Sojourners visited Grace Community Church and found out that a few random people (out of 10,000) did not have a well developed view of complementarianism. Sojourners, known for their loyalty to the evangelical branch of the Democratic Party has a problem with the traditional roles between husbands and wives. They argue that to reserve the role of a minister only to a man is a thing of the past and that we must re-read Paul’s words in the context of first-century culture. Now, there is a new thought! When one would think this type of infantile argumentation was gone here it is again re-surfacing under the Sojourners talented writers (or spy). Liberal “evangelicalism” is destined to failure. It misses the most foundational principles of the Scriptures. Surely, if you don’t know the Alphas, the Betas and Omegas have no hope.
The viciously liberal Huffington Post cannot fathom why Sharon Angle is so “doctrinaire” on her view of abortion. Sharon is one of those old consistent people who think abortion is wrong even in the case of rape and incest. “Two wrongs don’t make a right,” she says. Rare politician indeed.
Then if anyone at all is to have the privilege of lying, the rulers of the State should be the persons; and they, in else should meddle with anything of the kind. . .their dealings either with enemies or their own citizens, may be allowed to lie for the public good. But nobody else should meddle with anything of the kind. . .
When was the last time you heard Machen’s name on the national media?
Two observations about retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens are about to become established fact by sheer repetition. The first — that Stevens is the last Protestant on the court — is not true in any meaningful sense. The second — that Stevens didn’t move left, the court moved right — is madness…Read the entire article.
This type of interview is quite revealing. The questioner cannot fathom a country where people are free to make their own decisions within constitutional boundaries. He also seems to think there is a parallel between the necessary rules and regulations in the home and the rules and regulations of the state. Rand responds:
The kind of funny thing is that there’s a difference between the government and a family.
Yes. Of course, there is a difference.
Goldwater’s running mate, Rep. Bill Miller, spoke at Notre Dame during the 1964 campaign. At a press conference afterwards, a reporter asked Miller why Goldwater was so “extreme.”
Miller asked the reporter, “Are you married?”
“Would your wife rather you be moderately faithful to her, or extremely faithful?”
End of press conference.
David Brooks said on George Stephanapoulos’ Sunday program that he considers Sarah Palin “a joke.” What he didn’t say is that she was and is a joke played by the neoconservatives on the Republican party.
The Washington Post asks: “Is there something that could be called ‘Palinism,’ defining a political philosophy that could help her party win elections and turn her into a viable national candidate?”
Short answer: No.
Slightly longer answer: Where and when has Palin ever articulated a coherent alternative to the orthodox Republican doctrines of supply-side economics and endless war? She isn’t about to do it in her “book,” and she isn’t capable of it. What is especially irksome, however, is that there is indeed a populist champion of the Tea Party grassroots, someone with the knowledge, the organization, the proven fundraising ability, and the principles to lead the GOP out of its ideological and political morass: Ron Paul.
“Palinism” is a hairstyle. Paulism is a bona fide movement. The first has no future — no, she won’t be a major contender, come the presidential sweepstakes, as George Will predicted on the Stephanopoulos program. The second IS the future, if the GOP is to have a future.
This is Obama’s question. David Brook’s op-ed piece in the New York Times questions Obama’s fundamental commitment to the Afghanistan war. He poses at one point that Obama accepted the premise of the Afghan war in order to sound hawkish, thus gaining the reputation of a tough president. Whether this is true or not, Bill Maher was right when he said that Obama needs a little more of George W. Bush.
My own perspective is that Obama was hawkish from day one of his presidency. He may not have the tenacity of the former president, but he has neo-conservatism running through his blood. As Brooks writes:
So I guess the president’s most important meeting is not the one with the Joint Chiefs and the cabinet secretaries. It’s the one with the mirror, in which he looks for some firm conviction about whether Afghanistan is worthy of his full and unshakable commitment.
Luke Russert from MSNBC said on Morning Joe that progressives have no interest in the Afghan war. They are tired of the similarities to the Iraq war. They fear blood on their hands, as the Republicans had in Iraq. While 2010 seems ripe for a Republican take-over, the Democrats are scrambling to find a suitable message to the American people. They know they need bi-partisan support, but their sophisticated constitutional scholar commander-in-chief is losing his charm. As David Gregory said: “The yes we can is becoming maybe.”
David Brook’s Op-Ed piece in the New York Times is quite insightful. He argues that “humans are overconfident creatures.” They tend to assume that they are smarter than they really are. But it seems that this human overconfidence has been transferred to Washington. Brooks writes:
…the bonfire of overconfidence has shifted to Washington. Since the masters of finance have been exposed as idiots, the masters of government have concluded (somewhat illogically) that they must be really smart.
Government has attempted to regulate executive pay assuming that it is the central problem of the market. Brooks observes: “The Federal Reserve…has decided to police banks and veto pay deals that lead to excessive risk. Those experts must have absolutely gigantic brains if they can define excessive risk years before investments pay off.” This type of hubris is prevalent in Washington, because in the spirit of humility, thinking that regulating everything and everyone is the “wise” solution, they have become political asses. Even if they know nothing concerning a particular industry, yet their supposed wisdom tells them that they do. Brooks concludes brilliantly:
Sometimes we seem to have a government with no sense of those limits, no sense that perhaps government officials don’t know how to restructure General Motors, pick the most promising battery technology, re-engineer the health care system from the top, or fine-tune the complex system of executive pay.
Government’s conceit is their own destruction. The wisdom that gives them temporary power is the wisdom that will eventually bring the entire system down.