen this news reported anywhere except Breitbart yet, but after speaking critically of Christianity at the National Prayer Breakfast, refusing to identify the source of terrorism and violence in the Middle East as Islamic extremism, and refusing to identify the victims of the ISIS beheadings in Libya as Christians, Obama latest comments about Islam don't come as any surprise.

From Breitbart:

In his bloviating speech on Thursday at his summit on countering violent extremism, President Obama bent over backwards to make nice with Islam.  Not only were terrorists not Muslim, President Obama stated, but Islam played a crucial role in America’s founding.

“Here in America,” Obama stated, “Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding.”

Nice try, Mr. President.  But, as Ben Shapiro, writing for Breitbart, notes, the first Muslims did not immigrate to the United States until well after the Civil War; and the first mosque in the United States was not built until 1915, by most reports.  Shapiro goes on to say:

Islam had zero impact on the founders or their philosophy – less than zero, given that the founders despised the religion, or what they knew of it.  President Obama fictionalized this history at an Iftar dinner in 2012:

As I’ve noted before, Thomas Jefferson once held a sunset dinner here with an envoy from Tunisia — perhaps the first Iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago.  And some of you, as you arrived tonight, may have seen our special display, courtesy of our friends at the Library of Congress — the Koran that belonged to Thomas Jefferson.   And that’s a reminder, along with the generations of patriotic Muslims in America, that Islam — like so many faiths — is part of our national story.

Well, not so much.  That magical “first Iftar” was a meeting between Sidi Solima Mellimelli, an emissary of the brutal Barbary pirates, and the president.  Jefferson had over Mellimelli in an attempt to bribe him into submission after the USS Constitution captured ships from the bey of Tunis. Mellimelli requested food, lodgings, and concubines.

Jefferson already knew of Islam, having been educated in 1786 after Barbary pirates attempted to blackmail America into monetary tribute. At that time, the Barbary emissary justified piracy with reference to the Koran, according to a report from Jefferson:

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners.

John Quincy Adams, writing of these negotiations, stated:

The precept of the Koran is perpetual war against all who deny that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force. 

Quincy Adams would later lament, “Such is the spirit, which governs the hearts of men, to whom treachery and violence are taught as principles of religion.”  [Read the rest.]

So, as Shapiro notes: "The historical record demonstrates that Islam had virtually no role in the foundation of the early Republic outside of being used as a negative comparison point for freedom and self-government."

What are we to make of a President who disses Christianity at every turn while protecting and praising Islam, even inventing a role for Islam in our nation's history that is a pure fabrication?   We are obviously looking at a man who thinks nothing of giving the finger to everything most Americans hold dear.  Shame on the American public who voted for him!  And shame on the Democratic Party for ever foisting this man on us as a candidate!
    

How believing in the Bible can get you canned in today's America

If you want to get fired, sued or lose your business in today's America, try standing on your biblical convictions.

In Oregon, Aaron and Melissa Klein were found guilty of discrimination by a state court last week.  They could face up to $150,000 in fines for not baking a cake for a same-sex wedding.

In Wisconsin, a 15-year-old boy was reprimanded and reportedly punished by his school for writing a school paper in which he backed traditional families in adoption cases.

In New Jersey, a high school teacher was suspended for stating her Biblical beliefs about homosexuality on her personal Facebook page (while at home, off the clock).

In Illinois, a university professor was fired for saying that homosexual acts are “morally wrong.”  Kenneth Howell, who teaches religious studies, was explaining to his "Introduction to Catholicism" class where the Roman Catholic Church stands on homosexuality and sent out a follow-up email to students after class—which reportedly circulated around the campus and prompted some students to complain, resulting in Howell's dismissal.

Twin brothers David and Jason Benham, nationally acclaimed real estate entrepreneurs, were fired from their television show on HGTV after after the site Right Wing Watch published a post about the pair, labeling David Benham as an "anti-gay, anti-choice extremist" for reportedly leading a prayer rally in 2012 outside of the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The list goes on, yet we can’t forget the grandmotherly florist in Washington State being sued by the Attorney General of Washington for refusing to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding (to a man, who by the way, she had faithfully served and befriended for over a decade).

One Grandma (70-year-old Baronelle Stutzman) summed it all up when she said, "Little by little, they are stripping us of any thought we might have, or any difference of opinion. This is our religious freedom at stake."

You know what—Grandma is right.  Our religious freedoms are at stake here. The “tyranny of tolerance” claims that the sexual rights of some are more important than the religious rights of others.

Notice that each of these examples has to do with homosexuality.  Who could have foreseen, even ten years ago, that the defining issue of our culture would be acceptance of homosexuality? —and that Christians, at least as far as the media are concerned, would be on the wrong side?

After all, this is America, where we have always had healthy conversations, even though we disagree.  Our country was founded on the notion that we don’t take away the rights of dissenters.  We are (or were) smart enough to know that when you censor ideas, no matter how politically incorrect, that’s when all intellectual, spiritual, and civil progress stops.

Yet our society, our culture, and our very way of life has fallen pray to militant activists who refuse to tolerate dissenters to their lifestyles.  And unfortunately, they have the United States Government in their back pockets (not to mention the media and Hollywood).

At first, homosexual activists wanted acceptance.  Then they wanted appreciation.  Now they demand celebration.  It's not enough to live and let live, these activists are now forcing their lifestyles on everyone, even if it means bullying a 70-year-old florist.  We’ve shifted from religious freedom to forced acceptance in America.

The idea of forced acceptance infringes on our constitutional rights as Americans.  As the organization known as the Alliance Defending Freedom states, "the First Amendment guarantees that the government cannot tell its citizens what they can and can’t say or force them to express a positive message about something they believe is morally wrong."

Increasingly, it is Christians who are singled out for this discrimination and the harassment of militant activists.  No one sues or harasses a Jewish baker for refusing to cater an event on the Sabbath.  Muslims get a pass on their refusal to accept homosexuality, even though their views are far more extreme than most Christians.  These individuals are granted their Constitutional rights as Americans.  Thank God!

But activists are increasingly demanding that Christian companies and individuals do things that are against their convictions, like support same-sex marriage or abortion.  In fact, they insist that Christians comply with whole-hearted enthusiasm.

Isn’t there a double standard here? 

We shouldn't be surprised.  Jesus said, "Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.  Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you" (Matthew 5:11-13). 

Jesus also warned us, "In fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering service to God" (John 16:2). 

So the question is: are you willing to stand with courage at any cost if and when the battle comes knocking on your door?

Before it comes to you, here are a few simple things you can do to prepare:

1. Make up your mind.  Decide that whatever the cost you will stand for religious freedom and for your Christian convictions.

2. Prepare yourself.  Know the biblical basis for your beliefs.  And be informed—don’t be ignorant of the issues and your rights.

3. Join the conversation.  Speak up.  Don’t be silent.  Witness for what you know to be the truth!

4. Separate ideas from individuals.  You can disagree with someone’s idea and not dislike him as a person.  We are called to love the sinner, even as we identify his sin for what it is.

5. Be kind.  Love triumphs over evil; don’t demonize others.  Making the love of Jesus evident in our words and actions will often win others over, even where logical discussion fails.

6. Stand strong.  Don’t back down.  Under God's grace, the future of our nation and our children depends on our standing firm!

Thomas Jefferson once said, “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?”

Our liberties are God-given.  And, as such, we must be willing to defend these freedoms no matter the cost.  Now is the time for all Americans – regardless of our differences – to join hands in the greatest battle for liberty in our history!  It’s time to take a stand.

---------------- 
This post is adapted from an article by David and Jason Benham that appeared on FoxNews.com.

Chesterton’s Islamic England

William Kilpatrick, writing in Crisis magazine, points out how G.K. Chesterton, writing in a 1914 novel, The Flying Inn, foresaw the Islamization of England, with an insight that now seems positively prophetic:

G.K. Chesterton had a knack for anticipating future trends but when, in his 1914 novel The Flying Inn, he anticipated the Islamization of England, it seemed so far out of the realm of possibility that it was difficult to take it as anything but a flight of fancy.

 [...]

Roughly one hundred years later, Chesterton’s scenario no longer seems improbable.  Many observers believe the Islamization of England is just a matter of time.  For example, in her 2006 book Londonistan, Melanie Phillips presents a detailed description of the Islamic “colonization” of England now underway and shows how it is made possible by the governing class’ abandonment of cultural and spiritual values.  Chesterton was remarkably prescient not only in imagining that Islamization might happen, but also in envisioning how it would happen—through the instrumentality of a deracinated governing class.

Read it all.
 

"Obama At National Prayer Breakfast: ’People Committed Terrible Deeds In The Name of Christ’"

From here, where there is video.

At the National Prayer Breakfast, this morning, President Obama reminded attendees that violence rooted in religion isn’t exclusive to Islam, but has been carried out by Christians as well.

“Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” Obama said. “In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

The Crusades and the Inquisition ...  Notice how every time someone wants to draw a moral equivalence between Christianity and Islam they have to go back CENTURIES!  As for people justifying Jim Crow in the name of Christ, that's the first time I have heard that one; and, frankly, I would dispute it.  And as for people justifying slavery in the name of Christ, two things:

1.  Yes, there were those who tried to justify slavery based on part of the Bible.  Their actions in doing so reveals their nominal belief in Christianity.  But when real Christians brought their moral influence to bear on the slavery issue, it was in support of abolition.  John Newton, William Wilberforce, Harriet Beecher Stowe are among many shining examples.

2.  When westerners went over to Africa to buy slaves--yes, buy them; very few westerners actually kidnapped Africans to bring them to the West as slaves, the people they bought them from were Muslim slave traders who thought it was good business to go into Africa and captures slaves to sell.

Once again we see a contrast:  While genuine Christians worked to abolish the slave trade, slavery has been a part of Islam from the beginning and continues even into the 21st century.

For further reading:

History of slavery under Muslim rule
Slavery in 21st-century Islamism
Slavery in contemporary Africa

Episcopal Apostasy and the Decline of Christianity in the West

The generation that is alive right now is witnessing the apostasy of mainline Christianity in the West.  Every Christian tradition has an element--and in many instances a controlling element--that denies "the faith once delivered to the saints"--Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists--every Protestant tradition has been affected.

Roman Catholics are not immune either.  The radical theologies and skeptical approaches to Scripture that are taught in RC universities and seminaries (and embraced enthusiastically in some religious orders and clergy circles) are identical to those taught in their Protestant counterparts.  I have had Roman Catholic friends answer this assertion by saying, "Yes, but we have the Magisterium to protect us."  Frankly, that contention is laughable.  No authority of the Papacy or the Magisterium can long withstand the undermining of orthodoxy that is occurring in their institutions of higher learning.

But none of these traditions has gone as far in excluding and persecuting its faithful remnant as has occurred (and is still occurring) in the Anglican Communion--in particular in the Episcopal Church.

In light of developments in the Episcopal Church, I have had to ask myself, "Did my wife and I err in becoming Anglicans 29 years ago?  Was I wrong to serve as an Episcopal priest for 24 years?"  No, the Anglican expression of Christianity is still the finest expression of Christianity I know.   Recently, in teaching a Confirmation class in the parish, I made the point that Anglicanism does not have a faith of its own.  Rather it seeks to be a container for conveying biblical, apostolic, and catholic Christianity to all generations.  Anglicanism retains catholic faith and order; but, in purifying itself of the erroneous accretions of the middle ages, it is a Reformed Catholicism.

The Episcopal Church, in common with the other churches of the West, first began to go astray when it became a worldly church.  Others who have chronicled the departure of the Episcopal Church from orthodoxy have looked at the strange case of Bishop James Pike (and the Episcopal Church's failure to discipline the heretical bishop) as a turning point.

About the time my wife and I were looking at the Episcopal Church, Bishop John Shelby Spong was just finding his voice as a skeptic.  Spong went on to have an influential, though unfaithful, career.  Someone who wears a purple shirt while denying everything Christianity has always believed will always find a receptive audience, especially in the media.  It is a theological "man bites dog" story--or was before it became so commonplace.

Someone might say that before becoming an Anglican, I should have looked at the examples of Pike and Spong and the Episcopal Church's failure to deal with them the way a pilot looks for stress cracks in the airframe of an airplane.  But the attraction of a Church that still officially held an orthodox faith, together with the preciousness of the sacraments and the beauty of an ancient liturgy, was too strong.

Then, too, there were spiritual and theological giants in Anglicanism, some of whom became my very faithful mentors: John Stott, J.I. Packer, Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, and John Rodgers, along with bishops like Fitz Allison, John Howe, and Alex Dickson who convinced me there was still a place for a biblically faithful Christian in the Episcopal Church.  Later I met other US bishops:  Edward MacBurney (who ordained me deacon and priest), Donald Parsons, Keith Ackerman, John David Schofield, and Jack Iker--bishops of great faithfulness who provided sound leadership.

While on the faculty of Trinity School for Ministry I had the privilege of meeting a number of overseas bishops and primates (Maurice Sinclair, Peter Jensen, Greg Venables, Peter Akinola, Henry Luke Orombi--and of teaching some who are now bishops in the Global South--John Ruchyhana, Tito Zavala, Ben Kwashi.  In becoming an Anglican, I had been adopted into a good family.

But not all was well in the family.  John Shelby Spong continued to popularize the kind of skepticism one finds in liberal religious studies courses for college undergraduates, or (as Rowan Williams once said of Spong) to "ask the sort of questions that might be posed by a bright sixth former" (a senior in high school).  It is instructive to be reminded of Spong's Twelve Theses and Rowan Williams' response.

Even more troubling than Spong's militant skepticism was the Episcopal Church's complete failure to do anything about it.  During his episcopate, Spong also engaged in an aggressive campaign of ordaining gays, lesbians, and skeptics who shared his theological agenda, who went on to occupy positions of influence around the Church.  I said long ago that if one could undo all the ordinations by John Shelby Spong and about three-fourths of the ordinations by Paul Moore of New York, the liberalizing trend in the Episcopal Church could have been neutralized.

But Spong did his worst, and no one lifted a finger to stop him.  It would have been too radical, too tacky, too shocking to actually try a bishop for heresy!  Genteel Episcopalians just didn't do such things!  Walter Righter was brought up on charges for ordaining a gay man on Spong's behalf, and the court for the trial of a bishop determined that "no core doctrine" had been violated.  Soon there was a cadre of "me too" bishops, following the new agenda of ordaining skeptics, gays, and lesbians.

All of this was compounded by the radical theologies and liberal social agenda that were being taught in the seminaries.  Fast forward twenty years, and these inmates are now running the Episcopal asylum.

Trinity School for Ministry was founded in 1975 as a counterweight--and the orthodox stream of clergy being trained at Trinity did a commendable and sometimes courageous job of promoting biblical orthodoxy and spiritual renewal in American Anglicanism.

When I moved from the faculty of Trinity to become Dean and President of Nashotah House in 2001, my aim was not to make Nashotah into "Trinity West" (as I was sometimes accused of doing); but I did want Nashotah House to be similarly countercultural with regard to the prevailing liberal culture of the Episcopal Church and to be vigorously orthodox in promoting a biblical and spiritual renewal of the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Episcopal Church.  Thanks be to God for the transformation that occurred and for several classes of orthodox clergy who graduated during my ten years as Dean and President!

However, all the while, the rot continued to spread throughout the Episcopal Church.  I was a deputy to five General Conventions from 1994 to 2006 and watched the Church change before my eyes.  Another religion was taking over the Episcopal Church.

This religion denies that God has existed eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  That the eternal Son became incarnate through being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary.  That Jesus' existence as the eternal Son shows that God's plan of redemption for humankind was inherent in the Triune nature of God from before the world was created.  That Jesus suffered and died in our place for our sins on the Cross.  That he rose bodily from the tomb on the third day, thus securing our own bodily resurrection at the last day to live with him forever.

This subversive religion that took over the Episcopal Church cannot abide those who hold the biblical, apostolic, and catholic faith of the Church and must inevitably drive out and persecute those who hold it faithfully.  It is in the nature of things and has happened everywhere true Christianity has existed alongside another religion or competing ideology.

My last General Convention as a deputy was in July 2006, the convention where Katharine Jefferts Schori was elected Presiding Bishop.  As has been reported in numerous places, even before she was invested as Presiding Bishop, she ordered Bishop Peter Lee to renege on agreements with the cluster of northern Virginia parishes to leave TEc with their property.   Then came the Connecticut Six parishes.  Then came a hundred other parishes and five whole dioceses:  Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, Quincy, San Joaquin, and now South Carolina.

The Episcopal Church, though it is faced with an imminent demographic implosion, has spent tens of millions of dollars that should have been spent on mission suing departing faithful Anglicans.  TEc has spent countless more dollars in an effort to co-opt Global South provinces and dioceses into following its apostate agenda.

So, while those who know me well know that I am not an "angry person," as the term is sometimes used, I am angry.  I am angry that another religion has been allowed to take over a church that was once a wonderful spiritual home.  I am angry that almost every faithful bishop and dozens of clergy that I know have been marginalized, excluded, and finally driven out, sued, and deposed.  I am angry that a church that talks about giving to the poor will spend millions of dollars to deprive faithful Christians of their places of worship--places that TEc does not need and cannot use.

I am angry that naive bishops and clergy who are Episcopal Church careerists stubbornly refuse to recognize or do not care that there is a spiritual war going on.  I am angry that these same bishops and careerists play nicely with the Episcopal Church's leadership as if nothing is wrong.

Do we wonder why Christianity is in decline in the West and why so much of society now holds biblical Christianity in contempt?  A large part of the answer is the skepticism engendered by liberal religious leaders.

When the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church gives an interview to Time magazine and denies that Jesus is the only way to the Father, how can we expect the world to believe those Christians who say that he is?  If the Dean of an Episcopal seminary says, "Abortion is a blessing!" and Episcopal parishes support abortion providers, how can we expect the world to believe those Christians who say that all life is sacred from conception until natural death?  When the recently deceased Marcus Borg can be made a canon theologian, what confidence does it inspire in biblical authority?  One could go down a whole list of theological and social issues where there is a divergence between biblically faithful Christians and liberal elites whose denial of biblical truth undermines the Christian witness.

If denominational leaders and "reputable scholars" (reputable according to whom?) undermine confidence in the authority of Scripture and deny cardinal beliefs of historic Christianity, how can we expect the world to believe?  The reason why the Church is supposed to have faithful leaders is not only to lead the Church in being faithful but to be articulate in presenting the truth of the Christian faith to the world.  This is why orthodox seminaries that do not compromise or equivocate are so important.  If Christianity spoke with a united voice, it could influence the culture and answer its challenges.  Instead the uncertain trumpet of the Church's own leadership has brought the faith into disrepute.

God desires something better for his people--"that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love" (Ephesians 4:14-16).

Obama Backs Campaign to Defeat Netanyahu in Israeli Elections

In response to my earlier post about Obama's slap at Israel, A.S. Haley commented, "Now comes word that the President's hatred for Netanyahu has driven him to try to interfere in Israel's upcoming elections..."  The article referenced in Mr. Haley's link makes for some informative and shocking reading:  The President of the US' campaign team is working in Israeli elections to defeat Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The following article from PJ Media provides further information:

[Jerusalem Post Senior Editor] Caroline Glick picked up on one article the Israeli left-wing paper Ha’aretz didn’t bother translating into English that details Obama’s involvement in the upcoming Israeli elections.  A summary of the article is provided by IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis):

Haaretz reporter Roi Arad revealed in an article in the Hebrew edition today [January 26] that the foreign funded organization, “One Voice”, is bankrolling the V-2015 campaign to defeat Binyamin Netanyahu’s national camp in the March 2015 Knesset Elections.

One indication of the generous financing is that it has now flown in a team of five American campaign experts (including Jeremy Bird, the Obama campaign’s national field director) who will run the campaign out of offices taking up the ground floor of a Tel Aviv office building.

V-2015 is careful not to support a specific party – rather “just not Bibi”. As such, the foreign funds pouring into the campaign are not subject to Israel’s campaign finance laws.

Glick commented via Facebook:

Obama won’t meet Benjamin Netanyahu – בנימין נתניהו in Washington when he addresses the Joint Houses of Congress in March because of Netanyahu’s visit’s proximity to the Israeli elections.  And Obama, of course believes in protocol and propriety which is why he won’t get involved.  No, he’s not getting involved at all.  He’s just sending his 2012 field campaign manager to Israel to run a campaign to defeat Netanyahu.  That’s all.  No interference whatsoever.

Read it all.

In another article on the wesite Real Clear Politics, Glick makes clear the difference between the Obama team's involvement in Israeli elections and the invitation by House Speaker John Boehner for Prime Minister Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of Congress five weeks prior to the Israeli elections:

Opposition leaders were quick to accuse Boehner and the Republican Party of interfering in Israel’s upcoming election by providing Netanyahu with such a prestigious stage just five weeks before Israelis go to the polls.

Labor MK Nachman Shai told The Jerusalem Post that for the sake of fairness, Boehner should extend the same invitation to opposition leader Isaac Herzog.

But in protesting as they have, opposition members have missed the point.  Boehner didn’t invite Netanyahu because he cares about Israel’s election.  He invited Netanyahu because he cares about US national security.  He believes that by having Netanyahu speak on the issues of Iran’s nuclear program and radical Islam, he will advance America’s national security.

Boehner’s chief concern, and that of the majority of his colleagues from the Democratic and Republican parties alike, is that President Barack Obama’s policy in regard to Iran’s nuclear weapons program imperils the US.  Just as the invitation to Netanyahu was a bipartisan invitation, so concerns about Obama’s policy toward Iran’s nuclear program are bipartisan concerns.

Over the past week in particular, Obama has adopted a position on Iran that puts him far beyond the mainstream of US politics.  This radical position has placed the president on a collision course with Congress best expressed on Wednesday by Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez.  During a hearing at the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee where Menendez serves as ranking Democratic member, he said, “The more I hear from the administration and its quotes, the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of Tehran.” 

[And recognize that this is a Hispanic Democrat Senator saying this, not a Republican!  Even the Democrats in Congress are beginning to realize there is something rotten in the White House.]

Read it all, where there is more about Iran's growing nuclear capability along with indications Iran is farther along in the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles than was previously thought.
 

SOUTH CAROLINA: Another TEc Harassment Lawsuit

No, not a lawsuit over a case of harassment, but a case of harassment by lawsuit.  That's what this is about.  And it is so totally ridiculous!  The lower court in South Carolina is already in the process of deciding the entire matter of whether the Diocese of South Carolina, which voted to disaffiliate from the Episcopal Church at its convention in 2012, could legally do so.  If, in fact, that disaffiliation was legal, then, obviously, the Diocese that left has a right to go on regarding Mark Lawrence as its bishop and to use whatever trademarks, titles, etc. that the court allows in its decision.

This appeal to a federal court, alleging that Bp. Lawrence is engaging in false advertizing!!! by continuing to call himself the Bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina is precisely the kind of thing that will be settled by the state court's decision, when Judge Goodstein issues it.   The Episcopal Church, fearing it is going to lose in the state court, is simply trying to preempt that decision by appealing to federal courts.  The US District Court in Charleston rightly recognized that the matter in question was going to be covered in the state court's decision and refused to take jurisdiction in the case.  We need to pray that the US Court of Appeals in Richmond sees the matter the same way.

One might wish that the leadership of the Episcopal Church would come to grips with reality.  The people of the Diocese of South Carolina voted by an overwhelming majority to leave the Episcopal Church.  Any church bureaucracy that would try to force its will on a Diocese where the majority of people have said they no longer want to be affiliated is manifestly evil.  They are just trying to suck the life out of the Diocese of South Carolina (and the other dioceses they are suing) by bleeding them dry through lawsuits.  (That's just my opinion, of course. But this kind of continued pernicious evil from the Episcopal Church's leadership has been going on long enough that it just makes you wonder what it will take to finally drive a stake through the vampire's heart.)

The allegation that this is merely a case of "Bp. Lawrence and Bishop Lawrence and other diocesan officials announcing they had 'withdrawn' from The Episcopal Church" is simply male bovine excrement!!!  This is not some unilateral action by Bp. Lawrence and other diocesan officials--it was a well-considered decision by the Diocesan Convention of South Carolina--a decision reaffirmed by a subsequent convention--and further affirmed by the congregations who voted that they wished to remain with the Diocese headed by Bp. Lawrence.  The state court, where the case has been heard, will cover the legality of all this in its decision.

Rather than await that decision, TEc is frivolously snipping around the edges, desperately hoping for some federal court decision that can derail their anticipated defeat in the state courts of South Carolina.  And, they--by which I mean primarily the Presiding Bishop and her chancellor--don't seem to care how many millions of dollars of the Episcopal Church's money they spend, since they figure they can outspend any parish or diocese that dares to contend with them. 

Oral arguments before the court in Richmond, VA, are scheduled to be heard tomorrow, Wednesday, January 28.  Please pray.

[The following press release has been issued by the Episcopal Church in South Carolina (headed by Bp. vonRosenberg) and reflects their perspective.] 

From here:

SOUTH CAROLINA: Oral arguments set in federal court appeal

TECinSC
http://www.episcopalchurchsc.org/news-release-january-27-2015.html
January 27, 2015

Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard on Wednesday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va. in vonRosenberg v. Lawrence, seeking to have the case sent back to U.S. District Court in Charleston to be decided on its merits.

Thomas S. Tisdale Jr., Chancellor of The Episcopal Church in South Carolina, will present Bishop Charles vonRosenberg's case before a three-judge panel at the Lewis F. Powell Jr. Courthouse in Richmond.  Twenty minutes are allotted to each side for oral arguments and rebuttals.  No immediate ruling is expected.

The appeal focuses on the issue of false advertising under the federal Lanham Act.  Bishop vonRosenberg is the only bishop recognized by The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina.  Mark Lawrence, by continuing to represent himself as bishop of the diocese, is committing false advertising, according to a brief filed with the appeals court in April.

The appeal asks the judges to rule that the District Court in Charleston erred in abstaining from jurisdiction on the false-advertising claim, and send the case back to the lower court to be decided on its merits.  It also asks the appeals court to award a preliminary injunction and stop Bishop Lawrence from representing himself as bishop of the diocese.

In 2012, Bishop Lawrence and other diocesan officials announced they had "withdrawn" from The Episcopal Church.  The Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church accepted his renunciation, and he was removed from the ordained ministry of the church.  The Presiding Bishop then called a special Diocesan Convention in January 2013.  There, delegates elected Bishop vonRosenberg, who is recognized by The Episcopal Church as the one and only rightful bishop of the local diocese.

"Despite his renunciation and removal from office, Bishop Lawrence continues to hold himself out as the Bishop of the Diocese, and continues to make other false representations of fact..." the brief says. Bishop Lawrence's actions interfere with Bishop vonRosenberg's right to communicate with people and carry out his duties as the sole bishop of the diocese, creating confusion and causing irreparable damage, according to the appeal.

The trademark issues involved in vonRosenberg v. Lawrence are not being raised in the appeal.  When U.S. District Judge C. Weston Houck refused to hear the case, he dismissed the trademark issues without prejudice, noting that similar issues are part of a state lawsuit filed by the breakaway group.  Judge Houck's order left open the possibility that those issues still could be brought to federal court if the state courts do not properly resolve them.

The state court case went to trial in Dorchester County in July 2014 and is awaiting a decision from Circuit Court Judge Diane S. Goodstein.
 

Obama's slap of Israel is shameful, dangerous

A Savannah Morning News editorial:

President Obama is cementing his reputation as the least pro-Israel president this nation has ever had.  [One might as well say, "the only anti-Israel president this nation has ever had.]

Last week, the White House announced that Mr. Obama will not meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he comes to Washington in March to address Congress.

It’s the first time an American has openly snubbed a leader of this nation’s closest ally in the Middle East.

That’s shameful.  It’s also dangerous to this nation’s security and to Israel’s.

It’s clear that the two leaders dislike — if not detest — one another.  But they always must be willing to talk, and at any time.  The only people who benefit when Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu don’t communicate are America’s and Israel’s enemies in this region.

There are plenty of them.

Especially Iran.

Iran is on a hot political roll lately.  So are its proxies.  Iranian-backed Houthi rebels control the Yemeni government.  Iran’s influence in Syria continues is rising, as Tehran seems to have saved the once teetering regime of Bashar al-Assad.  Hezbollah is making mischief in Lebanon and elsewhere, according to Iran’s bidding.

This political momentum isn’t just making Israel increasingly nervous.  Other U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are worried.  If events continue to go Iran’s way, and it is allowed to acquire its own nukes, that part of the world could explode.  Israel knows it.

But the White House doesn’t.

Mr. Netanyahu is speaking to Congress because House Speaker John Boehner invited him.  The White House wasn’t involved.

Members of Congress must be reluctant to play Secretary of State — that’s the job of the executive branch.  But Mr. Obama’s foreign policy, as it relates to Iran and the bomb, has the strength and vigor of a soggy noodle.

For example, the relief from economic sanctions given to Iran was supposed to be tied to scale-backs on that country’s nuclear program.  Yet Iran’s nuclear ambitions continue.  Deadlines have come and gone twice.  But sanctions haven’t been reinstated.  In fact, Iran’s leaders are acting like the lifting of sanctions were permanent — and you can’t blame them.

You can’t fault Israel’s prime minister for being more politically aggressive in the U.S. if his counterpart here is AWOL on Iran’s nukes.

So yes, his acceptance of Mr. Boehner’s invitation to speak on March 3 on Capitol Hill is a poke in the eye to Mr. Obama.  But it needs poking.

The president has opposed a bipartisan bill in Congress that would put teeth in the effort to force Iran to give up its nuclear program.  Although Mr. Obama has vowed to veto such a measure, there’s a chance that enough Republicans and Democrats could vote to override it.  That’s another reason why the White House won’t give Israel’s leader the time of day.

Mr. Obama’s leadership in the Middle East has been abysmal.  Maybe he’s not openly hostile to Israel.  Yet he’s not doing that nation — or, his own — any favors by snubbing Mr. Netanyahu or going soft on nukes.   The only beneficiary is the country that’s gaining strength — Iran.
 

7 Reasons Introverted Men Are So Attractive

Okay, this is just for fun:

In an extrovert-centric culture, the natural attractiveness of introverted men often goes unnoticed. That said, when developed properly, the introvert’s charm is intoxicating.

Think of James Bond for a moment.  Quiet.  Pensive.  Confident.  Mysterious.  Do you think he was more of an extrovert or introvert?  Introvert, of course. 

If Bond were to follow the common pick-up advice of today, he would have a lot of trouble attracting women.  Can you imagine?  Tossing out jokes, making a loud and gregarious show, centering himself as the life of the party…  It feels a little off, doesn't it?  That's because it's just not him.  Instead, Bond is mysterious.  Intriguing.  Quietly confident.  That combination is irresistible to women everywhere, apparently.

Do you have to be James Bond to have the same genre of charm he has?  Not at all.  As long as you're an introvert, you can focus purely on bettering yourself in a way that feels good to you, and your nature will take care of the rest.  Here are seven reasons why you, as an introverted man, are naturally attractive:

1. You are mysterious.  You have a rich inner world, full of intriguing thoughts and feelings.  Women who like you want to know what you're thinking, but they can't possibly know so easily.  This sets up a playful, intense dynamic naturally.

2. You are easy to be around.  By nature, you are chill and relaxed.  You're not clamoring for attention, and you're a great listener.  These qualities make you pleasant and appealing.

3. You have a fresh perspective on the world.  Because you're not into passing fads but are attuned to a deeper reality, the way you see the world is often surprising and wonderful to others.  You have a fresh sense of humor and quirky playfulness.

4. Your introspection makes you a wonderful partner.  You have a habit of searching out where you're going right and where you're going wrong in life, so you can take responsibility and better yourself.  When developed, this is incredibly earnest and trustworthy to a woman.

5. You are in tune with subtle chemistry nuances.  This is so sexy.  Your quiet depth puts you in close touch with your body, her body, and the environment in a way that gives you a special edge.  Sometimes, just the slightest glance can make a woman melt, and your intuitive nature means you are especially primed to do that well.

6. You are intellectually stimulating.  Intelligent women are energized by meaningful conversations with intelligent men.  Because of your intellectually curious and exploratory nature, you know all kinds of different things to share with others.

7. You know yourself.  As an inwardly oriented man, you know what you like and what you don't like.  You know your values, your preferences, and what you want in life.  This makes you sophisticated and trustable.  Those are only seven reasons you are naturally attractive.  There are many more about you specifically that you may not even know. 

So I encourage you to go hunt for those naturally attractive qualities in yourself.  Recall meaningful compliments.  Reflect on your accomplishments.  Try to see yourself in each of the seven facets above.  Then, go do whatever it takes to turn up the dial on your most attractive qualities.

This story originally appeared on The Good Men Project. 
 

Saudi king 'halts flogging of blogger facing 1,000 lashes' after Middle Eastern country accused of 'outrageous inhumanity'

In an update to my last post, the media are now reporting:

An internet blogger facing 1,000 lashes for criticising clerics in Saudi Arabia was given new hope last night after the apparent intervention of the king.

Bowing to massive international pressure, King Abdullah has referred the case of Raif Badawi to the country's supreme court.

There has been no official statement from the Saudi government on the monarch's intervention, revealed by Mr Badawi's wife, Ensaf.

Read it all. 

 

 

Saudi Blogger Sentenced To 1,000 Lashes May Not Withstand 2nd Round Of Flogging, Says Wife

If a Saudi blogger is killed by his government over free speech, how is this any different than the Charlie Hebdo massacre?

From here, where there is more:

A Saudi Arabian blogger imprisoned for starting a liberal online forum to encourage discussion and debate in his country may not be able to withstand a second flogging this Friday, his wife says.

Raif Badawi was sentenced last May to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes by a Saudi court for “insulting Islam.”  Last Friday he endured the first round of lashes -- 50 strikes on the back of his body by a long, hard cane -- in a public flogging held in the city of Jiddah.  This Friday, he will reportedly be subjected to a second round of 50 lashes.

“Raif told me he is in a lot of pain after his flogging, his health is poor and I’m certain he will not be able to cope with another round of lashes,” Badawi’s wife, Ensaf Haider, told Amnesty International.

Badawi was sent to prison and assigned weekly public canings for launching the Free Saudi Liberals website.  According to the Associated Press, he was also ordered to pay a fine of 1 million Saudi riyals, or about $266,000.  His website has been shut down.

Badawi's lawyer, human rights activist Waleed Abul-Khair, has reportedly also been sentenced to a lengthy jail term: 15 years imprisonment, as well as a subsequent 15-year travel ban. He was found guilty by a Saudi anti-terrorism court of "undermining the regime and officials," ''inciting public opinion" and "insulting the judiciary," per the AP.

Read the rest.

Okay, for those who keep saying acts of terrorism aren't Islamic terrorism, but merely acts being perpetrated by terrorists in the name of Islam or by those who are corrupting or misrepresenting Islam, try telling us that an official act by the government of Saudi Arabia is not representative of Islam.

How many Charlie Hebdos do we have to have?  How many examples of Muslim terrorism, repression, violence, and censorship do we have to witness before people in the West wake up and realize Islam is not your friend?  It is an insanely barbaric and repressive ideology.  If this Saudi blogger dies from his 1000 lashes, given in punishment for a blog that merely exercised free speech, how is this different from killing the staff of Charlie Hebdo?  Because it was done by an Islamic government instead of a Islamic terrorist network?

Even writing this piece could earn me a similar fate if I lived in Saudi Arabia.  The reality is, if you  are a blogger, you too could be a Raif Badawi but for a matter of geography.

Je suis Raif Badawi. 

Coming soon to a workplace near you: 'wellness or else'

From here, where there is more:

U.S. companies are increasingly penalizing workers who decline to join "wellness" programs, embracing an element of President Barack Obama's healthcare law that has raised questions about fairness in the workplace.

Beginning in 2014, the law known as Obamacare raised the financial incentives that employers are allowed to offer workers for participating in workplace wellness programs and achieving results. The incentives, which big business lobbied for, can be either rewards or penalties - up to 30 percent of health insurance premiums, deductibles, and other costs, and even more if the programs target smoking.

[...]

For some companies, however, just signing up for a wellness program isn't enough. They're linking financial incentives to specific goals such as losing weight, reducing cholesterol, or keeping blood glucose under control. The number of businesses imposing such outcomes-based wellness plans is expected to double this year to 46 percent, the survey found.

"Wellness-or-else is the trend," said workplace consultant Jon Robison of Salveo Partners.

 Read it all.  The specific examples the article gives are scary.  The "incentives" seem well intentioned, which is always the way it begins. But Big Brother is watching your health, and he's less concerned about your health than making money and exercising control.

More Americans Say Muslim Extremists Are True Muslims Than Christian Extremists Are True Christians

From here, where there is more:

More Americans say that self-described-Muslims who commit violence in the name of their religion are real Muslims than say that self-described-Christians who commit violence are real Christians.

Eighty-three percent said violent people who claim to be Christian are not true Christians while only 48 percent said violent people who claim to be Muslim are not true Muslims.

Read it all.

Belligerent passenger ejected from La Guardia flight, bah humbug!

From here:

A belligerent American Airlines passenger was ejected from a plane at La Guardia Airport on Tuesday after becoming  belligerent because an American employee wished him a Merry Christmas.

The male passenger was waiting to boar flight AA1140 from LGA to Dallas (DFW) when a merry gate agent began welcoming everyone with the Yuletide greeting while checking boarding passes.

When the gate agent wished the gentleman a merry Christmas he responded with, “You shouldn’t say that because not everyone celebrates Christmas.”  Valid point, but what’s the harm in that?

The gate agent followed by saying, “Well, what should I say then?”

“Don’t say, ‘Merry Christmas!’” the man shouted in frustration before brushing past the agent and to the jet bridge.

As the passenger was boarding the plane, he was warmly greeted by a cheerful flight attendant who yet again wished him a “merry Christmas.”  That was the last straw.

“Don’t say, ‘Merry Christmas!’ ” the man replied in anger before lecturing the attendants and the pilot about their holiday madness.

The passenger did not cool down and had to be escorted off the plane by airport authorities as other fliers cheered because Christmas was saved.

 --------------------
Bottom line:  December 25 is officially Christmas, whether one chooses to celebrate it or not.  If I choose to wish you a merry one, and you don't celebrate it, appreciate the thought anyway and respond graciously--like a civilized human being!  This is the danger we are approaching in this country, where someone's tendency to be offended is supposed to trump someone else's right to free speech.
  

US Says North Korea Responsible for Sony Hack

The federal government has determined that North Korea is responsible for the hacking of computers at Sony Pictures Entertainment, according to a report on ABC News.

Is this the same federal government that "determined" that the Benghazi embassy attack was the result of a YouTube video?   Yeah, I thought so.

------------------------
In further developments:

North Korea seeks joint probe with US on Sony hack (14:51 ET)

North Korea has offered to hold a joint inquiry with the United States into a cyber-attack on Sony Pictures, strongly denying US claims that it is behind it.

U.S. stands by assertion that North Korea behind Sony attack: NSC spokesman (16:23 ET)

The United States stands by its assertion that the North Korean government was behind the massive cyberattack on Sony Pictures, a spokesman for the White House National Security Council said on Saturday.

North Korea Warns U.S. Not to Take Sony Action (17:12 ET)

Warning of “serious consequences” if the United States retaliates against it over the damaging cyberattack on Sony Pictures, North Korea insisted on Saturday that it was not behind it, and it offered to prove its innocence by taking part in a joint investigation with Washington to identify the hackers.

It is going to be interesting to see how this thing plays out.  But whatever eventually proves to be the truth, right now it's a sad day when you have to wonder whether to trust what the North Korean government says over your what your own government says.
 

Black Friday Revealed How Poor Americans Really Are

From here:

Black Friday sales plummeted this year, leaving retailers completely stumped.

After weeks of declining gas prices, many analysts predicted the biggest holiday season ever. Industry groups like the National Retail Federation reasoned that Americans would use their fuel savings on gifts.

Despite encouraging forecasts, Black Friday weekend sales were down 11%. Cyber Monday sales rose 8%, falling short of many predictions.

So where are the customers? They're probably broke, according to some analysts and executives.

Then, after reporting that the only stores that did well on Black Friday were deep discounters, like Kohl's and Family Dollar stores, comes the "take-away" line from this story:

"Health insurance premiums have increased between 39% and 56% since early 2013, meaning additional costs of $230 per month for the average family."  

Yeah, that's certainly been my experience.  When you're paying 39% to 56% more for health insurance than you were in 2013 (before Obamacare kicked in) it makes it hard for Christmas to be like it once was.

So what was that about the "Affordable Care Act"??? 
 

Thanksgiving

Of all the things one could give thanks for on this special day, it seems that this one is the first and greatest:

Oregon immigration vote is a warning for Obama

From here:

The fate of a little-noticed ballot measure in strongly Democratic Oregon serves as a warning to President Barack Obama and his party about the political perils of immigration policy.

Even as Oregon voters were legalizing recreational marijuana and expanding Democratic majorities in state government, they decided by a margin of 66-34 to cancel a new state law that would have provided driver's licenses to people who are in the United States illegally.

Obama is considering acting on his own, as early as this week, to possibly shield from deportation up to 5 million immigrants now living illegally in the country. Some Republicans in Congress are threatening a government shutdown if the president follows through.

"The Oregon measure tells you these measures are not easy or simple," said Muzaffar Chishti of the Migration Policy Institute. "The political cost may be significant, even in blue states."

Read it all.
 

Regular pot smokers have shrunken brains, study says

From here:

Experimental mice have been telling us this for years, but pot-smoking humans didn't want to believe it could happen to them: Compared with a person who never smoked marijuana, someone who uses marijuana regularly has, on average, less gray matter in his orbital frontal cortex, a region that is a key node in the brain's reward, motivation, decision-making and addictive behaviors network.

[...]

Researchers noted that the IQ of the marijuana-using group was significantly lower than that of the non-using group — not a finding of the study, but an incidental factor that might be indirectly linked to marijuana use.

Read it all.

KENYA: Realignment of Anglican Communion is Done Deal Says Archbishop Wabukala

From here:

Recent news that Lambeth 2018 has been postponed, perhaps indefinitely, is the latest sign that the old institutions of the Communion no longer command confidence, according to Kenyan Archbishop Eliud Wabukala.  "We must remember that the fundamental reason for this is doctrinal.  We are divided because the Faith is threatened by unbiblical teaching," he added.

"In contrast, GAFCON 2 demonstrated that we were emerging as a new and effective 'instrument of unity' for the Anglican Communion."

The Kenya Primate noted that reality was underlined at the investiture of Archbishop Foley Beach as the second Archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America by the Primates gathered in Atlanta, representing GAFCON and the Anglican Global South, receiving him as a Primate of the Anglican Communion.

"It is a sign of great hope for the Gospel in the world.  It is not a small thing that has happened.  There was no need for us to be reminded of the reasons why GAFCON had called the Anglican Church in North America into being five years ago because the investiture demonstrated that the realignment of the Anglican Communion is now established and unstoppable.

Read it all. 

 

Iron Man vs. ISIS?

No, not really, of course.  But it was a good excuse to post one of my all-time favorite action movie rescue scenes:

In the West, a Growing List of Attacks Linked to Islamic Extremism

When I first read this article from the New York Times, my first reaction was, "Well, Duh?"  It seems that one cannot go very long these days without hearing of yet another attack by someone who has embraced militant Islam—like the attack at the Canadian Parliament building yesterday.  However, what is significant is that the New York Times is commenting on it and providing a catalog of the events that have happened in the past couple of years, in an apparent break from our "Community Organizer-in-Chief" who continues to deny that these attacks have any connection to Islam, to maintain that they are not acts of terrorism, and to describe the attacks as "workplace violence."