Wednesday
THAT WAS THE WEEK THAT WAS
~
THIS WEEK'S EDITORIAL COMMENT: Last week we tried to define
the difference between ANC's function as a "Newsletter," and as a
"Commentary." And we posed the important question: "Who (or what) can
you believe?" The distinction between functions becomes more important,
day by day. There are so many news events taking place all over the world
that we cannot be just another reporting source. But we can continue to do
what we have really always tried to do: provide commentaries based on an
Evangelical-Conservative-Christian viewpoint on what we consider to be
the most important of those news events. And offer with the commentaries
a new important question:"What can you do?" Are you going to sit back,
point the finger of objection, complain (admittedly in sincerity), and do
nothing to help bring about change in what is happening to this nation --
this world -- of ours? This we can promise you: our commentaries will be
based on fact, not rumor or "spin," and we will offer an answer to that new
question -- suggestions as to what you can do.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RIGHT AFTER WORLD WAR II, BRITAIN
HAD A TV PROGRAM CALLED "THAT WAS
THE WEEK THAT WAS." THAT COULD
BE A GOOD DEFINITION OF LIFE IN
AMERICA TODAY
"TW, TW, TW" was the way the British referred to their popular TV
program. And that same abbreviation can certainly be applied to the news
events which have been confronting us in August, 2010. How can we cope
with such a list of major news events: 2 wars, involving hundreds of
thousands of American troops half a world away . . . disastrous floods with
thousands of deaths in Pakistan, China and North Korea . . . a homosexual
federal judge ruled that California's law banning same-sex marriage is
unconstitutional . . . a major economic and ecological disaster in the Gulf
may or may not be handled well . . . the American people are sharply
divided on the erection of an Islamic mosque at 9/11 Ground Zero . . . a
controversial justice is sworn in to the U.S. Supreme Court . . . our president
observes his birthday, still without any proof of his date or place of birth . . .
amid the increasing American military deaths in the Afghan war, the peace
loving Muslims who make up the Taliban executed 10 medical aid workers,
including 6 Americans . . . the Obama administration contributed between
$20 and $30 million to influence a vote in Kenya on a constitution which
liberalizes abortion laws and partially implements Muslim Sharia law in
that nation . . . and in a demonstration of her continued disdain for America,
Michelle Obama spent a vacation accompanied by friends (but not with her
husband) at a luxury resort in Spain, at an estimated cost to American
taxpayers of a half million dollars.
And while that may not be anywhere near a complete list of current news
events, it is as many significant events as we intend to mention, and out of
that list we have arbitrarily chosen four on which to comment. Choosing
which four to comment on was difficult. Condensing the comments to fit
available time and space was even more difficult. But we'll try . . .
[1] Let's get this one out of the way first: Michelle Obama makes news.
Ms. Obama (technically the "First Lady") first burst on the national scene
in February, 2008, during political campaign meetings in Milwaukee and
Madison, Wisconsin, where she said: "For the first time in my adult
lifetime, I am really proud of my country, and not just because Barack
has done well . . ." Let's see: she was born in January, 1964, and thus she
became an adult in 1982. In those 26 years did she never find anything to
make her proud to be an American until Barack began to be considered as
a presidential candidate?
But it makes you wonder just how proud she really is about Barack Obama.
On his 49th birthday (at least we are told it was his 49th birthday -- for
some reason we are not allowed to know for sure when or where he was
born -- no one seems to know why the details of his birth are kept as such
a secret) Michelle was partying at a luxury resort in Spain with daughter
Sasha and 40 or so personal friends. But Mr. Obama didn't have to spend
his birthday all alone -- he flew to Illinois and dined with Oprah Winfrey.
But almost as distasteful as her expression of lack of pride in America was
Michelle's Spanish fling. She could have chosen somewhere in this vast
land of ours, and give some evidence of her concern for our weakened
economy, particularly at a time when our service industries, restaurants,
hotels and resorts are suffering, instead of spending an estimated half
million of our tax dollars to help the Spanish economy. But it is open to
question that she made any friends for America with her lavish life style --
she had the 5 star Villa Padierna Hotel close off 100 yards of the public
beach (that's the size of a football field) so she and her friends could enjoy
a swim. But it made it nice for the 70 members of her security detail who
surely enjoyed the trip. The report is that "personal" expenses would be
borne by the Obamas (and their friends), and although the Air Force plane
in which Michelle and Sasha flew cost $178,000 for the round trip, the
Obamas are obligated to repay to the Air Force the cost of two first class,
round trip tickets, amounting to $7,400 each.
The London Daily Mail newspaper carried this comment: "Michelle
Obama today faced a fresh wave of attacks over her lavish break in
Spain with 40 friends, which could easily cost U.S. taxpayers a
staggering £50,000 a day [that's $80,000]. The First Lady has been
lambasted for her extravagance at a time when the economy is still
struggling." And that London paper covered her final activities on Sunday
with this report: "U.S. First Lady Michelle Obama and her younger
daughter lunched with Spain's King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia today
at the royal summer residence on the Balearic island of Majorca. Mrs.
Obama, nine-year-old Sasha and their entourage flew into the
Majorcan capital of Palma from the glitzy Mediterranean resort of
Marbella ... the lunch is Mrs. Obama's last engagement in Spain before
flying home to Washington, DC, where she has come under fire for her
lavish break on the Costa del Sol with 40 friends."
Oh, and by the way, Michelle, we're not all that proud of you, either. And
we're not all that sure we can afford you and all your "glitzy" (to use a
British term) vacations for another two years.
[2] The massacre of medical aid workers in Afghanistan. There is a
segue often used: "from the ridiculous to the sublime." That is the sort
of transition we are confronted with in this second comment. Of all the
news events we have had to consider this week -- or for a long time --
few, if any, have shocked the sensibilities of the entire civilized world
as has this barbaric killing of 10 medical aid workers who dedicated their
lives and skills to ministering to the medical needs of remote villagers in
Afghanistan. Of the 10 who were executed -- apparently shot, one by one --
6 were Americans, one from Britain, one from Germany and two Afghans.
A spokesman for the Taliban, the Muslims who claimed responsibility for
the killings, expressed their accomplishment succinctly: "They were
Christian missionaries, and we killed them all." The sponsoring group
for the medical workers and all local residents who knew them well,
denied the claims of the Muslims that they were spies and proselyters.
In recent weeks, some Muslim scholars have been using the term, "No
Islam without Jihad." A few have interpreted the "Holy War" meaning
of "Jihad" to mean a personal struggle to improve oneself. But others
have rejected this approach and have emphasized the enmity between
Muslims and Infidels -- the rest of the world -- that Mohammad and the
Quran so clearly teach. For example, as one scholar commented on the
"personal Jihad" concept: "We know that Islam means war; Islam is
nothing without Jihad and that doesn't mean self-struggle We all have
personal struggles within our personal paths ... So Jihad! What is it
good for? War, absolute surrender of the infidels."
And from the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Iranian
revolution, and honored in memory as a "champion of Islamic revival":
"Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males ... to prepare themselves
for the conquest of other countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed
in every country in the world... Those who know nothing of Islam
pretend that Islam counsels against war... Islam says 'Kill all the
unbelievers just as they would kill you all! ... There are hundreds of
other Quranic psalms and Hadith sayings of the Prophet urging
Muslims to value war and to fight. Does this mean that Islam is a
religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish
souls who make such a claim."
In the past 10 years we have seen the 9/11 Muslim attack on America;
daily we read of murders, beatings, beheading of Christian workers in
Muslim countries, and the destruction of homes, churches and whole
villages where Christians live; we hear of threats to remove Israel from
the face of the Earth. And yet this murder of these 10 medical aid workers
by Muslims in Afghanistan seems more shocking than their other atrocities.
Dr. Michael Youssef, born in Egypt, but for more than 25 years an
American citizen, whose prayer crusade for America we have strongly
"Most Westerners do not understand that Islam is not a religion in
their true understanding of what the word means. Islam is a political
and social ideology that will never submit to a secular form of
government. Islamists will wait until such time as they are able to
transform societies into Sharia-dominated ones, giving citizens a
Taliban-type government."
But from this broader concern we now turn to a purely domestic issue.
[3] The federal judge's opinion on California's Proposition 8. It has
been called "the judicial theft of the legal votes of Californians." Because
this issue is not yet settled, and is not likely to be finalized for quite some
time -- perhaps well more than a year -- we could easily have set it aside
for comment on a later occasion. But the importance of this decision as
one aspect of President Obama's ongoing anti-Christian attacks on America
(which he insists is not a Christian nation) merits its consideration as one
of the most important news events of the present time. The people of
California have more than once taken all the necessary legal steps to
preserve what a few Liberal politicians have attempted to destroy: the
sanctity of marriage as between a man and a woman -- as God intended --
and with it the basic element of American society, the family. That the
legally enacted Proposition 8 should be ruled "unconstitutional" by an
openly homosexual judge is a travesty of justice which seems to be
something which might be expected in a state as Liberal biased and
Democrat controlled as California.
But the reaction against this decision is so nationwide (some 30 states
have already adopted constitutional amendments to define marriage as
between a man and a woman), that we felt some expression of the broader
objections to this decision should be given.
From Bryan S. Brown, National Organization for Marriage: "It happened ...
the unthinkable, the wrong, the outrageous. An openly gay judge in San
Francisco ruled that the votes and values of over 7 million Californians
were to be thrown in the dustbin like so many pieces of dirty paper, that
his imperial will trumps the voice of the people. ..the sheer audacity,
the sheer ego mania of the decision is startling. One judge versus all of
the voters of California..."
And the former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican and Mayor of Boston,
Raymond L. Flynn, said, "America is at a political crossroads, The
people must now decide for themselves if they want unelected and
unaccountable judges setting policy and over-ruling the will of the
American people."
This is not an issue which we can set aside and forget. Steve Chapman,
writing in the Chicago Tribune, taking into account the confirmation of
Justice Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, summarized: "The decision
may very well lead the Supreme Court to rule in favor of same-sex
marriage. If so, it would be the most polarizing decision since Roe v.
Wade in 1973, which we are still fighting about. It would spark a
furious backlash from Americans who, whatever their views about
homosexuality, think such decisions belong with them and their elected
representatives. It could even lead to a constitutional amendment
overturning the decision. Thanks to Judge Walker, the debate is no
longer about whether gays deserve protection from the law, a debate
they were steadily winning. It is more about whether democratic
processes should be trusted to resolve the question. That's a debate
they are likely to lose."
And his reference to the Supreme Court leads us to our next subject . . .
[4] The confirmation of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court
This is now a fait accompli, and there is nothing we can do to undo it.
Last issue we quoted Tony Perkins at length on the importance of this
issue. Today, we remind you of his warning: "If President Obama can't
have a lifetime term, then he knows the next best thing is nominating
Elena Kagan to one. She shares the President's disgust for traditional
morality, free speech, the military, individual liberty, unborn children,
constitutional fidelity and all things religious."
Expressing her deep concern in a slightly different way, Columnist Suzy
Rice under this headline: "Elena Kagan, the Laughing Nut, Sworn in
as Supreme Court Justice" offered this perceptive comment: "The
nomination and confirmation of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court
represents ongoing disparagement of the Court by Leftwing socio-
political activists. The process has been underway for a while now, and
the nation is familiar with the process: populate the Judiciary with
people who are vehicles for socio-political activism ... for purposes of
avoiding altering the Constitutionas it is written, in the acceptable way,
and that is, by Amendment."
That "Laughing Nut" reference may have come out of some of Ms. Kagan's
attempts at jollity, like when she was being interviewed by Senator Graham
(apparently successfully -- he was one of the five RINOs who voted for her),
and he asked where she was on Christmas day when a would-be terrorist
set his undies on fire in that plane in Detoit. Her response, not particularly
tactful in a nominal Christian environment: "Like all Jews, I was probably
at a Chinese restaurant."
But it is over . . . she is a justice in the Supreme Court. and it is a lifetime
appointment. The balance of judicial power has been established as being
on the liberal side of the scale. These next three viewpoints clearly express
the deep concern with which such events are viewed.
From Mat Staver, of Liberty Counsel, "Judge Walker's decision and
Elena Kagan's confirmation are either going to awaken the 'sleeping
giant' of pro-family Americans, or these events will mark the beginning
of the end of our culture as we know it."
Father Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, offered this
assessment of Ms. Kagan's confirmation by ther Senate:"The confirmation
of a Supreme Court Justice who will not uphold the right to life of the
unborn is an opportunity to repeat a simple truith: Any court decision,
like Roe v. Wade and others that affirm it, which say we have a right to
do wrong, lack all judicial validity. They are null and void in principle,
because they call violence a right. We have no obligation to obey them,
and in fact, must resist them by conscientious objection."
And Founding Father James Madison, in 1788, foresaw the very danger
which we are now facing, "The accumulation of all power, legislative,
executive, and judiciary in the same hands ... may justly be pronounced
the very definition of tyranny."
One cannot fail to recall the threat by Candidate Obama at the University
of Missouri on October 31, 2008, just prior to Election Day: "We are five
days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."
It has to be admitted: thus far he is well on his way to keeping his word.
The answer to the perennial question: "What can we do about it?"
The first answer, for the Christian, is that we should pray. The Scriptures
are filled with God's promises to hear and answer our prayers. Just two
examples, "Ask, and it shall be given you ... for everyone that asketh,
receiveth." (Matt. 7:7-8) "And whatsoever we ask, we receive of Him."
(I John 3:22) And this enduring promise, "If God be for us, who can be
against us?" (Romans 8:31) We must pray for our leaders, that they may
be given wisdom from God to do what is right for our nation and for the
world. We must pray to know God's will for us and for His people, and
that we may be given strength to accomplish His will for and through us.
And even as our prayers continue - and they must continue - "Pray without
ceasing." (I Thess. 5:17) . . . we must do our part as good citizens of God's
world; we must vote to put into positions of authority men, and women,
who will honor the principles upon whch this nation was founded. On
Nov. 2 -- Election Day -- now just 83 days from today -- we will be able
to vote on every Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, and one-third
of the U.S. Senate. (And on that point -- remember that 5 Republican
Senators voted with the Liberal Democrats to confirm Ms. Kagan as
a Supreme Court Justice: Graham, South Carolina; Collins and Snowe,
Maine; Lugar, Indiana, and Gregg, New Hampshire. Only Gregg will
be standing for re-election this year. Let's not send him back to Washington!)
Just a few examples of "What Others Are Saying."
Bobby Eberle (writing in "The Loft"): "Obama's poll numbers keep
heading downward. The economy is still in the tank and unemployment
remains sky high. And yet, Obama, Pelosi and Reid continue on a path
that runs polar opposite to the will of the country. They are pushing
forward an agenda of higher taxes, unsustainable spending, increased
government control, and unconstitutional mandates."
Margaret Thatcher (former British Prime Minister): "Conservatives
have excellent credentials to speak about human rights. By our efforts,
and with precious little help from self-styled Liberals, we were
largely responsible for securing liberty for a substantial share of the
world's population and defending it for most of the rest."
Mitt Romney: "America has just witnessed an unconscionable abuse
of power. President Obama has betrayed his oath to the nation -- rather
than bringing us together, ushering in a new kind of politics, and rising
abve raw partisanship, he has subscribed to the lowest denominator of
incumbent power: justifying the means by extolling the ends. He
promised better; we deserved better."
Pat Buchanan: "The issue here is the appalling insensitivity, if not
calculated insult, of erecting a mosque two blocks from a World Trade
Center where 3,000 Americans were massacred by Islamic fanatics
whose Muslim religion was integral to their identity and mission... To
Americans, the land on which the twin towers stood is hallowed ground,
a burial site made sacred by the suffering and deaths of all who perished
in the horrifying minutes those towers burned and fell."
Joseph Farah (World Net Daily): "Americans don't believe Barack
Obama. Every poll shows the same thing. They don't believe him on
health care. They don't believe him on the economy. And they don't
believe him on his own birth story."
And now just a few random "Afterthoughts" . . .
Not very many "Afterthoughts" this week . . . the emphsis on the four
major news events took a bit too much space. But next week we will return
to the story of the mosque at Gound Zero . . . discuss in some depth the
developing story about the apparent U.S. involvement in the recent Kenya
Constitutional election . . . and other happenings which we have had to
pass over this week.
There are a few new words and terms we noted in doing this week's
research . . . "Omerica" used occasionally for the changes in our nation . . .
"Obama and his minority voter campaign" as a term describing the
president's new primary occupation . . . "Tentherism" as an expression of
disdain for those who hold to the 10th Amendment. But here is what
Thomas Jefferson thought about that Amendment; in 1791 he wrote:
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground:
that 'All powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States by the people.'
[10th Amendment] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus
specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession
of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
As usual, the Founding Fathers had a word on just about every subject.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on the article of the Constitution
which grants a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of
benevolence, the money of their constituents." -- James Madison, 1794
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare,
but only those specifically enumerated." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1798
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
