→ Anti-Komen Backlash is Disgusting

This is pretty good. You should go read the whole thing, but here are my favorite parts:

If either of the two should be wary of politicizing its decision-making process, it should be PP, no? And yet Komen is getting hammered for a practical organizational decision (for the zillionth time: PP does not provide mammography) while pro-choice auxiliaries are gleefully fomenting the rage.

…

Imagine I volunteered to run a cub scout troop, and for years, when the annual soapbox derby came near, I knew I could count on Joe’s Deli as good for a hundred dollar donation. If one year Old Man Joe decided he didn’t want to donate any more — because he didn’t like the design of our racer, or because he thought his hundred bucks was better spent on a little league team, or because he disapproved of the scouts’ stance on gays — what on earth would justify me going on public access TV to grill Old Man Joe on why he hates kids? What would justify me hacking the Joe’s Deli web site or maliciously editing Old Man Joe’s Wikipedia page? What would justify me goading a handful of my city councilman into standing up at the next town meeting and publicly calling on Old Man Joe to reinstate his donation?

Nothing. Nothing would justify that. Nothing at all.

→ Komen reverses decision

…and I didn’t even have a chance to talk about the initial decision to end support of Planned Parenthood.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure on Friday apologized and reversed its decision to end funding grants to Planned Parenthood.

And so Komen continues to support death and destruction.

In Washington, 26 U.S. senators - all Democrats except for independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont - signed a letter calling on Komen to reconsider its decision.

Despicable!

This is excellent!

I debated writing this… I’m going to get some push back on this for sure (or at least I’m fairly certain. Or perhaps people will read this, shake their heads in disgust and move on).

So there’s this picture of a quote from Stephen Colbert (above) going around “The Facebook” and it goes like this:

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don’t want to do it.

Now, before I go any further, understand this; I am in no way opposed to helping the poor and needy. I am in no way suggesting that we despise the poor and oppressed. Indeed, as Christians, it is our duty to help the poor and needy as Stephen Colbert indicates.

What I am going to push against is the implied notion that this help must necessarily be done by means of the government. Again note that I feel this is implied in the statement. But it is not explicitly stated. Since it is not explicitly state, I could be getting the wrong implication.

However, the point I am going to make stands regardless.

This is the argument I hear from folks who want to perpetuate government welfare programs (for instance). That as a Christian Nation, we have a duty to help the poor, so therefore we must have welfare, government healthcare, free education (provided by the government) etc. etc.

If I were to say something like what Colbert said, I would rephrase the first part to this:

“If we are going to be a Christian nation, but the people of this nation are not characterized by their generosity to the poor…”

You can see from my rephrasing where I might be going with this. There are three spheres of authority that are biblically delineated. Those are:

1. Family
2. Church
3. Civil

There is of course some overlap of all three, but the idea that civil government would be involved in charity is misplaced in my judgement. Helping the poor and needy, the widows and the orphans falls into two of the three spheres of authority: Family and Church. For the civil government to care for the needy would necessitate (as we see today) that they derive those resources from those under it’s jurisdiction. For the government is not a producer of resources, but must therefore acquire those resources by taking them from someone. This is known by another name: Socialism. It is nothing more than wealth redistribution.

Government is there for the enforcement of civil law and for defense of the land. That (along with a couple of other very limited things) is the job of the civil government according to a Biblical worldview.

The real problem we have in this nation is that the Church, and her members (families) have abdicated the God given calling to exercise care for the poor, for the widow and orphan. We have allowed our civil government to take over this duty that belongs only to us and it is wrong. But it’s a vicious cycle. That the government does this makes it hard for us to do that which we have been called.

Because it is a circular problem, it is very hard to break, but break it we must in order to get our nation back into a biblical framework.

→ Sen. Rand Paul detained by TSA

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s press secretary Moira Bagley tweeted on Monday that Transportation Security Administration officials were detaining her boss in Nashville, Tenn.

I feel so much safer now knowing this hardened criminal was captured and detained before he could do any real damage.

Oh, wait…

From the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 6:

“They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

→ She’s still campaigning for SOPA

I’ll be joining Ralph Bristol on Supertalk 99.7 WTN at 6:35am Central Time to talk about the need to stop foreign-based online piracy.

I was saddened to see Marsha Blackburn is still campaigning for SOPA. This is of course the big day of protest. And Marsha chooses to continue campaigning for this reprehensible legislation.

I am reminded of what Mark Twain said:

Politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.

I think Marsha Blackburn is at that point…

→ Jeffress wrong on Ron Paul and John Jay

Robert Jeffress was correct when called Momonism a cult, but he could not be more misguided in some of his latest comments.

I a piece run by Fox News, influential pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, TX, is telling evangelicals to be patient in the GOP primaries—not terrible advice in itself. His general reason is admirable: that we should not “abandon principles for pragmatism.” Indeed. But his applications and interpretations of that reason for Iowa and New Hampshire border on libel.

I don’t think that I was under the delusion that someone with the eschatological views that Jeffress holds would endorse Ron Paul, but I’m linking just in case any else did.

Jeffress blithely talks about Dr. Paul’s neo-Nazi ties, which is getting a bit old, and has frankly been debunked already.