By now only hermits are unaware of the travails of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer. Spitzer eared the nickname “Mr. Clean” for his crusading but that has now been replaced by the nickname Client #9. Spitzer has, apparently, committed a felony in violating the Mann Act which prohibits taking a woman across state lines for “immoral purposes.” Spitzer bought the train ticket for his high dollar prostitute to travel from New York City to Washington DC where he met her at the Mayflower Hotel.
Many, particularly on the left, will likely claim that this is just sex and a private matter, although the episode has clearly given a black eye to New York Democrats who don’t seem inclined to stand by Spitzer. But the fact is, this goes well beyond a private matter and sex. Not only has Governor Spitzer committed several felonies, they are the very same crimes that he so viciously prosecuted others for.
An angle I haven’t heard anywhere else is the question of corruption. By definition this is corruption. As attorney General Spitzer prosecuted people for precisely what he has been caught doing. That is corruption. As well, Spitzer appears to have at least used government resources to arrange his little trysts. And from the information available today it appears that Spitzer has been engaging in this behavior for at least six years and perhaps as much as ten years. So this isn’t a problem that developed since he became Governor. Spitzer was doing this at the same time he was prosecuting others for it.
Spitzer built his career and his reputation as a crusader. And not just a crusader against law breakers but against anyone he didn’t like. Of particular note to conservatives was his crusade against the pro life movement. Spitzer used his power as New York’s Attorney General to bully pro life groups even when they committed no crimes. As Governor he worked diligently to shut down the pro life movement in New York and make it very difficult for groups like Catholic charities to do what they do best.
Additionally, Spitzer used his power to bully and control CEOs and firms across New York. Many would say, and I would agree, that SPitzer abused his power. He threatened legal action against anyone he didn’t like, regardless of legal merit. He was a bully, pure and simple. And now he is on the other side of the table which raises some questions.
Yesterday Spitzer made something of a public apology, although he didn’t actually admit to anything. Noticeably the Governor also did not resign. The speculation today is that he is using the governorship as a chip in a plea bargain to avoid jail time. In my view it would be a travesty of justice were such a ploy to be successful. If crusader Eliot Spitzer can avoid jail time time for the same thing he has prosecuted so many others for, there simply is no justice. Assuming the charges are true, the only way justice can be served will be for Governor Spitzer to go to jail. Anything less is a miscarriage of justice and is simply unacceptable.
UPDATE:
FOX News is reporting (Wednesday morning) that Spitzer will resign effective Monday. No word on whether there is any plea deal.
UPDATE 2:
It’s official. Governor Spitzer has resigned. It’s not like he has much choice. Still no word on what deal may have been worked out with the justice department.
New York Congressman Peter King had something interesting to say on FOX News this morning. He said that he had little sympathy for Spitzer personally considering how he operated. But, he said, he wasn’t interested in seeing how bad he could make it for Spitzer because, unlike Spitzer, he didn’t want to follow him to his grave. That pretty much sums up Spitzer. If he didn’t like you, he’d follow you to your grave to make sure he ruined you and that is precisely what makes this so poetic. What goes around really does come around.
I can’t begin to describe my emotions upon hearing the collective stream of BS coming from the Senate Floor. Senator after Senator took the floor to describe their wonderful immigrant ancestors. The message was clear. All of us who oppose the rising tide of illegal immigrants remaining here legally are actually opposed to ALL immigration. We don’t understand what this country was built on. We are bigots and xenophobes.
Listening to Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter tell about his father and brother immigrating here was just wonderful. What an inspiring story. But what on Earth does it have to do with the situation at hand? Specter’s father and brother immigrated here legally. They came here, submitted to processing, filled out the paperwork and followed our immigration laws. They learned English and worked to assimilate into American society.
South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham did precisely the same thing last week. The video is below in this blog. He talked about a Hispanic guy in the Air Force that was an inspiration to him. Great! No problem! Does anyone believe that Hispanic man in the Air Force was an illegal alien? Did he sneak across our border and join the Air Force? Of course not. If he was an immigrant at all he was a legal immigrant.
This in contrast to the ever growing flood of illegal aliens crossing our borders. They are not interested in becoming Americans. They have no desire to learn English or assimilate into American society. Mostly they want to take advantage of the services offered here and send money back to their home countries. Did you know that one of the biggest aspects of the Mexican economy is money sent home from America? That’s certainly one reason the Mexican government has been so opposed to any effort on our part to do something about the border.
The Congress can’t seem to understand why the American public doesn’t trust them on this. Could it be that we have been here before? We were told we’d have border security with the immigration reform in the ’80s. Did we get it? Does 12-20 million illegal aliens in this country look like we got it?
Now, rather than engage in an honest debate, they prefer to lie about those of us who oppose this measure. They say we are bigots and xenophobes. They do not acknowledge that there is a difference between illegal and legal immigration. In short, they lie to support their position and, apparently, they believe that if they lie long enough we will buy the lie. Small wonder we don’t trust Congress!
If you guys in the Congress want to gain some credibility, stop trying to shove this sham of a bill down our throats and instead, ENFORCE OUR CURRENT LAWS!! If you do that consistently for a period of time, you might just build up a little credibility. But so long as you insist on playing politics with the American people, so long as they continue to lie and mischaracterize those of us who oppose their position, they have no credibility.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for them to change though. Graham, Specter, McCain and all the rest of the Republicans pushing so hard on this issue are not concerned with what we, the people they represent, think. They somehow think that doing this will enhance their future electability. As for Graham, I think he’s angling for the VP spot with McCain. The problem for Graham is, McCain doesn’t stand a chance of getting the nomination and Graham doesn’t stand a chance of keeping his Senate seat in ‘08. His political career as a Republican is all but over. He is already a lame duck and he is blind to the fact.
I can think of no better reason for resurrecting the issue of term limits. Career politicians are the biggest problem in this country. They are far less concerned with what is actually best for this country than they are about the next election. So long as power is the motivating factor, do not expect most of our elected officials to actually honor their promises and act in an ethical, principled manner.
I was on the phone with my father in Georgia last night. He’s been a big supporter of Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss. But Chambliss is one of those Republicans working so hard to sell out this country. My dad can’t believe it! I don’t know what all the backroom deals have been. I know President Bush is looking for a legacy in a lame duck presidency and who can imagine what he has promised to Republicans who toe the line on this.
Here’s what I do know. If Republicans allow this legislation to become law, the Republican party is finished for the foreseeable future. All of Harry Reid’s predictions of massive Democrat Gains in the Senate will come to pass. Nancy Pelosi will be Speaker of the House for the next ten years at least. Maybe a solid conservative like Fred Thompson will be able to pull out the White House, I don’t know. But I’d lay odds that we will again be saying President Clinton and that is a future I don’t relish.
Finally, if this legislation becomes law, the Democrat party will be the ultimate winner. The vast majority of the illegal aliens in this country are already indebted to Democrats for the services they currently receive. The Democrats will continue with their vote buying legislative agenda. It could be a generation or more before the Republican party can recover, if them. Why congressional Republicans can’t see that simple fact is quite beyond me.
Accused rapist and convicted sex offender Kenneth Hinson has been acquitted of the abduction and rape of two South Carolina teenagers. A Darlington jury apparently believed Hinson’s claim that the girls engaged in consensual sex with him in exchange for access to the underground room where he stored marijuana.
Hinson faced life without possibility of parole under South Carolina’s two strikes law. Hinson had previously been convicted of rape in 1991.
Obviously I was not in the courtroom and do not have first hand knowledge of the testimony or evidence. Still, this verdict is mind boggling to me. I don’t know the girls involved but it is beyond belief that they would engage in sex with Hinson in exchange for pot. Considering how easy pot is to obtain I just don’t buy it. Heck, I’m sure there were plenty of younger, better looking guys who would have been willing to get them high for sex.
Combined with Hinson’s previous rape conviction and the mere existence of this underground room believe his tool shed and it’s a slam dunk for me. I believe Hinson is guilty, regardless of what the jury found. I think about my own daughter and how I might react if she was one of the girls in this case. I don’t know that I could let this go.
In the end, however, “vengeance in mine, I will repay says the Lord.” It is not for us as individuals to seek revenge. But it boggles my mind how a jury could reach this verdict. I don’t think society or justice has been served today.
In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court today upheld the federal ban on partial birth abortion. For the first time since Roe v Wade, conservatives and the pro life movement have something to cheer about in the abortion arena. Still, it must be recognized that this decision may not be the last word on the subject.
The court found that the law was not unconstitutional “on its face.” Opponents of the law charged that it was clearly and blatantly unconstitutional and that was the basis of the various court rulings to date. This does not preclude a particular woman from filing suit based on her particular circumstances, claiming that in her case the procedure is the best option.
This case illustrates the importance of judicial nominees. The deciding factor was Justice Alito who replaced retiring Justice O’Connor. O’Connor had been the deciding vote in favor of the pro abortion side to date. With Alito going the other direction the door seems open to further erosion of Roe v Wade.
For those who believe there is no appreciable difference between Republicans and Democrats I refer you to this decision. President Bush may well have one more Supreme Court appointment and the next President will certainly have one or two. Who is appointed is of monumental importance. There is no better or more important legacy of a president. Justices Roberts and Alito will be on the Supreme Court long after President Bush has gone back to Texas. Many of President Bush’s actions will be forgotten or overturned by subsequent Congresses. But his Supreme Court appointments will still be deciding cases.
The ‘08 elections are approaching. As you consider who to support or which party you think should lead this country, do not forget the importance of judicial nominees. Hundreds of judges are appointed in a typical presidential term. Seriously consider what kind of justices you want on federal district courts and the Supreme Court. That really matters.
Commentators expected a statement that there was not enough evidence to prosecute the case. Instead, the AG said:
We believe these cases were a result of a tragic rush to accuse and failure to verify serious allegations. Based on the significant inconsistencies in the evidence and the various accounts given by the accusing witness, we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges.
Not exonerated, innocent! Cooper called Nifong a rogue prosecutor. For his part, Nifong faces serious ethics charges with the state bar association. Based on Coopers comments in today’s press conference it seems likely that Nifong will be disbarred. And with the use the word innocent and the ferocity of the AG’s remarks, Nifong could face criminal charges and perhaps even civil prosecution for wrongful prosecution.
For nearly a year it has seemed clear to most observers that all the evidence said the three Duke Lacrosse players were innocent. Yet Nifong continued with the prosecution, apparently, to boost his reelection bid. While his tactic worked in terms of the election, it ruined the lives of these three Duke students and ultimately ruined Nifong’s life as well.
As far as I’m concerned, this is a great day for justice.
Rudy Giuliani has given conservatives more ammunition. In an interview on CNN Giuliani expressed his view of “strict constructionist” judges.
As you can see, Giuliani’s idea of strict constructionist doesn’t exactly match up with most conservatives. In his view, as with so many others on the court today, stare decisis trumps the Constitution! So bad law and bad jurisprudence should stand simply because it has been around a while?
If that view had prevailed in times past, separate but equal would still be the law of the land. The Dred Scott case would still be precedent! In my view, while stare decisis is important, it is not and should not be the final word.
Giuliani also stands by his positions on partial birth abortion and federal funding of abortions. He supports both. Oh he gives the standard, “I don’t like and want to see less of it” speech but the bottom line is, Giuliani supports all abortion at any time during pregnancy for any reason or no reason at all.
One is hard pressed to see how Giuliani can possibly get the Republican nomination with such views. Social conservatives are not likely to vote for him when they know his positions. While Giuliani has enjoyed an early lead, most voters haven’t really known where he stands on many issues. As more interviews like the one above are seen and read about by conservatives, Giuliani’s numbers will fall precipitously as conservatives realize that he is a social liberal. He does not stand a chance.
This has been a difficult post to write. I’ve been working on it for several days. My biggest concern is that I not be misunderstood but I fear I cannot do justice to what I’m getting at. Some will read this post and just say “oh yeah!” Others will read it and conclude that I’m a horrible, judgmental idiot. But after days of working on it I just don’t see any way around that. So here it is.
__________________________
I mentioned in the comments of the Christian Dilemma post that I was going to write about the Social Gospel Movement. A movement that began in late 19th century, the social gospel teaches that Jesus can’t return until social justice and equality are achieved on earth through human effort. Various offshoots exist that may or may not relate to Jesus return but that still focus primarily on social justice, equity and other social problems.
Proponents of the Social Gospel and its variants tend to believe that people are poor because the rich have exploited them. Phrases such as “on the backs of working people” are common. The belief seems to be that any equitable system would ensure that everyone has pretty much the same thing. Indeed, most efforts appear to be geared more toward punishing those who have more rather than enriching those who have less. Little emphasis or thought seems to be given to exactly how the poor became poor in the first place.
I need to start off saying I don’t believe that we can achieve much of anything of lasting importance on our own. The notion that mankind can achieve some sort of utopia with our own effort is contrary to scripture and contrary to human nature and all of human history. To date, every Utopian thinker has been demonstrated to be wrong.
Lest anyone think I am just biased against anyone who happens to be classified as poor, let me say I understand that there are those who fall into poverty through little or no fault of their own. A woman whose husband leaves her with no means of support or whose husband dies are possible examples. Life for someone like that can be very difficult. Still, people in such situations have options. In the short term those options may not be very appealing but they still live in a society with class mobility. With the proper determination they have the power to change their circumstances. They also need and deserve help from those around them and as Christians we have an absolute obligation to provide help.
On the other hand, it is my heartfelt belief that most of the poor in this country are poor by choice. That is not to say they woke up one day and thought, “hmm, I think I want to be poor.” Rather, they simply refuse to do anything to raise themselves up. Manual labor is “beneath” them and there are plenty of jobs their “dignity” won’t let them do. How their “dignity” lets them take handouts rather than earn an honest living is beyond me.
Scripture has much to say about poverty. Following are but a few passages.
Prov 14:21
Whoever despises his neighbor is a sinner,
but blessed is he who is generous to the poor.Prov 14:31
Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker,
but he who is generous to the needy honors him.Prov 19:17
Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the LORD,
and he will repay him for his deed.Prov 20:13
Love not sleep, lest you come to poverty;
open your eyes, and you will have plenty of bread.Prov 21:13
Whoever closes his ear to the cry of the poor
will himself call out and not be answered.Prov 23:21
for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty,
and slumber will clothe them with rags.Prov 28:19
Whoever works his land will have plenty of bread,
but he who follows worthless pursuits will have plenty of poverty.Ezek 16:49-50
49 Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.Matt 25:37-40
37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’Luke 3:11
11 And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.”Acts 20:35
In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”James 1:27
Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.James 2:15-16
15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?1 John 3:17-18
17 But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? 18 Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.
From these and other passages it is inescapable that we, as Christians, have a duty to help the poor. I have never argued otherwise. But many of these passages also indicate that some poor are responsible for their own plight.
I argue that as Christians we have a duty to ensure that what “help” we provide, as far as we can determine, is actual help. In other words, I believe we have a duty to make sure we aren’t actually making matters worse.
It would be simple if all we had to do was give some cash to whatever poor person crossed our path. We could do that without giving much thought to the matter. Knowing nothing about their situation we may be helping them to continue the behavior that got them into poverty in the first place, whether alcoholism, drug abuse, gambling addiction, etc.
The point I’m making is that we cannot escape our responsibility to be “our brother’s keeper” by simply throwing money at them. At root, their problems are not financial, they are spiritual. Money isn’t the solution to our national problems and it’s not the solution to an individual’s problems either.
You may suspect, based on everything I’ve said so far, that I believe I have it all worked out. Nothing could be further from the truth. I’m struggling with this issue. I just believe that ignoring the poor or throwing money at them are equally unproductive approaches. Somehow we have to engage the poor on an individual basis and offer help that really helps. And I’m convinced that sometimes that will involve things that the individual may not appreciate at the time.
For example, I’ve run across a panhandler asking for money for food. When I offered to buy him a meal, he declined. He didn’t want the meal, he wanted the money. I wasn’t willing to just hand him money but I was more than willing to feed him. He wasn’t too happy with me but he did see that I cared enough to take him somewhere and buy him a meal. I don’t know if that ultimately made any difference or not.
I’m reminded of the commercials that say “friends don’t let friends drink and drive.” Have you ever tried to take the keys away from a drunk friend? If you have you know that often they are not appreciative in the least. They may become belligerent and combative. They may scream and yell at you. If you are more concerned about them being mad at you than you are about their safety, you may give in and let them drive. If you do that, whose best interest are you looking out for? True love requires that we think about what’s best for our brother, not how it makes us feel.
The same reasoning, I would argue, applies to everyone, poor people included, who is doing things to make their own situation worse, not better. In the end you may not be able to help them. That’s the rub. In the end, people have to be willing to help themselves before they can receive help. Just like forcing a drunk into rehab isn’t likely to get them sober, attempts to help people who will not accept any responsibility for their situation are unlikely to be truly helpful. They may make us fell better about ourselves but who is being helped then?
So I still don’t arrive at ready solutions. The panhandler on the street is still panhandling and my offer of a meal didn’t change that. I may see him again and if he approaches me I will offer again to feed him. Who knows, maybe he’ll take me up on it next time and I’ll get a chance to sit down with him over that meal and get to know him. Perhaps then I’ll be in a better position to give some real help.
There is a blog that many Christians are probably unaware of. Its title is God’s Politics and its author is Jim Wallis. Wallis is a liberal who believes in using scripture to support his views. While I have no reason to think Wallis is less than sincere, I also strongly disapprove of his approach to scripture. Wallis is, apparently, very enamored with the “social gospel” and believes that every social disparity is an affront to God. The minimum wage is the latest front in his larger social justice battle.
In his blog Wallis claims that God Hates Inequality. Referring to the Senate vote to increase the minimum wage, Wallis says, “this is a good vote.” He goes on to make quite a claim. “It’s a political fact now that faith communities across the board, very widely, are in favor of increasing the minimum wage. Why is that? What’s the theological foundation behind that? We don’t just do politics; we do politics because of our faith.”
Interesting. The last part of that statement sounds very much like my own claim. I’ve often said that my political views flow directly from my religious beliefs. I’m not in a position to determine whether Wallis’ claim is as justified as I believe mine is. What I will claim is that Wallis has no problem taking scripture out of context and twisting it to fit his view of social justice. In support of his view on the minimum wage Wallis quotes from Isaiah:
What does the Bible have to say about the minimum wage?
The prophet Isaiah said: “my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labor in vain…” (65:22-23).
Does this passage support Wallis’ position? The broader passage is Isaiah 65: 17-25. The subject of the passage is the new heaven and new earth that God will one day create. Here is the full text of that passage.
17 “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind. 18 But be glad and rejoice forever in that which I create;for behold, I create Jerusalem to be a joy, and her people to be a gladness. 19 I will rejoice in Jerusalem and be glad in my people; no more shall be heard in it the sound of weeping and the cry of distress. 20 No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fill out his days, for the young man shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed. 21 They shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. 22 They shall not build and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat; for like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be, and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands. 23 They shall not labor in vain or bear children for calamity, for they shall be the offspring of the blessed of the LORD, and their descendants with them. 24 Before they call I will answer; while they are yet speaking I will hear. 25 The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent’s food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain,”says the LORD.
ESV
Clearly this passage has nothing at all to do with minimum wage or economics in this world. Or should Congress pass legislation requiring lions and lambs to lie down together and requiring lions to eat hay?
Wallis’ next attempt to justify his views on biblical grounds comes from the book of James.
James, who was the sibling of Jesus, and probably knew what his brother thought about things pretty well, said: “Listen! The wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you have kept back by fraud, cry out, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord.”
The passage is James 5:4. Here the brother of Jesus is addressing the church, not the Roman government. James is chastising Christians for not paying their laborers what they agreed to pay. One might make a case from this passage that Christian employers should pay more than minimum wage but that’s about it. Certainly this has nothing to do with the law. Indeed, Jesus himself had something to say about wages. In Mathew 20 Jesus said:
Matt 20:1-15
“For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2 After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4 and to them he said, ‘You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you.’ 5 So they went. Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same. 6 And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing. And he said to them, ‘Why do you stand here idle all day?’ 7 They said to him, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You go into the vineyard too.’ 8 And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first.’ 9 And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. 10 Now when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. 11 And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, 12 saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’ 13 But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14 Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. 15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’
ESV
Clearly this parable does not support Wallis’ view of inequity. Jesus presents a picture of one employer paying different people the same wage for different amounts of work. The question is not whether it seems fair, the question is did each person agree to do certain work for certain wages? The answer is yes and, apparently, Jesus did not see inequity in it. This flies in the face of Wallis’ view and his use of scripture.
I oppose ANY minimum wage and I do so, at least in part, on my religious convictions. Because I know something about economics I understand that any increase in the minimum wage will inevitably result in higher unemployment precisely among those who can least afford it. That’s just simple economics and it has played out over and over. But more than that, I object to Wallis and others who are willing to do violence to the facts to persuade others to their position.
Time after time we hear claims about people trying to support families on the minimum wage. This simply isn’t the case. The overwhelming majority of minimum wage workers are entry level employees who are supporting no one. They have no work skills and so have little value in the market place. They are “paying their dues” by accepting low wages for the personal benefit of learning a work ethic. They are learning how to work and hold a job and be a good employee.
Yes, there are some few people who are trying to make a living at minimum wage. Usually they are they because of their own choices. But even those people do not remain at minimum wage if they are motivated to be good employees and work hard. Anyone who is stuck in a minimum wage job for any length of time has no one but himself to blame. The Apostle Paul had a few things to say about work.
Eph 4:28
8 Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need.
ESV1 Thess 4:10-12
But we urge you, brothers, to do this more and more, 11 and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, 12 so that you may live properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one.
ESV2 Thess 3:10-12
10 For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work , let him not eat. 11 For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work , but busybodies. 12 Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.
ESV
Paul said the man who would not work should not eat. I submit that the employee who will not give a days work to his employer for a days wages is a thief! And Wallis wants to increase the minimum wage and justifies that position with scripture. He may be entirely sincere but he is sincerely wrong.
According to CNSNews, during the 1980s, Ted Kennedy undertook his own private foreign policy with the Soviet Union. Beginning in 1980, while Carter was still President and Kennedy was seeking the Democrat nomination, Kennedy determined that “the Carter administration had assumed an overly belligerent posture toward the Soviet Union after the invasion of Afghanistan.”
In Kennedy’s view, “the atmosphere of tension and hostility towards the whole Soviet people was being fuelled by Carter” as well as by some key advisors, the Pentagon and the U.S. military industrial complex.
(…)
While Soviet troops occupied Afghanistan in 1980, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) worked in close concert with high level Kremlin officials to alter the direction of U.S. policy, according to documents made available through a KGB defector.
This information come to light through Soviet defector Vasiliy Mitrokhin who defected to Britain in 1992. “The Mitrokhin papers highlight a meeting that took place at the behest of Kennedy between former Sen. John Tunney (D-Calif.) and KGB agents in Moscow on March 5, 1980.”
Mitrokhin filed a report with the Cold War International History Project of the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington D.C. which revealed the details of Kennedy’s actions during the 1980s. Kennedy attempted to undermine the foreign policy of both the Carter and Reagan administrations.
According to Charles Dunn, dean of the Robertson School of Government at Regent University:
The secret overtures to the KGB during the Reagan years were particularly insidious, Dunn said, because Tunney and Kennedy were working to undermine what ultimately proved to be a very successful policy that brought an end to the Cold War.
“If another country gets the idea that it can deal outside of official channels then that undermines presidential leadership,” he said.
Dunn went on to say that Kennedy’s activities were a “clear violation of the U.S. Constitution and at the expense of presidential authority.”
Paul Kengor, author of The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism
The question now is, will anyone in a position of authority take any action based on these revelations? Or is Kennedy, for all intents and purposes, bullet proof? With Democrats having gained control of both houses of Congress, I wouldn’t hold my breath. Of course, there is little reason to suspect Republicans would pursue this had they retained control because of the perceived political price it might cost them. Is it too much to ask that our elected leaders take justice and the law seriously? Is it to much to ask for those who work against this country’s best interest to pay for their illegal actions? Perhaps it is.
Missouri’s proposed Amendment 2 is, perhaps, the most misunderstood and the most lied about amendment in history. Supporters have spent $28 million dollars trying to convince the voters of Missouri that the amendment permanently outlaws human cloning. In fact, the amendment makes human cloning a right. The way the supports mislead on this is by redefining terms. They claim it isn’t cloning unless the intended result is a human baby. So cloning for therapeutic purposes isn’t really cloning in their world. Everyone else on the plant agrees that when a human embryo has been created, cloning has taken place. The entire moral debate centers on the notion of cloning human embryos in order to destroy them.
Now a new ad in opposition to Amendment 2 has hit the airwaves. The ad features such names as Patricia Heaton, Jim Caviezel and Kurt Warner laying out the problems with the amendment. And the ad has found its way to YouTube so the world can watch it.
