July 24, 2012

Scripture for Today

Wesley Pruden: “The greater love” survives a massacre

Pro-Life Group Calls for Planned Parenthood Probe After Botched Abortion Death

Ken Walker: Adoptable Kids in Short Supply – But demand is high as evangelicals adopt wider variety of children than ever

Marcus Roberts: Russia – Sick and Dying

Human Embryos Found in Sverdlovsk Forest (Russia)

Adopted Kids’ Ranch in U.S. Denied License – Do you know anyone who has had children at this camp or who was involved in the camp’s operation? 

Jedd Medefind: Powerful Insights for Foster Parents…and All Who Love the Fatherless

Dr. Russell D. Moore: An Open Letter to an Unborn Baby

Dr. Keith Ablow: The psychological impact of single parenting

Andrew Root: Why Divorce Calls Children’s Existence into Question

Robert R. Reilly: Boy Scouts, homosexuality – Bravo for the Boy Scouts; boo for the Washington Post – “The Boy Scouts of America have banned open homosexuals from being scouts and leaders. Not everyone is happy with the decision.”

Dr. Russell D. Moore: Why Are So Many Men Hooked on Internet Porn & Video Games?

Eric Mataxas: Squawking over Chick-fil-A – Of Causes and Commerce

Robert Knight: Why Mayberry still resonates – “The Andy Griffith Show” plays out timeless truths

Here are a couple well-worth-reading columns from Michael Anthony Peroutka:

John Roberts and “Obamacare”: Would You Have Expected Anything Else?

Many conservatives are deeply disappointed in the tortured logic of Chief Justice John Roberts in his Obamacare opinion. They feel betrayed. They are angry. They expected a “conservative hero” to stand against the immoral, unconstitutional, lawless tyrant.

At the risk of making them even angrier, I wonder that they didn’t get just what was promised them. Let me explain.

The problem lies in the false belief that someone known as a conservative —in this case John Roberts—is someone who opposes the lawless tyrant. But he doesn’t!

You see, as it turns out in real life, conservatism is not the opposite of liberalism. Conservatism is not even a political philosophy. Properly understood, conservatism is really only a reaction to a political philosophy, and a very weak one at that.

By seeming to protest a while, but then giving in to the advances of their supposed enemy, Conservatives only solidify the never-ending gains of their big-government, socialist, liberal brothers.

At the heart of this deception is the fact that conservatives don’t really take an opposite view from liberals—only a slightly slower path in the same direction, and to the same destination.

If we want something different, it seems to me we need to stop supporting and electing conservatives—or “ConLiberals” or “Conserverals.” If we want our rights restored, then we’d better start electing God-fearing Constitutionists who are not willing to go along to get along, but rather are willing to sacrifice their own welfare to defend our rights.

This may be hard to face, but didn’t John Roberts prove, once again, that true conservatives are truly liberal?


What Makes a Candidate Qualified?

With elections approaching we’ve been asked to examine and discuss what it is that would qualify—or for that matter—disqualify someone who wanted to run for and hold political office. It seems to me that being qualified for office involves at least two levels of inquiry.

The first level of inquiry involves the individual’s character. Now I recollect that during the Clinton era (and ever since), we’ve been told repeatedly that a man’s character—his personal life—doesn’t have anything to do with his qualifications for office. Not surprisingly, this totally unrealistic approach has resulted in the election, to office of public trust, many men who can’t be trusted—and shouldn’t be.

Our founders would have scoffed at such an ignorant idea. They considered a man’s moral integrity, his private reputation for honesty and fair dealing—indeed his commitment to Biblical Christianity—to be the most important qualification for office. Since the overwhelming majority of actions and decisions made by an office holder are totally out of the sight of those who have elected him, they thought it prudent and appropriate to select someone who had a healthy fear of what they referred to as “a system of eternal rewards and punishments.” After all, they reasoned, if someone will lie and cheat and steal and abuse power and not fear God in doing so… what makes you think he would fear you?

The second level of qualification involves the content of the officeholder’s oath:

  • To be qualified for office, a candidate must demonstrate knowledge of how the Constitution defines, limits and divides powers granted to the government by the consent of the people. While this seems to be an obvious requirement, very few candidates have even read the Constitution, much less studied it in an organized way.
  • Our candidate must also demonstrate knowledge of the political philosophy on which the Constitution is based—that there is an Almighty Creator God, that our rights are granted by Him and that the purpose of civil government is to protect and secure those God given rights.
  • Lastly, he must be willing to act in accordance with the knowledge and the beliefs that we just described.

And what we’ve just described are the minimal qualifications for a candidate!