Archive for February 11th, 2009

Prop. 8 Evidently Not a Done Deal in Sacramento

Wednesday, February 11th, 2009

We blogged about the California Attorney General, Jerry Brown’s attempt to have the marriage amendment to the California constitution declared unconstitutional. How on earth a constitutional amendment can be declared unconstitutional is beyond me, since it is part of the constitution, but when dealing with a liberal with an agenda, it is best to put logic aside since they don’t understand logic.
Now we have city council for Sacramento publicly declaring that they will willing break the law in opposition to the proposition 8 constitutional amendment.
Defies all logic, doesn’t it?

Even though a solid majority of Sacramento residents voted in November to protect traditional marriage, the capital’s city council recently voted 8-1 to try to legally overturn Prop. 8. Brad Dacus, in a Pacific Justice Institute press release, contends that a city council has no authority to denounce its own people’s votes.

“Much to the shock of many voters in the Sacramento area, the city council for Sacramento decided to oppose Proposition 8, even though it was already passed by the voters,” the attorney explains. “And they are openly encouraging the California Supreme Court to declare that Proposition 8 is unlawful or a violation of the state constitution.”

According to Dacus, the more than 289,000 voters in Sacramento are not pleased. “This is a clear breach of public trust and a slap in the face to the whole process where the voters are to have the final say,” he concludes.

Original Link.

News Bailouts Threaten Freedom of Press

Wednesday, February 11th, 2009

As if the press wasn’t biased enough the way it is…

Floundering media and news conglomerates have expressed interest in accepting government bailout money, leading some to object, arguing that strings attached to federal funds will subvert our nation’s freedom of the press.

Brent Bozell, president of the media watchdog organization Media Research Center, contends that if a news company – even a bankrupt one – accepts taxpayer money, it can no longer be trusted to hold government accountable to the people.

“How in the world can [a] paper propose to be a watchdog for the public when it’s had conversations about being bankrolled by the government?” Bozell asked in The Philadelpia Bulletin.

“When a media outlet proposes a bailout, it proposes to put itself under the authority of the entity bailing it out,” Bozell said. “Therefore, if it’s a government, the media entity proposes to become an arm of the government.”

Bozell was reacting to news that the publisher of both the Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News has been in discussions with Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell about a potential government bailout of Philadelphia Media Holdings, the company that owns the newspapers.

“If newspapers are to play the vital role they do in a democracy,” said Philadelphia Inquirer publisher Brian Tierney, quoted in his own paper, “then they cannot be put into a special line where they alone stand barred from receiving the economic development dollars that are available to every other business in the state.”

Reuters reports a similar situation in Connecticut, where State Rep. Frank Nicastro, D-Bristol, petitioned the state government to step in and help save The Bristol Press and The New Britain Herald after their parent company accumulated hundreds of millions of dollars in debt, though the papers have since been purchased by a new owner.

And as the nation’s largest news conglomerates face increasing, startling losses, some worry that these major corporations may turn to the federal government, much as banks and the auto industry have. But at what cost?

In an editorial titled “How About Tossin’ a Bailout This Way,” Jeff Ackerman, publisher of the Grass Valley, Calif., newspaper The Union joked, “If Congress bails out the newspaper industry, we’d also promise to be a lot nicer than we have been to various politicians.”

Yet compromising the free press is exactly what many are worried will happen if government tosses a bailout to the media.

Former reporter and editor Paul Janensch, now a journalism professor at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut, summarized for Reuters the problem with media companies accepting government bailouts:

“You can’t expect a watchdog to bite the hand that feeds it,” Janensch said.

Digby Solomon, publisher of The Daily Press in Newport News, Va., told Reuters, “The whole idea of the First Amendment and separating media and giving them freedom of control from the government is sacrosanct.”

The precedent for blurring the separation of press and state, however, has already been set.

Original Link.

“Condoning What God Cannot: The President and the Innocent” by Chuck Colson

Wednesday, February 11th, 2009

At the national prayer breakfast last week, President Obama seemed to signal that he has seen the light and is abandoning his radically pro-abortion agenda.

At least, that’s the only reasonable conclusion one could make after hearing the President, who says he’s a Christian, also say: “There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.”

So I could only surmise that the President now concludes that “no God” would condone the 1.6 million abortions performed each year in America: 1.6 million innocent lives destroyed.

But I’ve checked the White House website, and it’s very clear that God’s disapproval hasn’t changed the administration’s agenda one bit.

Here’s what the White House website says: “President Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Administration.”

Well, in one way I’m glad I wasn’t at the breakfast this year – I was speaking instead at Moody – because I’m not sure I would have been able to stay in my seat.

How can a president of the United States say that “there is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being,” when he himself favors a woman’s right to have an abortion under virtually every circumstance? How can he say that when, as an Illinois state senator, he voted against the Illinois Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected the lives of babies who survived late-term abortions? When he even had the audacity to describe the act as “One more burden on a woman . . . I can’t support.”

President Obama is a highly intelligent man with a huge job on his hands. I know what the White House is like, and I pray for him fervently every day. But how does such an intelligent man make a statement like this without understanding its implications for his own pro-abortion policies?

The only way to explain it is to understand the intellectual environment, called postmodernism, in which President Obama and his peers have been raised. Generations of Americans have now been taught that truth is subjective. You have your truth, I have mine. And, even worse, I can’t “inflict” my version of truth on you. The law of non-contradiction has been suspended.

So politicians can tell us over and over that they can’t allow their personal faith to affect their views on public policy. Or they can take two completely opposing positions at the same time: like believing that no God condones the taking of innocent life and at the same time, condoning—even promoting—the taking of an innocent life.

The problem isn’t simply President Obama and his views on life; the problem is a postmodern culture which believes that truth is merely a matter of opinion, and that therefore the sanctity of innocent human life is simply an expression of one viewpoint among many.

I have argued for the last 20 years that postmodernism would lead to the unraveling or our society. The fact that so few noticed the contradiction in what the President said and the policies he pursues tells me that we’re far along in the unraveling process.


Chuck Colson’s daily BreakPoint commentary airs each weekday on more than one thousand outlets with an estimated listening audience of one million people. BreakPoint provides a Christian perspective on today’s news and trends via radio, interactive media, and print.

Original Link.

Amnesty International: Hamas Carrying Out ‘Deadly Campaign’ Against Opponents in Gaza

Wednesday, February 11th, 2009

Is the world finally waking up to the atrocities the Hamas terrorist have been doing for years now? I hesitate to hope…I’m sure they’ll find some way to blame it all on Israel, as they have done in the past.

Amnesty International group on Tuesday accused Hamas of carrying out a “deadly campaign” against its Palestinian opponents and critics in the Gaza Strip, particularly those they accuse of “collaborating” with Israel.

“Hamas forces in the Gaza Strip have carried out a deadly campaign of abductions, killings, torture and death threats against those they accuse of ‘collaborating’ with Israel, as well as opponents and critics,” the human rights group wrote in its latest report, released on Tuesday.

“At least two dozen [Palestinian] men have been shot dead by Hamas gunmen and scores of others have been kneecapped, beaten or otherwise tortured or ill-treated,” according to the report.

The rights group said that most of the victims were kidnapped from their homes and then released, either dead or wounded, in isolated areas or in local morgues. Others were shot dead at the hospital while being treated for their wounds, according to the report.

Amnesty International succeeded in gathering testimonies from a number of victims, but said many others refused to come forward for fear of retribution from Hamas.

In its report, the rights group urged Hamas to “immediately end the campaign of abuses” and to allow an impartial force into the Gaza Strip to investigate the allegations.”

Original Link.

No Winner Declared in Israeli Election

Wednesday, February 11th, 2009

Things are still up in the air in regards to who won the election in Israel. It is a very close election.

JERUSALEM — Inconclusive election results sent Israel into political limbo Wednesday with both Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and hard-line leader Benjamin Netanyahu claiming victory and leaving the kingmaker role to a rising political hawk with an anti-Arab platform.

Livni’s Kadima Party won 28 seats, just one more than Netanyahu’s Likud, in Tuesday’s election for the 120-member parliament, according to nearly complete results. With neither party winning a clear majority, neither can govern alone. Gains by right-wing parties give Netanyahu a better chance of forming a coalition with his natural allies.

“Political Tangle,” read the headline on the front page of the daily Yediot Ahronot, alongside photos of the two smiling candidates.

The results set the stage for what could be weeks of coalition negotiations, with Israeli media reporting the first meetings already scheduled for Wednesday.

Whatever government is forged, it is unlikely to move quickly toward peace talks with the Palestinians and instead could find itself on a collision course with President Barack Obama, who has said he’s making a Mideast peace deal a priority.

Such paralysis could dampen prospects for Egyptian-led attempts to broker a truce between Israel and Gaza’s Hamas rulers after Israel’s devastating offensive in Gaza last month. Hamas might be reluctant to sign a deal at the risk of having it overturned by the incoming coalition.

It’s up to Israeli President Shimon Peres to decide whether Livni or Netanyahu should have the first shot at forming a government. Peres will meet next week with party leaders to hear their recommendations, and around Feb. 20 expects to assign the task, presidential spokeswoman Ayelet Frisch said.

Original Link.