Michael Savage was half right

Liberalism may not be a mental disorder, but in many cases, such as this one, it is aiding and abetting the development:

In an interview with newspaper Svenska Dagbladet in March, the parents were quoted saying their decision was rooted in the feminist philosophy that gender is a social construction.

“We want Pop to grow up more freely and avoid being forced into a specific gender mould from the outset,” Pop’s mother said. “It's cruel to bring a child into the world with a blue or pink stamp on their forehead.”

The child's parents said so long as they keep Pop’s gender a secret, he or she will be able to avoid preconceived notions of how people should be treated if male or female.

The postmodern rejection of objective reality is at the root of this. The parents are unwilling to accept the reality of gender. Instead of teaching their child to embrace his/her unique gender qualities, they treat it as something to fear. This child will not be more "free" as the parents hope. He/she will be a prisoner of the ambiguity bestowed by the parents. How sad.

h/t Dr. Sanity

Link: http://www.thelocal.se/20232/20090623/

Here's what the voters bought last November

They should have kicked the tires first.

Here's Obama on the campaign trail:

"I pledge that under my plan, no one making less than $250,000 a year will see any type of tax increase," Obama told a crowd in Dover, N.H., last year. "Not income tax, not capital gains taxes, not any kind of tax."

Here's the AP report today:

The Obama White House left open the possibility Sunday that the president would break a campaign promise and raise taxes on people earning less than $250,000 to support his health care overhaul agenda.

I would say WE'VE been had, but I had enough sense not to vote for the guy.

This isn't democracy folks

The Democrats are attempting to ram the "cap and trade" bill through Congress this morning. Despite the overwhelming evidence contradicting man-made global warming, this Congress continues to press an issue which will do nothing to affect the environment, but will appease special interest groups and make our energy costs soar.

What makes matters worse, Henry Waxman dumped a last minute 300 page amendment into an already 1000 page bill at the last minute this morning. This means your representatives have less than three hours to digest this new information before they vote. Of course, the Democrats have the power of the majority in their favor.

This isn't what our founders intended: legislative legerdemain to push through one party's agenda at the expense of the people.

h/t Ed Morrissey at Hot Air
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/26/cap-and-trade-vote-today-complete-with-ap-spin/

MLB to introduce new team

Commissioner Bud Selig today announced that Major League Baseball would introduce a 31st team beginning with the 2010 season, much to the consternation of existing owners and the players union. According to Selig, the new team would be known as "Team USA" and would travel the country playing games in markets that currently don't have Major League teams.

"There's a real inequity out there currently," said Selig. "There are countless markets all across America that don't have access to Major League Baseball. Yes, there are minor league teams, but that's not fair. Everyone has a basic right to enjoy the American pastime."

What's got the players and owners in an uproar is the new funding scheme that will be put in place for Team USA. In a little noticed part of the stimulus package, Congress passed and President Obama signed into law a stipulation that the American Government will actually own this team. Bud Selig will be named "Czar of Baseball" and assume the day-to-day operations of the club. The Major League Umpires association will also be part of the advisory board that governs the team.

"We're very excited about this prospect," commented Obama. "This will truly be 'America's Team.' We're going to show the world how the government can successfully compete and bring the joy of baseball to countless Americans who previously could not access this American birthright."

New York Mets owner, Fred Wilpon, isn't as excited. "This is an outrage. The addition of this team will destroy the competitive balance of Major League Baseball."

President Obama was quick to rejoin the calls of unfairness. "This is all about fairness. We'll be subject to the same rules as everybody else. The bases will still be 90 feet apart and it's still three strikes and you're out."

Wilpon wasn't so sure. "You've got the people who make and enforce the rules playing the game. How long do you think it will be before that conflict of interest comes into play. And what's more, they're the government. They don't have to make any money at this. They can charge whatever they want and pay players whatever they want."

This point seems to be a common concern among owners and players. Under the new agreement, Team USA will play three and four game "home-stands" at a variety of publicly funded venues across the US where there are not currently MLB teams. Tickets will be distributed at no cost to the fans who request them.

"Part of the problem with baseball today," claims Obama, "is the the cost involved in attending a game. Not only are folks geographically isolated from the game, but it costs and arm and a leg to attend. We've got a whole generation of baseball fans who are losing access to the game. And for our older fans on fixed incomes, this can be tough to overcome as well."

Obama said the team plans to earn revenue by taxing the other 30 major league teams and their fan bases.

"They've enjoyed the privilege of baseball far too long without any sacrifice on their part while others have suffered without it. That's got to change."

Wilpon, speaking for the owners and players, is fearful for the survival of the game itself. "We can't compete against the government. They're charging us for their own existence, tailoring the rules to fit their needs, and expecting us to remain competitive with them. Within a few years, Team USA will make the Yankees winning streaks look like nothing. They'll own the game when the rest of us can't keep up."

"These scare tactics and fearmongers are just owners trying to protect their own pocketbooks," Obama said. "Millions of Americans have never seen a live Major League game while they're making record profits. We're going to change that and they're scared."

Partisan glee or righteous indignation?

An interesting debate has sprung up over Gov. Mark Sanford's marital indiscretion made public yesterday. A large segment of the political left is taking what can only be described as "joy" in this revelation as it has permanently damaged the national career of a potential GOP candidate. The media has, of course, gone into full frenzy, opining here, there, and everywhere, and drooling over the salacious details of e-mail messages between Sanford and his Argentinian mistress. At issue here is just how should we react to personal failings of our elected leaders? And what is the media's role in this.

From a personal standpoint, John Dickerson from Slate, puts things into perspective quite nicely:

The snap judgments failed to acknowledge a grain of the fundamental human carnage we were witnessing. You can laugh at Sanford, as you can laugh at a video of a wrecked Amy Winehouse falling all over her house. But at some point, even though they did it to themselves, you have to feel sorry for them as human beings. You can do that, I think, and not be a fan of adultery or drug use.
I'm not offering Sanford's humanity as an excuse. I'm just marveling at how few people stopped for a moment to even nod to it.

Our leaders need to be held to a standard; however often we forget how human they are. In this case, beyond the political import of Sanford's actions, is a family in ruins: a wife and four children to be exact. Long after the ashes of Sanford's political flame out have burned out, the personal scars for him and his family will endure.

On the media front, it is interesting to note the contrast in how this instance was treated compared to John Edwards' affair. Both men were presidential aspirants, albeit Edwards was actively campaigning. Edwards' wife had even been diagnosed with cancer. It's odd that the National Enquirer, of all outlets, had to break the Edwards story. In Sanford's case, the mainstream media was all over his "Appalachian Trail" disappearance and had the e-mail messages ready for print mere hours after his press conference confession. Does it seem odd to anyone else that an affair by a campaigning presidential candidate could fly under the radar of the collective investigative resources of the national media, while the governor of South Carolina is under more apparent media scrutiny than a terrorist at CTU? One subject was a Democrat, and another a Republican. I'll leave it to you to figure out which is which and whether or not it makes a difference.

Obama uses planted questions at press conference

And still refuses to answer them. Dana Milbank from the Washington Post exposes Obama's ruse from yesterday:

In his first daytime news conference yesterday, President Obama preempted "All My Children," "Days of Our Lives" and "The Young and the Restless." But the soap viewers shouldn't have been disappointed: The president had arranged some prepackaged entertainment for them.
After the obligatory first question from the Associated Press, Obama treated the overflowing White House briefing room to a surprise. "I know Nico Pitney is here from the Huffington Post," he announced.
Obama knew this because White House aides had called Pitney the day before to invite him, and they had escorted him into the room. They told him the president was likely to call on him, with the understanding that he would ask a question about Iran that had been submitted online by an Iranian. "I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet," Obama went on. "Do you have a question?"
Pitney recognized his prompt. "That's right," he said, standing in the aisle and wearing a temporary White House press pass. "I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/23/AR2009062303262.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Sadly, even then, Obama didn't really answer the question. As Ed Morrissey of Hot Air noted, what a way to show solidarity with the Iranians seeking openness and honesty from their government: co-opt the media for your own purposes. Shame on the Huffington Post for participating in such a scam, and shame on our President for selfishly mocking the notion of a free press.

Props to Dana Milbank. He's no conservative, to be sure. I respect his willingness to call out Obama on this travesty.

Homeostatic differentiation and the Church

An important biological principle guides our behavior within the systems we inhabit: Homeostatic differentiation. Simply put, we tend to gravitate toward a position of "balance" in the systems we inhabit. The two poles are fusion, in which we are totally enmeshed with the system, and isolation, in which we become cut off from the system. Neither polar position is comfortable or health, so we will gravitate toward a balanced, or differentiated position. This principle has major implications for understanding the psychology of the Church and how its members function.

First, we must deal with the notion of "holiness." We are called by God to be "set apart" from the world. This is not a call for cut-off, but for differentiation. We are to be "in the world, but not of the world." The Church must understand that we have been give privilege as children of God. Membership in the Lord's Church, if we understand it correctly, automatically puts us in a healthy position. We are part of the most privileged group in the universe: the eternal Kingdom of God. At the same time, we are set apart from the world.

This phenomenon is often visible in the world as well, but with one important distinction: the presence of power. There are many groups that offer their members a sense of distinction; a notion that they are privileged members of an elite organization. The difference between these groups and the Church is, or at least should be, that these groups use power to cut-off from those who are not members. The Church is "holy." We are differentiated in Christ. What's different, however, is that we are cast in a servant's role, not one of Lordship. The Church should never take up a position of elitism or superiority. If we do that, then we are no different than the local country club or some college fraternity.

The Church must be on guard not to fall into a pathological state of differentiation. Worldly groups gravitate towards two ends to display their uniqueness: the aforementioned power plays, or, if power is inaccessible, envy or opposition. Since they cannot exert their power to prove their uniqueness, they reject those on the outside or try to tear them down. This is a "sour grapes" mentality. Sadly, I see this happening all too often in the Church as well. Instead of continuing to engage the world and serve them in the love of Christ, we vilify those whom we perceive as our persecutors. This is in opposition to how Christ taught us to treat our enemies.

Membership in the Body of Christ is true differentiation. We share in the power of God, but not for selfish means or personal exaltation. We do not envy, but we share. We do not aim for exclusivity, but for inclusion of the entire world. That is the mission given us by Jesus.

He certainly does have audacity

"I don't want to speculate on hypotheticals," Obama said. "But I want ... to give assurances to the American people that the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted in terms of what might happen."
"What we're not going to do is to reward belligerence and provocation in the way that's been done in the past," he said.

Unbelievable. This is beyond dishonest. How long can he continue to scapegoat others before he's forced to take responsibility?


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090622/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_nkorea

The Fourth Estate has filed for bankruptcy

If the fawning coverage for Candidate Obama weren't enough, the over-the-top worship of President Obama is too much. Our nation's media has always played an integral role in securing our freedom, serving as an independent "watchdog" on those in power. The watchdog which was so much the pit bull during the Bush administration is now a sycophantic lap dog. Witness these statements:

Newsweek's Evan Thomas:

Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is - we are above that now. We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial. We stand for something, I mean in a way Obama's standing above the country, above above the world, he's sort of God.

MSNBC's Chris Matthews (he of the "tingling leg"):

"Joining me now a couple of heavyweights. Howard Dean the man who really laid out the path for Barack Obama. He was the St. John the Baptist, I'd say, leading for that fellow, not to make any further reference there to the Deity."

Heaven help us!

The Last Word on Tolerance: WWJD?

We've looked at Paul's exhortations to the Romans in great detail. Now let's examine how Jesus, our ultimate guide and authority on all matters, tolerated others during his ministry. Two instances come to mind immediately which represent opposite approaches to tolerating others: Jesus' dealing with the adulteress and his response to the moneychangers at the temple.

With the adulteress, Jesus is confronted with a woman who was caught in the act of adultery. Yet, rather than condemn her, Jesus turns the tables on her accusers and challenges the person without sin to "cast the first stone." Then, after the accusers depart, Jesus firmly instructs the woman to "go and sin no more." With the moneychangers, Jesus becomes enraged, turning over the tables of the moneychangers, who had turned the Temple into a marketplace. What can we take from these two scenes?

First, Jesus draws a clear line between personal sin and spiritual sin. On many occasions, Jesus shows grace and mercy to those who have succumbed to the temptations of the flesh. His tolerance is not a turning away, mind you. He clearly calls out sin for what it is. But his approach to these sins invites the sinner to repentance. He extends grace and mercy to the offender rather than jumping immediately to condemnation like the accusers of the adulteress.

Second, with regard to the spiritual sin, Jesus has zero tolerance for that. For those who desecrate the Temple and bring dishonor to God, Jesus has the harshest rebukes. Such is the same for the Pharisees, when Jesus chastises them. Their self-righteousness is causing others to stumble and bringing dishonor to the Father, whom they claim to represent.

Finally, let's look at a passage in Matthew 13 that gives us insight in how we are to go about judging others:

24Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27"The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'

28" 'An enemy did this,' he replied.
"The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?'

29" 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' "

In this parable, Jesus instructs us not to take on the job of "kingdom gardeners." It is not our responsibility to "weed out" those whom we feel are unproductive. We are not equipped with the wisdom to do so. That task is to be left to God on judgment day. Too often in today's church, leaders have positioned themselves as such gardeners and have indeed "rooted up wheat" along with the "weeds."

In summary, Jesus teaches us that it's not about what we do in response to sin, but how we approach the sinner. The Pharisees approached sinners in a judgmental, legalistic manner that guaranteed condemnation. Jesus, on the other hand, approached the sinner with grace and mercy and opportunity for redemption.

We are called toward a ministry of reconciliation with those around us. Our aim is to bring as many as will come to a relationship with the Father through knowledge of the Son. That is our commission. We are not commissioned to enter into judgment and condemnation. To do so means that we put our own souls in peril.

Everyone, Joe?

Vice President Joe Biden says “everyone guessed wrong” on the impact of the economic stimulus. O rly?

Follow these links for the exceptions to "everyone" including 200 economists who took out an ad saying as much. Economics does have a history, Mr. Biden. We can see what has worked and what hasn't. I don't know what disturbs me more: this administration's seeming ignorance of economic theory or the fact that apparently they're spending trillions of taxpayer dollars and ruining our children's futures based on guesswork. Or maybe that Mr. Biden seems reticent to take on any responsibility for this disaster. Guessed wrong? Was the White House consulting the Magic 8 Ball for advice?

A manager who calls a pitchout when a runner isn't stealing guessed wrong. He's just playing a hunch. Please tell me that the current leaders of the free world aren't just acting on their "gut" instinct. Maybe someone will listen to me the next time we have someone whose never met a payroll running for the presidency. This office is not the place for on-the-job-training.

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/mound-city-money/us-economy/2009/01/economists-say-stimulus-wont-work/

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/60944.html

http://www.gop.gov/wtas/09/02/13/analysis-stimulus-wont-jump-start

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aYsGEY5BGO2E

Causing my brother to stumble

The church today is divided. That much cannot be debated. There are the obvious denominational divisions, but more troubling is the division in the Catholic (universal) church and the Churches of Christ whose beginning vision was to restore the unity of the first century church. These two "brands" of Christianity are uniquely dedicated to unity, yet because of unyielding obeisance to matters not of the cross, (Latin mass, priestly celibacy, a capella worship, institutional financial support, etc.) there is animosity and bitterness within the brotherhood.

To be clear, we're not discussing issues that bring about legitimate division here. For example, much has been made about certain Catholic politicians support of abortion and their ability to remain part of the communion. The position one holds on the sanctity of human life cannot be open to debate. What is disturbing are the divisions within the body over cultural practices and non-essential doctrines that are in effect hampering the body's ability to function effectively for the cause of Christ. Paul addressed this to the Romans as well:

19So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another.

20Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense.

21It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.

22The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.

23But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

Paul sets the standard pretty clearly here. There are two main objectives with regard to the practice of our Christianity:

1. Whatever we do should be done for the pursuit of peace, edification, and encouragement of the Body of Christ so that His work might be done. Paul makes it very clear here and throughout his epistles that Christ's sacrifice freed us from making the legalistic determinations that plagued the Pharisees. "All things are clean." In I Corinthians 10:23, Paul clarifies this even further by saying, "All things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial." Rather than getting caught up in divisive debates, Paul exhorts the Roman Christians to seek out the edification and encouragement of one another. What if the church today had that attitude?

2. Paul very emphatically tells us that our practice must be grounded in faith. This would preclude practice by rote, which is all too present today. Related to the first principle, Paul tells us that we should be careful not to do anything that would cause our brother to stumble.

Can the church return to this ideal: a faith and practice that is truly concerned with the unity of the body rather than pursuit of self-righteousness? That is our call, and we will not be acting as the Body of Christ until we can get there.

Why do you judge your brother?

Clearly, the contemporary church has a problem with judgmental attitudes. The focus of today's post will deal with judgmental attitudes within the church. We obviously have great problems with our unChristian attitudes to those on the "outside" (see Barna Group findings), but dealing with those will have to wait for another day. If we are to truly love our neighbors as ourselves, we need to start doing a more Christlike job of loving one another.

Paul asks this question to the Roman Christians, a multicultural group if there ever was one:

10But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.

Far too many times have I witnessed the contempt that Paul speaks of within the church. I have heard sermons from Baptists bashing Lutherans and Methodists. I've heard Catholics speak of Protestants as being "unsaved" and vice versa. And within my own fellowship, the churches of Christ, we have hundreds of issues that have brought about division and a loss of fellowship. There's no tactful way to describe these conditions: They are wrong! They are sinful in the eyes of God!

Paul admonishes the Romans later on in Chapter 14, saying this:

13Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this--not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way.

14I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

15For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.

16Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil;

17for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

Paul is primarily addressing the Jewish Christians within Rome here. They had taken up a self-righteous attitude toward the Gentile converts in Rome who did not share their Mosaic traditional history. Paul does a fantastic job of differentiating here. He pays respect to the Jewish traditions from which he himself descends. At the same time, he warns the Jewish Christians not to let these traditions become a "stumbling block" to the Gentile converts. There is a "bottom line" here, according to Paul: In Christ, we need to be about righteousness, peace, and joy, united in the Holy Spirit. None of our traditional practices is going to bring that about.

If we as Christians are to begin retaking our influential place in the world, we first are going to have to drop these petty arguments that bring about division. When we cast down our brother or sister in the name of women wearing dresses, kitchens in the church building, the nature of the communion wine, and yes, even a capella worship, we are not being righteous. We are being self-righteous, unfairly condemning our brother who does not share in our tradition. This does not bring forth peace or joy, but conflict and bitterness. We can be sure such divisions are not the result of the Holy Spirit.

What is tolerance?

Yesterday, we looked at an example of worldly "tolerance," the Orwellian notion that any special interest group can shout down the mainstream with impunity. Today, let's examine what tolerance should look like in God's Kingdom. His standard is and always will be the one we should be seeking.

Romans 14 offers an excellent discourse on tolerating difference. Here, Paul is addressing the Roman Christians, a melange of traditions and ideas if there ever was one. Here, occupying the same "faith ground" were converted Jews,Greeks, and Romans. This was truly a "multicultural" society. What is important here is Paul's emphasis on what unites them, not what divides them:

Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions.
2One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only.

3The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.

4Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Here, Paul is addressing the issue of religious practice based on cultural tradition. In short, he instructs the Roman Christians to "back off" their insistence on cultural purity and focus on Christ. It's not about the "how," it's about the "what." Paul summarizes this ideas in verses 5 and 6:

5One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.

6He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.

To be tolerant, Paul is saying, we must have confidence in our own faith; indeed, we must be so confident that we can tolerate those who deviate from our own practices. Note that Paul is not tolerating any deviance regarding Christ or who He is. What he does make allowance for are differences of practice based on cultural tradition. He encourages the Roman Christians not to let these issues become points of division in the Church.

Where are we today with regard to this facet of tolerance? Is the church practicing tolerance? Or are we getting caught up in petty differences that lead to division?

Tolerance pt. 1

Much is made in our society about being "tolerant." What exactly does that mean? What should it mean for the contemporary Christian. The accusation is oft made against Christians that we just aren't "tolerant" enough. These next few posts will attempt to explore this slippery issue and answer a few key questions: What is tolerance? Are we Christians tolerant of others? Should we be tolerant of sin? How did Jesus deal with the issue of tolerance.

Today, let's look at a brief, but illuminating illustration of what tolerance isn't...by any objective standard. The great irony is that this statement is uttered by an activist fighting for greater tolerance of his special interest group, gays and lesbians:

"We have to quit being afraid of the religious right. We also have to quit — I'm trying to find a way to say this. I'm trying not to say, '[F—] 'em!' which is what I want to say, because I don't care what they think! [audience laughter] Drop dead!"

That's Greg Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSN) and recent appointee to the Department of Education. He doesn't sound all that tolerant! Apparently, Mr. Jennings definition of tolerance is this: Hold firm to what you believe in and arrogantly attempt to squash all who might oppose you.

Sadly, this too often what passes for tolerance in today's PC culture. Even more sad is the prevalence of those in Christendom who have taken up the same tactic, assuming the role of the shouting victim. As we will examine further, this is not the scriptural model for tolerance. We Christians certainly have some work to do in this area and a long way to go before we can assume our place as Christ-like role models for the rest of the world.

I'm baaaaaack

And on the roles of the unemployed, still awaiting my magic unicorn. In the meantime, I'm pursuing job leads and praying...a lot. Just in case Evan Thomas' god can't come through for me, I'll back it up with prayer to the creator of the universe and a little elbow grease on my part.

I'm taking today to get some things in order. Lord willing, I'll be on every day for awhile sharing some thoughts I've had recently.