'The effective and mass communication of the gospel depends upon the freedom to proclaim it'...

Greg Koukl on whether political passivity is a vice or a virtue:

...
The “Separation” of Church and State

The current understanding of separation of church and state—the view that the state is thoroughly secular and not influenced by religious values, especially Christian ones—was completely foreign to the first 150 years of American political thought. Clearly the Founding Fathers did not try to excise every vestige of Christian religion, Christian thought, and Christian values from every facet of public life. They were friendly to Christianity and encouraged its public practice and expression.

It wasn’t until 1947 that the United States Supreme Court first used the concept of “separation” to isolate government from religion. In Everson v. Board of Education, the court lifted a phrase from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a Baptist church in Danbury, Connecticut. The Court ruled, “Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another....In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’”

...

Calling a Vice a Virtue

Followers of Christ should not be suppressed from without by a notion of separation foreign to the Constitution. Neither should they be silenced from within by misguided piety.

The Church can never replace the work of the cross with civic works of righteousness. This is beyond dispute as far as I’m concerned. The goal of Christian political activity, though, is not to make a nation acceptable to God. It’s to insure a just society.

Christian author Philip Yancey writes, “We have no mandate to ‘Christianize’ the United States—an impossible goal in any case. Yet Christians can work simultaneously toward a different goal, the ‘moralization’ of society. We can help tether the values and even the laws of society to some basis in transcendence.”

The myth of political passivity unwittingly makes a Christian virtue out of the vice of negligence. When we ignore our obligation to morally instruct the nation merely because someone labels it “politics,” then it won’t be long before the country teems with injustice as every man simply does “what is right in his own eyes.”

Check out his apologetics site called Stand to Reason.

Video - Glenn Beck on Iraq: It's not all death and destruction...

... "the real story about Iraq can be found in the eyes of the children". Check out the other side of the story... the one that we don't see on the evening news:

Well done Glenn.

Glenn Becks favorite commercial parodies of 2006...

Hezbollaerobics - "sweating to the jihad", Head Off - "new from exploitico industries...", McDonalds UnHappy Meal - "with one of 4 Inconvenient Truth collector toys...", and more...

Bill Moyers is a propagandist...

Bryan at HotAir has Bill O'Reilly catching Moyers flat-out lying tonight on video:

Takeaways: When liberals hear other liberals tell bald-faced lies, being “puzzled” is evidently the proper response. Describing someone as “far left” is a perjorative, according to Marvin Kalb. If folks like Mr. Kalb get their way, at some point, literally any word or phrase that we use to describe someone else’s ethnicity, politics or religious beliefs or any other identifying characteristic will be defined as “perjorative.” For liberals like Mr. Kalb, the way out of uncomfortable questions is to plead ignorance. Watch Kalb use that trick when O’R asks him whether George Soros is far left or not.
All in all, a good segment. O’R had the goods, the boss brought the cogent comment, and Bill Moyers’ credibility is history. Finito. Done.

A commenter on Bryan's post links to this interesting info on Moyers.

NewsBusters has more as Brent Bozell targets Moyers and PBS hypocricy. Click here for all of NewsBusters coverage of Moyers.

Glenn Beck: Rap music industry is enslaving our kids... (updated)

I watched this last night and thought it was worth posting. The video from FOXNEWSFANS is not good quality, but this is an important subject that doesn't get enough play... take a look: (update...better video here)


Sharpton is hate-mongering slime, but it sounds like he's at least trying to be on the right side of this issue. I don't trust him for second though.

Great job Glenn.

Update: Good news from todays Play of the Day from All Pro Dad...

According to the Associated Press, after 30 years of growing popularity, rap music is now struggling with an alarming sales decline and growing criticism from within about the culture's negative effect on society. Rap sales slid a whopping 21 % the past year, and for the first time in 12 years, no rap album was among the top 10 sellers of the year. A recent study by the Black Youth Project showed a majority of youth think rap has too many violent images. In a poll of black Americans by The Associated Press and AOL-Black Voices last year, 50% of respondents said hip-hop was a negative force in American society.

I don’t think all rap/hip-hop music is bad. But there are definitely some cancerous elements within it. The good news is that our society is now addressing it. And wouldn’t it be ironic that the violent strain in rap is headed for a slow death itself? Let’s hope so.

Click here for positive, uplifting music for your kids.

Update: Michelle Malkin chimes in with this great Vent:

George Soros and Media Matters exposed... (updated)

Bill O'Reilly (column link) has some serious guts to go after this story that no one else will... and he's doing his research. Awesome: (click picture below for video over at HotAir)


More video of this show from FoxNews here: "The Dr. Evil of left-wing foundations"

Thanks for the video clip Ian!

Update: Here's how the left feels about it.

Update #2: Wesley Clark on O'Reilly:

How Wives Can Kill Their Marriage:

Doug Giles with the last of a great three-parter... here's a taste:

I think the world is coming to an end. I didn’t come to this conclusion simply because a lot of people actually read and like my column, but primarily because of the tons of positive emails I’m getting from former livid ladies confessing their remorse for their previous acts of husband hating. It’s crazy. It must be global warming causing all these ex-ice queens to melt and warm up to their men. See, global warming ain’t all that bad, Al. Anyway, enough of the happy crap. . . .

I want to continue to feed the wives who want to snuff the life out of their marriage and make that thing more tedious that listening to Sanjaya sing, “Riders on the Storm.”

Having covered “nag your husband and disparage him in public” in part one and “how to drive him nuts by short leashing him, becoming a drama queen, hating his friends and hating his hobbies” in part two, I now offer you (the bellicose beastesses of husband hatred) the final four fundamentals that will make your husband prefer being bitten on the crotch by a black mamba to your blah, blah, blah.

7. Cut him off sexually. Another great way to make your man hit a depressed state that is only eclipsed by the one Rosie O’Donnell’s proctologist deals with is to cut him off from hot relations. I mean, give him nada. Guys will stomach some nagging, getting short leashed, multitudinous Naomi Campbellesque dramatic outbursts and your general disinterest of his interests—as long as you rock his world in the bedroom. Yes, most men are that easy. ...

...Under no circumstances should you show appreciation, be tender, fun, amorous and adventurous or do any other thing that’ll keep the love flame lit. TLC, if injected into the marriage mix, will cause the two of you to have a healthy sexual relationship, which obviously helps a marriage (plus burns calories)—and that would completely derail your desires for marital misery.

8. Get your parents and/or siblings involved in your marriage. Forget this leave and cleave stuff the Bible dictates. If you want your union to unravel then you’ve got to gang tackle your husband with la familia. For example: if you, as a couple, have a major decision to make, seek counsel and opinions only from your mom and dad, rather than your husband. This will give him that stooge/stepchild feeling of useless stupidity that is, FYI, a great alienating agent. ...

9. Never apologize. If, in the odd event you do something that hurts your husband, or . . . say the unlikely occasion arises where you were woefully and ridiculously wrong on an issue, never, I mean never, under any circumstance, apologize for anything.

Why should you say you’re sorry? You’re the Queen of Mean, the Belle of Bitterness and culpable for nothing. You’re not going to apologize because . . . uh . . . well, um . . . the wrong you did wasn’t entirely your fault. Hello. He knows that. You have low blood sugar. And on that day when you screwed up and made yourself look like an ass by wrongfully axe-grinding on your man, it was because you didn’t have your afternoon Butterfinger fix. As a matter of fact, your husband, yes, your husband (whom you had put in charge of stockpiling your Butterfinger reserves) let the coffers run dry. Which means (that’s right!), he is actually responsible for your demonic manifestation. Thus, it’s him, I tell you . . . it’s your husband who should apologize, dammit. You . . . apologize? Please.

Whether it’s low blood sugar, PMS, PBS, Global Warming, the vast ring wing conspiracy or Bill O’Reilly, you, the marital femme fatale, are fortunate to live in the 21st century. In this therapeutic age you are afforded excuses aplenty that will help you destroy your marriage by never owning or asking for forgiveness for your hellish behavior.

10. Look bugly (butt ugly). Women come in all shapes and sizes. The majority of men that I know (who love the testosterone, heterosexual, God-blessed fog in which they dwell) really like women. From Calista Flockhart to Queen Latifa, to them . . . it’s all good. That is, as long as the ladies take care of what the good Lord has given them. The successful marriages I’ve seen know and abide by this golden nugget: always look your best . . . to constantly attract and show respect for your mate. It also aids in not terrifying dogs and small children. ...

...However, since you’re focused on mucking up your marriage, you’ve got to look bugly. Here’s how it goes. Your husband’s getting a little belly, so why shouldn’t you match it? Or better yet, better it? You should blow off regular exercising, occasional tanning and wearing sexy perfumes. Don’t bleach that hair on your lip, don’t wash your greasy hair or follow current fashion; just plow on with your hellish couture . . . the over sized t-shirts, oily skin, stretch pants and that hair style you got from 1906 Sears catalogue. To heck with your husband (and the world) if he doesn’t like your looks. Your goal is to make him love you for who you are, not what you look like.

And with that, I’m done with “How Wives Can Ruin Their Marriage.” Go for it, ladies. Maybe, just maybe, you can take Elsa Lancaster’s old role in the upcoming Bride of Frankenstein remake. Work hard and keep your fingers crossed. Where there’s a will, there’s a way, eh? Don’t deviate from these principles, because if you do, you might end up with a happy marriage. Yecch. ...

Great stuff. Read the whole thing here... part I, part II, part III.

Owning defeat...

By now, you all know about Harry Reid's public concession that "the war is lost".

Michelle Malkin posts some outstanding responses from her military readers here and a second batch here.

In a third post, she highlights COBDanny with an awesome letter to Harry:

Dear Senator Reid,

Thank you for finally putting this whole Iraq War mess to bed. The timing couldn’t be better for my family.

You see, my son is serving in this “lost war” with the 82nd Airborne Division; actually on his third tour. My family will be very happy to have him home within 30 days because then he can attend my daughter’s graduation from college and Commissioning Ceremony.

My bride is skeptical of all of this but I reassured her that I know for a fact that he will be home soon because based on your statement and being the Senate Majority Leader, you will kill all funding for this “lost war” immediately.

My bride was still unconvinced and I explained it to her this way.

If Senator Reid, based on the information that the Senate Majority Leader has, has determined that this war is lost; there is nothing left to do but come home. The way I see it, if you were to vote for anything less; you would be personally liable for any future wounded or God-Forbid dead soldiers.

Although, I have the utmost confidence that you will do the right thing and de-fund this war immediately; I have retained legal council just in case.

So, know this Senator; if you don’t de-fund this war within seven days, I will hold you personably liable for any harm to American servicemen. If the war is lost and you have the power to end it then just do it. Stop whining like a ***** and just do it...

...You, a person in high authority in the US government, have made a definitive statement that an action is occurring with no redeeming value. Said action is causing harm and death to US citizens. You have the unique power to stop said action and thusly stop the harm.

So Harry, I say have the balls to actually do it or find yourself liable.
Governing is not just whining and pandering. At some point you have to actually govern. It is painfully clear that you have neither the intellectual power nor the fuzzy kiwis to actually do it.

Feel free to share this with Neville Nancy as I plan the exact same action for her pathetic ***.

The soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen that you are endangering by either your idiotic statements that empower the enemy or your overt inaction that contributes to their danger; are American citizens. In either case, you have endangered them and you alone have the ability to correct it.

See you in court.

Very sincerely,
Crotchety Old Bastard

Thanks for sharing Michelle and COB! I couldn't agree more.

Update: Michelle also covers recent comments from Joe Lieberman. Says Liebs:

With all due respect, I strongly disagree. Senator Reid's statement is not based on military facts on the ground in Iraq and does not advance our cause there.

Also, from Lori Byrd - What Would It Take for Joe Lieberman to Fire Harry Reid?

What left-wing media bias?

Ian Schwartz from HotAir snapped this great clip from O'Reilly last night interviewing Tammy Bruce:

If you’re a center-left, centrist, center-right or conservative and you’ve uttered an opinion in public, chances are far far left loss leaders Media Matters and Air America have a dossier on you. Radio talk show host and friend of Hot Air Tammy Bruce appeared on last night’s “O’Reilly Factor” to talk about far-left outlets (*cough* Media Matters *cough*) who have a hit list on conservatives and moderate/not-so-far to the left Democrats. Tammy explained the elaborate ruse these far-left individuals use to get national news outlets to get their message out. How does Tammy know? She used to do it herself when she was president of the Los Angeles NOW chapter.

From the horses mouth.

Humor break... funny scene from Office Space...

Soooo... what would you say you do here?


Outstanding. Buy it here.

Michelle Malkin takes on the enabling sponsors of ABC's The View...

Boycott Rosie:

Top 10 Most Conservative House Members...

Ranked by the American Conservative Union, posted at Human Events:

The American Conservative Union (ACU) just released its annual ratings of Congress. The ACU rating is widely regarded as the “gold standard,” the definitive conservative assessment of the federal legislative branch. Below are the 10 most conservative active House members, based on their 2006 (109th Congress, 2nd Session) ratings. The current ratings for all members are available at www.acuratings.org.

10. J. Gresham Barrett (R.-S.C.)
2006 ACU rating: 96%
Lifetime ACU rating: 98%
Years of Service: 4

9. Marilyn Musgrave (R.-Colo.)
2006 ACU rating: 96%
Lifetime ACU rating: 99%
Years of Service: 4

8. Jeff Flake (R.-Ariz.)
2006 ACU rating: 100%
Lifetime ACU rating: 95%
Years of Service: 6

7. Randy Neugebauer (R.-Tex.)
2006 ACU rating: 100%
Lifetime ACU rating: 95%
Years of Service: 4

6. Steve King (R.-Iowa)
2006 ACU rating: 100%
Lifetime ACU rating: 97%
Years of Service: 4

5. Jeb Hensarling (R.-Tex.)
2006 ACU rating: 100%
Lifetime ACU rating: 98%
Years of Service: 4

4. Trent Franks (R.-Ariz.)
2006 ACU rating: 100%
Lifetime ACU rating: 98%
Years of Service: 4

3. John Shadegg (R.-Ariz.)
2006 ACU rating: 100%
Lifetime ACU rating: 98%
Years of Service: 12

2. Scott Garrett (R.-N.J.)
2006 ACU rating: 100%
Lifetime ACU rating: 100%
Years of Service: 4

1. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.)
2006 ACU rating: 100%
Lifetime ACU rating: 100%
Years of Service: 6

Previous Human Events Top Ten Lists.

'An alternative Democratic foreign policy'???

I agree with Thomas Sowell that Nancy Pelosi and the Dems are Playing with Fire:

... Until Nancy Pelosi came along, it was understood by all that we had only one president at a time and -- like him or not -- he alone had the Constitutional authority to speak for this country to foreign nations, especially in wartime.

All that Pelosi's trip can accomplish is to advertise American disunity to a terrorist-sponsoring nation in the Middle East while we are in a war there. That in turn can only embolden the Syrians to exploit the lack of unified resolve in Washington by stepping up their efforts to destabilize Iraq and the Middle East in general. ...

---

All that Pelosi's trip can accomplish
is to advertise American disunity

---

... Indeed, it is monkey business as usual, as Congressional Democrats revel in the power of their new and narrow election victory last year to drag people before committee hearings and posture for the television cameras.

It has been said that the world ends not with a bang but with a whimper. But who would have thought that it could end with political clowning in the shadow of a mushroom cloud?

Allahpundit covered the story a few days ago... more to come.

Update: From AllahPundit...Video: Bush criticizes Pelosi over meeting with Assad.

Update: A Delegation of House Republicans is even more annoying!

The punishment and intimidation of conservative gays...

Dennis Prager On "Outing" Gay Conservatives

...And why do gay Republicans and conservatives deserve to have the most private part of themselves revealed to the world?

Because, the activists argue, conservative gays are hypocrites, and hypocrites deserve no mercy.

But this argument is nonsensical. If the activists believe this argument, they do not think clearly. If they don't believe it, then they "out" gay conservatives for another reason: They wish to punish gays who do not follow the leftist party line on same-sex marriage and other gay-related issues, and they wish to intimidate other non-outed gays from adopting conservative values on such matters.

---

They wish to punish gays who
do not follow the leftist party line
on same-sex marriage and other gay-related issues,
and they wish to intimidate other
non-outed gays from adopting
conservative values on such matters.

---

Why is the hypocrite argument nonsense? Because it is a non sequitur. Gay opposition to same-sex marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with hypocrisy.

Why can't a gay person oppose redefining marriage to include two people of the same sex?

Why can't a gay person believe that it is best for children to start out life with a mother and father as opposed to two fathers and no mother or two mothers and no father?

Why does one have to be a heterosexual in order to make that argument?

Why is one's value system shaped by one's sexual orientation?

Why does the fact that one is gay and engages in homosexual behavior mean that he must advocate redefining marriage?

Why can heterosexuals think outside their sexual orientation and advocate same-sex marriage but homosexuals cannot think outside their sexual orientation and advocate retaining opposite-sex marriage? ...

---

they are certain that conservatives
in general are bad people,
not merely wrong on the issues

---

... Why do so many on the left believe it is OK to damage the lives of gay conservatives? Because they are certain that conservatives in general are bad people, not merely wrong on the issues. And because they particularly wish to punish any gay or black person who dissents from the liberal positions on gay and race issues.

For the left, it is a virtue for an American to differ with American leaders, a virtue for a Catholic to differ with Rome, a virtue for a Jew to differ with Israel. But it is utterly unacceptable for a homosexual to differ with gay organizations. Such a person must be crushed. And the way to achieve that is by exposing his sexual life to the world. And then justify it by declaring him a "hypocrite."

He also points out in this column how the same applies to race, using the treatment of conservative Clarence Thomas as an example. Spot on.

A New Form of Evil...

If you missed it, LGF had the story.

(Image to the right from Michael Yon's online gallery)

Why America Has Not Won Iraq War, from one of my favorites - Dennis Prager:

...If America had to fight an insurgency directed solely against us and coalition forces -- even including suicide bombers -- we would surely have succeeded. No one, right, left or center, could imagine a group of people so evil, so devoid of the most elementary and universal concepts of morality, that they would target their own people, especially the most vulnerable, for murder.

---

Even without all the mistakes
made by the Bush administration...
it could not have foreseen this
new form of evil we are witnessing in Iraq.

---

That is why we have not yet prevailed in Iraq. Even without all the mistakes made by the Bush administration - and what political or military leadership has not made many errors in prosecuting a war? - it could not have foreseen this new form of evil we are witnessing in Iraq.

That is why we have not won.

There are respectable arguments to be made against America's initially going into Iraq. But intellectually honest opponents of the war have to acknowledge that no one could anticipate an "insurgency" that included people leaving children in a car and then blowing them up.

Well-said.

Newt discussed this story also in his latest column called The Reality of Evil and the Men and Women of Munich, and I couldn't agree more that it's important that we say it: our enemies are evil:

The news report came about mid-week. Maybe you saw it.

The Associated Press reported that terrorists in Iraq have passed an unthinkable threshold: They used two children to disguise a car bomb.

The car was waved through a checkpoint by American soldiers who could not imagine that children would be in a car filled with explosives. When the terrorists got to their target, they got out of the car and ran. They left the children behind in the car, and then blew it up.

There is a word for people who put children in a car to be blown up. The word is evil.

How 'bout a Thompson/Gingrich ticket in '08?