It isn’t often that a piece of legislation comes along and exposes rhetoric so hollow that it results in the systemic collapse of an argument. Such is the case with The Ultrasound Bill recently introduced in the 2011 Kentucky General Assembly.
For years, abortion supporters have circled the wagons around the idea of “choice,” aiming to convince the uninitiated that abortion is “a difficult decision that should be between a woman and her doctor and ultimately a choice only the woman should make.” That’s the line anyway. But what do you do with an abortionist who doesn’t want women to have all the information before they make that “difficult decision”?
This is why SB 9—The Ultrasound Bill, has passed the Senate by landslide margins in each of the past four sessions. The latest effort, which passed the Senate on Jan. 6 by a vote of 32-5, simply mandates that abortionists give a woman an opportunity to see an ultrasound picture of her unborn child. It doesn’t force the woman to look. Nor is she coerced or penalized if she doesn’t. The bill also bans late-term abortions and exacts heavy fines on abortionists who skirt the law and keep valuable information from their patients.
Ultrasound technology gives us a glimpse inside the womb, but ultrasound legislation casts a glimpse inside the abortion debate. And it is becoming clear that some choices are simply unacceptable to self-designated “pro-choicers,” especially if that choice might result in life.
This is reminiscent of the controversy over Madonna’s 80’s hit Papa Don’t Preach. The song so perturbed the abortion crowd because she vowed to “keep her baby,” which left them concerned that pregnant teens might actually follow her lead. Mandating ultrasound availability could do the same thing, but how choosing life for an unborn child would be bad has yet to be explained.
Last year, 1.2 million babies were aborted in this country. Many women come to regret their decision, wishing that they had more information and better counsel. Of course, an abortionist’s best allies are disinformation and obfuscation.
Shouldn’t we be just as angry at those who prefer to keep women in the dark as the abortionist in Philadelphia who kept his illegal practice out of the public spotlight for 18 years? Kermit Gosnell was arrested in January for practicing late-term abortions on six-, seven- and eight-month-old pre-born babies and committing infanticide on those born alive. It’s people like the $15,000-profit-per-day Gosnell who’d prefer to keep the public attention off his grisly practices, but what about the practices going on inside Kentucky’s two remaining abortion clinics?
Who could be opposed to forcing an abortionist to at least make an ultrasound available to a woman in his office?
Answer: Kentucky House Leadership which has been beholden to their Party’s pro-abortion wing for the last six years – killing all pro-life legislation passed by the Senate.
The Ultrasound Bill has deadlocked twice in Tom “if-you-send-it-to-my-committee-I-will kill-it” Burch’s Health and Welfare Committee. He publicly announced he’d kill the bill in 2009; killed it again in 2010; and he will kill it this year if the Leadership sends it there.
Twenty-one states have some kind of law requiring abortionists to offer women an ultrasound before allowing an abortion. Isn’t it time for Kentucky to ensure that women have this choice?
As for the “pro- choicers” who want to avoid an identity crisis, can they do anything but support the bill if they want to live up to their name?
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
“Potential evangelicals” need not apply at UK
Kentuckians love to cheer on their Big Blue at this time of year so when Federal District Judge Karl Forester recently called foul (not on Coach Cal, thank God) but on the UK astronomy department for religious discrimination it gave spectators a glimpse into the intellectual climate of academia. And it ain’t like being at Rupp.
Martin Gaskell, a well-published astronomer with impeccable credentials, was likely to get the job as the new director of UK’s student astronomical observatory until one search committee member suspected that he was “potentially evangelical.”
Gaaasp!
Gaskell, who advised the UK astronomy department in the development of the student observatory that he sought to direct, was blackballed for a lecture he delivered called "Modern Astronomy, the Bible and Creation.” In it, criticizes materialistic evolution and shares some of the beliefs of Newton, Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus. All by the way were Christians, and each would be summarily rejected by UK’s astronomy department for the same reason Gaskell was if the same search committee was in place.
On Nov. 23, Judge Forester found a smoking-gun-of-an-email that implicates several members of the search committee of violating Gaskell’s civil rights. One search committee member worried that Gaskell was "something close to a creationist." Another said that hiring him would be a "huge public relations mistake." A biology professor wrote to a colleague "we might as well have the Creation Museum set up an outreach office in biology.” Memo to future search committees: carefully consider the idea of Creation Museum Outreach next time.
The star witness in the case, otherwise known as the chair of the search committee, said “If Martin were not so superbly qualified, so breathtakingly above the other applicants in background and experience, then our decision would be much simpler. We could easily choose another applicant, and we could content ourselves with the idea that Martin’s religious beliefs played little role in our decision. However, this is not the case. As it is, no objective observer could possibly believe that we excluded Martin on any basis other than religious.”
When intelligent people downgrade a candidate from “superbly qualified” to an embarrassment because they might be “potentially evangelical” they are by definition practicing bigotry, regardless of how well cloaked in sophisticated language it may be. In his 2008 documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” Ben Stein revealed just how close-minded the university can be when it comes to protecting the institutionalized theory of evolution.
When the arbiters of truth discard an applicant like yesterday’s lunch all because of a competing theory of origins—differences that the search committee members admitted had nothing to do with the job, then something is lost in our halls of higher learning. Places that once welcomed free and open inquiry now shut it down, and positions that were once opened to the best qualified candidates are only open to ideological clones.
What would UK have done if Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health applied for a job there? Collins directed the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium and wrote a book called The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (2006). Collins has one of the brightest scientific minds of our day. He’s also an evangelical.
Interestingly, both Collins and Gaskell are not creationists, but apparently any talk of the possibility of God so threatens the exclusive platform of their peers that excommunication from the Church of Darwinian Fundamentalism is in order.
It seems the UK debacle is really a chess match of ideology and Gaskell merely a pawn. It was his non-conforming ideas that threatened the status quo; Ideas that UK gatekeepers will be keen to censure in the future. But when a university breaks the law as UK is charged with, they are in danger of becoming an institution plagued by what one its own faculty members called a “McCarthyism of the Left.”
Martin Gaskell, a well-published astronomer with impeccable credentials, was likely to get the job as the new director of UK’s student astronomical observatory until one search committee member suspected that he was “potentially evangelical.”
Gaaasp!
Gaskell, who advised the UK astronomy department in the development of the student observatory that he sought to direct, was blackballed for a lecture he delivered called "Modern Astronomy, the Bible and Creation.” In it, criticizes materialistic evolution and shares some of the beliefs of Newton, Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus. All by the way were Christians, and each would be summarily rejected by UK’s astronomy department for the same reason Gaskell was if the same search committee was in place.
On Nov. 23, Judge Forester found a smoking-gun-of-an-email that implicates several members of the search committee of violating Gaskell’s civil rights. One search committee member worried that Gaskell was "something close to a creationist." Another said that hiring him would be a "huge public relations mistake." A biology professor wrote to a colleague "we might as well have the Creation Museum set up an outreach office in biology.” Memo to future search committees: carefully consider the idea of Creation Museum Outreach next time.
The star witness in the case, otherwise known as the chair of the search committee, said “If Martin were not so superbly qualified, so breathtakingly above the other applicants in background and experience, then our decision would be much simpler. We could easily choose another applicant, and we could content ourselves with the idea that Martin’s religious beliefs played little role in our decision. However, this is not the case. As it is, no objective observer could possibly believe that we excluded Martin on any basis other than religious.”
When intelligent people downgrade a candidate from “superbly qualified” to an embarrassment because they might be “potentially evangelical” they are by definition practicing bigotry, regardless of how well cloaked in sophisticated language it may be. In his 2008 documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” Ben Stein revealed just how close-minded the university can be when it comes to protecting the institutionalized theory of evolution.
When the arbiters of truth discard an applicant like yesterday’s lunch all because of a competing theory of origins—differences that the search committee members admitted had nothing to do with the job, then something is lost in our halls of higher learning. Places that once welcomed free and open inquiry now shut it down, and positions that were once opened to the best qualified candidates are only open to ideological clones.
What would UK have done if Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health applied for a job there? Collins directed the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium and wrote a book called The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (2006). Collins has one of the brightest scientific minds of our day. He’s also an evangelical.
Interestingly, both Collins and Gaskell are not creationists, but apparently any talk of the possibility of God so threatens the exclusive platform of their peers that excommunication from the Church of Darwinian Fundamentalism is in order.
It seems the UK debacle is really a chess match of ideology and Gaskell merely a pawn. It was his non-conforming ideas that threatened the status quo; Ideas that UK gatekeepers will be keen to censure in the future. But when a university breaks the law as UK is charged with, they are in danger of becoming an institution plagued by what one its own faculty members called a “McCarthyism of the Left.”
Thursday, December 9, 2010
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Don’t Change It
The U.S. military has been embroiled in two foreign wars for much of the last decade. Now it faces an internal conflict over whether to allow open homosexuality in the ranks, and it is not a fight many military leaders are looking for. The U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee heard testimony last week from U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey and Marine Commandant General James Amos. Both oppose repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), which prohibits open homosexuality in the military.
Casey said changing the policy would “add another level of stress to any already stretched force.” Amos said that “assimilating openly homosexual Marines into the tightly woven fabric of our combat units has strong potential for disruption at the small unit level, as it will no doubt divert leadership attention away from an almost singular focus of preparing units for combat.”
Amos’candor, a breath of fresh air in a politicized debate that has been filled with more smoke than fire, was not appreciated by his superiors, most notably Commander in Chief Obama, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. All three are pushing to overturn DADT. The Associated Press (not to be confused with the Ministry of Propaganda) touted the recent Pentagon study as proof that enlisted members support lifting DADT. But the report failed to directly ask whether the ban on open homosexuality should be repealed. Of course, truth is the first casualty in war.
Other findings of surveyed soldiers not widely reported for reasons unknown: Thirty-seven percent believe the presence of a homosexual service member in a combat unit negatively affected or did not help the unit's combat performance. Nearly 44 percent object to sharing bathroom facilities with an open homosexual in their unit. And 61 percent predict a negative, very negative or mixed outcome for the unit's ability to "pull together to perform as a team.”
What isn’t proved by the study or any other argument is that overturning DADT is necessary to make our military stronger. Nor is it suggested that the change will help unit cohesion, strengthen morale or improve combat effectiveness. So why the strong push for open homosexuality in the ranks?
We live in a highly individualized age where self actualization reigns supreme. Army slogans haven’t helped either. “Be All You Can Be,” and “An Army of One,” are far cries from self-sacrifice and teamwork needed to protect the country. Should DADT be dropped, the next slogan might be “Half the Effectiveness, but Openly Embracing Your Lifestyle.”
Embracing open homosexuality in the armed forces raises many questions. Will army chaplains with moral convictions that homosexuality is a sin be dismissed? Will the military have to accept enlistments from gay couples who hold marriage licenses from other states? What will become of family housing? Such questions only get in the way of those who view the military as a playground for social engineering. After all, soldiers are supposed to play nice.
The truth is that soldiers don’t play nice. Their job is to fight and win wars, and rules are in place to achieve the best chances for success. That’s why the armed forces have all kinds of restrictions on who can enter (it is not a right to join). They also have numerous expectations and regulations for enlisted soldiers (they lose their civil rights once enlisted). So to lower a standard thought to be critical to success for centuries in order to appease the gods of self-actualization and political correctness should be shot down, figuratively speaking of course.
As it is, approximately 200,000 soldiers are discharged (mostly honorable) from the armed services every year. Only 428 were discharged for open homosexuality in 2009, and roughly half of those are discharged during their initial training.
It is interesting that the fight to legitimize open homosexual behavior in the armed forces is couched in terms of respecting one’s personal privacy, which is of course lavishly afforded via the current policy of DADT. Overturning DADT is something entirely different and makes sexuality in the military a very public venture.
As one of my old high school friends who is in the army recently said, “I don’t want to know about your sexuality.” Neither does most of the general public who are concerned more about policies that promote the strongest fighting force we can muster.
Casey said changing the policy would “add another level of stress to any already stretched force.” Amos said that “assimilating openly homosexual Marines into the tightly woven fabric of our combat units has strong potential for disruption at the small unit level, as it will no doubt divert leadership attention away from an almost singular focus of preparing units for combat.”
Amos’candor, a breath of fresh air in a politicized debate that has been filled with more smoke than fire, was not appreciated by his superiors, most notably Commander in Chief Obama, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. All three are pushing to overturn DADT. The Associated Press (not to be confused with the Ministry of Propaganda) touted the recent Pentagon study as proof that enlisted members support lifting DADT. But the report failed to directly ask whether the ban on open homosexuality should be repealed. Of course, truth is the first casualty in war.
Other findings of surveyed soldiers not widely reported for reasons unknown: Thirty-seven percent believe the presence of a homosexual service member in a combat unit negatively affected or did not help the unit's combat performance. Nearly 44 percent object to sharing bathroom facilities with an open homosexual in their unit. And 61 percent predict a negative, very negative or mixed outcome for the unit's ability to "pull together to perform as a team.”
What isn’t proved by the study or any other argument is that overturning DADT is necessary to make our military stronger. Nor is it suggested that the change will help unit cohesion, strengthen morale or improve combat effectiveness. So why the strong push for open homosexuality in the ranks?
We live in a highly individualized age where self actualization reigns supreme. Army slogans haven’t helped either. “Be All You Can Be,” and “An Army of One,” are far cries from self-sacrifice and teamwork needed to protect the country. Should DADT be dropped, the next slogan might be “Half the Effectiveness, but Openly Embracing Your Lifestyle.”
Embracing open homosexuality in the armed forces raises many questions. Will army chaplains with moral convictions that homosexuality is a sin be dismissed? Will the military have to accept enlistments from gay couples who hold marriage licenses from other states? What will become of family housing? Such questions only get in the way of those who view the military as a playground for social engineering. After all, soldiers are supposed to play nice.
The truth is that soldiers don’t play nice. Their job is to fight and win wars, and rules are in place to achieve the best chances for success. That’s why the armed forces have all kinds of restrictions on who can enter (it is not a right to join). They also have numerous expectations and regulations for enlisted soldiers (they lose their civil rights once enlisted). So to lower a standard thought to be critical to success for centuries in order to appease the gods of self-actualization and political correctness should be shot down, figuratively speaking of course.
As it is, approximately 200,000 soldiers are discharged (mostly honorable) from the armed services every year. Only 428 were discharged for open homosexuality in 2009, and roughly half of those are discharged during their initial training.
It is interesting that the fight to legitimize open homosexual behavior in the armed forces is couched in terms of respecting one’s personal privacy, which is of course lavishly afforded via the current policy of DADT. Overturning DADT is something entirely different and makes sexuality in the military a very public venture.
As one of my old high school friends who is in the army recently said, “I don’t want to know about your sexuality.” Neither does most of the general public who are concerned more about policies that promote the strongest fighting force we can muster.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Is marriage’s turkey cooked?
A new survey by the Pew Research Center and TIME called The Decline of Marriage And Rise of New Families is certain to ruffle a few feathers—especially as families gather around Thanksgiving Day tables this Thursday. In it, researchers find that 39 percent of Americans believe that marriage is obsolete, but before social engineers declare this turkey cooked, they ought to take a second look.
Buried in the 108 page study were encouraging morsels to those who still believe in the traditional family. 69 percent of Americans still believe that out of wedlock births are a bad thing; 61 percent say that a child needs both a mother and father to grow up happily; And 58 percent say that marriage is not obsolete. Please pass the gravy.
Yet the idea that marriage is obsolete is capturing the headlines and has marriage deconstructionists as giddy as children on Christmas morning. But before they stick a fork in it, they ought to ask their three compatriots who used to sit on the Iowa Supreme Court about the wisdom of legislating into obsolescence traditional marriage. Of course, Iowa voters unelected them on Nov. 2.
This isn’t the first time in our history that marriage was thought unnecessary. In the 1960’s, no-fault divorce laws swept through state legislatures and paved the way for the divorce boom of the 1970’s. Children, the biggest losers in this societal bargain that promised to eliminate acrimonious divorce proceedings, still suffer from the fallout and emotional trauma from divorce. Marriage wasn’t obsolete for them. Nor is it to the children growing up in single parent homes who yearn for a mother or father. As it is, 41 percent of all children today are born out of wedlock, up from 5 percent in 1960.
The question du jour? Is marriage the bulwark to society or is it just like another ornament that will adorn our Thanksgiving tables this Thursday? Marriages are not as durable as they once were, but just because many marriages aren’t surviving—thanks to easy divorce and a culture that scoffs at commitment, doesn’t mean the entire institution should be scuttled. When the two parts of humanity are joined together in a lifelong covenant it brings untold benefits to themselves, their offspring and society at large.
People who are married live longer, are healthier and happier than their unmarried peers. They earn more and are less likely to abuse drugs or alcohol and receive public assistance. According to marriage expert Mike McManus “the primary cause of poverty is not joblessness but marriage, or rather, marriage absence.” In September, The Heritage Foundation published the report “Marriage: America’s No. 1 Weapon Against Childhood Poverty,” and found that the probability of child poverty declines by 82 percent when they live with both parents who are married. According to 2008 statistics, only 6.4 percent of married, two-parent families are poor compared with 36.5 percent of families headed by a single mother. The proof is in the pudding: marriage is a key ingredient to family financial stability.
Indeed, marriage is more than just a tool to fight poverty or part of an economic calculation toward prosperity. It is an absolutely crucial social arrangement that civilization depends upon and it’s an institution that our children need to thrive, whether we admit it or not. We should no more give our children homes without marriage than we would give them a Thanksgiving without a turkey.
Fodder for discussion around the dinner table for sure. Let’s hope it doesn’t cause much heartburn.
Buried in the 108 page study were encouraging morsels to those who still believe in the traditional family. 69 percent of Americans still believe that out of wedlock births are a bad thing; 61 percent say that a child needs both a mother and father to grow up happily; And 58 percent say that marriage is not obsolete. Please pass the gravy.
Yet the idea that marriage is obsolete is capturing the headlines and has marriage deconstructionists as giddy as children on Christmas morning. But before they stick a fork in it, they ought to ask their three compatriots who used to sit on the Iowa Supreme Court about the wisdom of legislating into obsolescence traditional marriage. Of course, Iowa voters unelected them on Nov. 2.
This isn’t the first time in our history that marriage was thought unnecessary. In the 1960’s, no-fault divorce laws swept through state legislatures and paved the way for the divorce boom of the 1970’s. Children, the biggest losers in this societal bargain that promised to eliminate acrimonious divorce proceedings, still suffer from the fallout and emotional trauma from divorce. Marriage wasn’t obsolete for them. Nor is it to the children growing up in single parent homes who yearn for a mother or father. As it is, 41 percent of all children today are born out of wedlock, up from 5 percent in 1960.
The question du jour? Is marriage the bulwark to society or is it just like another ornament that will adorn our Thanksgiving tables this Thursday? Marriages are not as durable as they once were, but just because many marriages aren’t surviving—thanks to easy divorce and a culture that scoffs at commitment, doesn’t mean the entire institution should be scuttled. When the two parts of humanity are joined together in a lifelong covenant it brings untold benefits to themselves, their offspring and society at large.
People who are married live longer, are healthier and happier than their unmarried peers. They earn more and are less likely to abuse drugs or alcohol and receive public assistance. According to marriage expert Mike McManus “the primary cause of poverty is not joblessness but marriage, or rather, marriage absence.” In September, The Heritage Foundation published the report “Marriage: America’s No. 1 Weapon Against Childhood Poverty,” and found that the probability of child poverty declines by 82 percent when they live with both parents who are married. According to 2008 statistics, only 6.4 percent of married, two-parent families are poor compared with 36.5 percent of families headed by a single mother. The proof is in the pudding: marriage is a key ingredient to family financial stability.
Indeed, marriage is more than just a tool to fight poverty or part of an economic calculation toward prosperity. It is an absolutely crucial social arrangement that civilization depends upon and it’s an institution that our children need to thrive, whether we admit it or not. We should no more give our children homes without marriage than we would give them a Thanksgiving without a turkey.
Fodder for discussion around the dinner table for sure. Let’s hope it doesn’t cause much heartburn.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Sensitivity police's war on honesty claims another victim
If America’s freedom of speech is the envy of the world, then political correctness must be its bane. Some political candidates and news commentators this election season are finding that out the hard way. Just last week, the monster of political correctness raised its ugly head and resulted in the firing of Juan Williams by National Public Radio.
Williams, a long-time civil rights advocate, told Bill O'Reilly that "political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality… when I get on a plane… if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they’re identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried, I get nervous.”
Is this not the same thought also shared by many frequent airline travelers? Yet because of the perceived offense, it was a thought NPR execs believed best kept out of the public arena, so they fired him.
But was it really a wise move in a time when the divide between the political left and right has never been greater? NPR reported that Williams' presence on “Fox News has long been a sore point with NPR News executives.” Why? NPR is known for its eloquence and dialogue, but instead of fostering communication between the two sides, they fired an accomplished ambassador for the left. Even as William’s actually warned O’Reilly against painting Muslims with broad brushstrokes, NPR painted him with a broad brushstroke and fired him. So the cold war of ideology continues.
What thinkers on both the left and right can agree upon is that the war radical Islam has declared on the West has kindled the fears of many, and has sometimes led to intolerance and bigotry toward Muslims who don’t subscribe to violence. But the war on ideas and politically incorrect opinion by the speech patrol has wider ranging consequences. We should insist upon respect and high standards of dialogue, but don’t we expect our leaders and analysts to tell us the truth? Or are some thoughts just too offensive to be aired publicly? Juan Williams is no Bobby Seale. Nor was he advocating the burning of the Koran. So why was he lumped in with extremists?
I have a friend in Belgium who has decried political correctness in Europe for years. It is now a rare individual who speaks out against radical Islam. And for those who do—including journalists who caricature Mohammed, they face death threats. If they are willing to come out of hiding, then they face legal proceedings from a society so steeped in political correctness that it has lost its ability to think or respect individual thought.
A new Rasmussen Reports released on Oct. 19, found that 74 percent of Americans regard political correctness as a problem in the United States today. Rasmussen also found that 63 percent blamed political correctness for preventing “the U.S. military from responding to warning signs that could have prevented Major Nidal Malik Hasan from massacring 13 people and wounding many others at Fort Hood, Texas.”
When the whitewashing of language and laundering of ideas leads to collective stupidity, then it’s time to reevaluate. When political correctness out of fear of offending someone or some group eviscerates civil discourse, what have we gained? Respect and tolerance have always been and always should be benchmarks of civil discussion and standards by which any media should live by. But as George Orwell once said, “We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”
It’s time as Americans to assert that we still have the right to restate the obvious. Hopefully, the rest of the media will join us.
Williams, a long-time civil rights advocate, told Bill O'Reilly that "political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality… when I get on a plane… if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they’re identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried, I get nervous.”
Is this not the same thought also shared by many frequent airline travelers? Yet because of the perceived offense, it was a thought NPR execs believed best kept out of the public arena, so they fired him.
But was it really a wise move in a time when the divide between the political left and right has never been greater? NPR reported that Williams' presence on “Fox News has long been a sore point with NPR News executives.” Why? NPR is known for its eloquence and dialogue, but instead of fostering communication between the two sides, they fired an accomplished ambassador for the left. Even as William’s actually warned O’Reilly against painting Muslims with broad brushstrokes, NPR painted him with a broad brushstroke and fired him. So the cold war of ideology continues.
What thinkers on both the left and right can agree upon is that the war radical Islam has declared on the West has kindled the fears of many, and has sometimes led to intolerance and bigotry toward Muslims who don’t subscribe to violence. But the war on ideas and politically incorrect opinion by the speech patrol has wider ranging consequences. We should insist upon respect and high standards of dialogue, but don’t we expect our leaders and analysts to tell us the truth? Or are some thoughts just too offensive to be aired publicly? Juan Williams is no Bobby Seale. Nor was he advocating the burning of the Koran. So why was he lumped in with extremists?
I have a friend in Belgium who has decried political correctness in Europe for years. It is now a rare individual who speaks out against radical Islam. And for those who do—including journalists who caricature Mohammed, they face death threats. If they are willing to come out of hiding, then they face legal proceedings from a society so steeped in political correctness that it has lost its ability to think or respect individual thought.
A new Rasmussen Reports released on Oct. 19, found that 74 percent of Americans regard political correctness as a problem in the United States today. Rasmussen also found that 63 percent blamed political correctness for preventing “the U.S. military from responding to warning signs that could have prevented Major Nidal Malik Hasan from massacring 13 people and wounding many others at Fort Hood, Texas.”
When the whitewashing of language and laundering of ideas leads to collective stupidity, then it’s time to reevaluate. When political correctness out of fear of offending someone or some group eviscerates civil discourse, what have we gained? Respect and tolerance have always been and always should be benchmarks of civil discussion and standards by which any media should live by. But as George Orwell once said, “We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”
It’s time as Americans to assert that we still have the right to restate the obvious. Hopefully, the rest of the media will join us.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Casino corruption rocks Alabama Legislature
Last year, the Kentucky House passed a casino expansion bill, but not without lofty promises and heavy political pressure. Many have questioned the tactics of the casino lobby whether they are public pie-in-the-sky promises or private behind the scenes promises that border on bribery. The latest example of the corrupting influence of the casino lobby on the legislative process comes from Alabama where its legislature was rocked earlier this week when the major media reported a major gambling related scandal.
Eleven people were arrested by federal authorities for soliciting and receiving bribes in exchange for pro-gambling votes. Four of those arrested were state senators. James Preuitt (R-Talledega), offered to sell his vote for $2 million in campaign contributions. Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Criminal Division said in the 39 count indictment. "The people of Alabama, like all our citizens, deserve to have representatives who act in the public’s interest, not for their own personal financial gain. Vote-buying, like the kind alleged in this indictment, corrodes the public’s faith in our democratic institutions and cannot go unpunished." To read more about the 39 count indictment go to: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/October/10-crm-1114.html
Eleven people were arrested by federal authorities for soliciting and receiving bribes in exchange for pro-gambling votes. Four of those arrested were state senators. James Preuitt (R-Talledega), offered to sell his vote for $2 million in campaign contributions. Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Criminal Division said in the 39 count indictment. "The people of Alabama, like all our citizens, deserve to have representatives who act in the public’s interest, not for their own personal financial gain. Vote-buying, like the kind alleged in this indictment, corrodes the public’s faith in our democratic institutions and cannot go unpunished." To read more about the 39 count indictment go to: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/October/10-crm-1114.html
Friday, September 3, 2010
"Show-Me" state puts a wrap on SOB's
Just days ago, a Missouri Circuit judge upheld a state law that places tough restrictions on sexually oriented businesses (SOB's). Attorney's for the SOB's challenging the law said it would provide an economic hardship in times when the economy is already in dire straits.
Judge Jon Beetem said “The law will undoubtedly change the business practices of the plaintiffs, and they will likely suffer some economic loss,” Beetem wrote. “But economic loss alone does not alter the analysis of the legal issues surrounding Plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges.”
When asked about the economic impact more restrictions will have on Missouri's SOB's, Democratic Governor Jay Nixon said “I don’t think the future of my state will be built on that industry."
Analysts are saying the "Show-Me" state may now be known better for what won't be showing at certain business establishments. Family advocates say that's a modest step in the right direction.
Judge Jon Beetem said “The law will undoubtedly change the business practices of the plaintiffs, and they will likely suffer some economic loss,” Beetem wrote. “But economic loss alone does not alter the analysis of the legal issues surrounding Plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges.”
When asked about the economic impact more restrictions will have on Missouri's SOB's, Democratic Governor Jay Nixon said “I don’t think the future of my state will be built on that industry."
Analysts are saying the "Show-Me" state may now be known better for what won't be showing at certain business establishments. Family advocates say that's a modest step in the right direction.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Judge walks over voters, marriage
Advocates of traditional marriage were trampled earlier this month by a San Francisco judge who struck down California’s constitutional amendment which keeps marriage between one man and one woman. Judge Vaughn Walker apparently missed the memo about the seven million voters who support marriage between one man and one woman. Memos about the need for judicial restraint and the necessity for judges to recuse themselves in cases where there might be a conflict of interest apparently did not reach his desk either.
Over the last year, we’ve seen judges subvert the democratic process by substituting their personal preferences and policy choices for duly enacted laws. Most notably, in July, Federal District Judge Joe Tauro struck down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which garnered the votes of 427 Congressmen and was signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. Another federal court insisted that Ten Commandments displays are off limits in two Eastern Kentucky courthouses, perhaps a not-so-subtle indication that judges often confuse themselves with the Almighty Lawgiver Himself.
Judicial restraint is clearly in short supply these days, particularly on the federal bench, but now we’re finding that in this most recent case of judicial overreach, Judge Walker had a conflict of interest.
The biggest out-of-the-closet secret since the ruling is that Walker is in a relationship with another man—a detail which legal experts say should have led to his recusal. Walker failed to disclose his potentially disqualifying bias since it could benefit him and his partner should they choose to get married. Amazingly, Walker is now telling traditional marriage advocates that they cannot appeal the ruling because they lack standing. This is like a referee telling the ball team that since they are down at halftime, they cannot come back for the third quarter since they are losing. Such things happen when the referees are no longer objective and become allies with one of the teams.
Dale Carpenter, a University of Minnesota constitutional law professor told Fox News, "What Judge Walker's ruling means is you can sponsor a proposition, direct it, research it, work for it, raise $40 million for it, get it on a ballot, successfully campaign for it and then have no ability to defend it independently in court, and then a judge maybe let you be the sole defender in a full-blown trial and then says, 'by the way, you never can defend this.' It just seems very unlikely to me the higher courts will buy that." Carpenter, by the way, supports same-sex marriage.
Additionally, Judge Walker discredited the testimony of traditional marriage and family formation expert David Blankenhorn who was one of the two witnesses defending the marriage amendment (four other witnesses declined to testify because they feared for their safety). Blankenhorn’s testimony, according to Walker, “constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony that should be given essentially no weight.” Walker also took a swipe at the faith community when he said, "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians."
Walker’s actions discredit the judiciary, which should be in the business of “calling balls and strikes” as Chief Justice John Roberts once said. When they get in the game and take sides, they become something other than a judge. The biggest losers in this sad story are the voters and the democratic process itself. Why vote if one judge can cancel the vote of seven million people? Why contribute to a cause if it’s likely to be defeated in court? Why care?
Walker’s actions were so egregious that the reliably liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals put a hold on Walker’s ruling until December, thus preventing gay marriages from taking place this week. While Judge Walker once again opened the door to gay marriage in California, he cannot entirely overrule the verdict in the court of public opinion: marriage is between one man and one woman, and the democratic process is the most equitable way to decide such contentious issues.
Over the last year, we’ve seen judges subvert the democratic process by substituting their personal preferences and policy choices for duly enacted laws. Most notably, in July, Federal District Judge Joe Tauro struck down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which garnered the votes of 427 Congressmen and was signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. Another federal court insisted that Ten Commandments displays are off limits in two Eastern Kentucky courthouses, perhaps a not-so-subtle indication that judges often confuse themselves with the Almighty Lawgiver Himself.
Judicial restraint is clearly in short supply these days, particularly on the federal bench, but now we’re finding that in this most recent case of judicial overreach, Judge Walker had a conflict of interest.
The biggest out-of-the-closet secret since the ruling is that Walker is in a relationship with another man—a detail which legal experts say should have led to his recusal. Walker failed to disclose his potentially disqualifying bias since it could benefit him and his partner should they choose to get married. Amazingly, Walker is now telling traditional marriage advocates that they cannot appeal the ruling because they lack standing. This is like a referee telling the ball team that since they are down at halftime, they cannot come back for the third quarter since they are losing. Such things happen when the referees are no longer objective and become allies with one of the teams.
Dale Carpenter, a University of Minnesota constitutional law professor told Fox News, "What Judge Walker's ruling means is you can sponsor a proposition, direct it, research it, work for it, raise $40 million for it, get it on a ballot, successfully campaign for it and then have no ability to defend it independently in court, and then a judge maybe let you be the sole defender in a full-blown trial and then says, 'by the way, you never can defend this.' It just seems very unlikely to me the higher courts will buy that." Carpenter, by the way, supports same-sex marriage.
Additionally, Judge Walker discredited the testimony of traditional marriage and family formation expert David Blankenhorn who was one of the two witnesses defending the marriage amendment (four other witnesses declined to testify because they feared for their safety). Blankenhorn’s testimony, according to Walker, “constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony that should be given essentially no weight.” Walker also took a swipe at the faith community when he said, "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians."
Walker’s actions discredit the judiciary, which should be in the business of “calling balls and strikes” as Chief Justice John Roberts once said. When they get in the game and take sides, they become something other than a judge. The biggest losers in this sad story are the voters and the democratic process itself. Why vote if one judge can cancel the vote of seven million people? Why contribute to a cause if it’s likely to be defeated in court? Why care?
Walker’s actions were so egregious that the reliably liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals put a hold on Walker’s ruling until December, thus preventing gay marriages from taking place this week. While Judge Walker once again opened the door to gay marriage in California, he cannot entirely overrule the verdict in the court of public opinion: marriage is between one man and one woman, and the democratic process is the most equitable way to decide such contentious issues.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Strip club stabbing exposes Lexington's vulnerability
The Lexington Herald Leader reported earlier today that two men were hospitalized after being attacked outside a Lexington strip club at 3 AM today. Fayette County is one of only three counties in Kentucky without comprehensive restrictions on sexually oriented businesses which are required by law to close at an earlier time. Besides hours of operation requirements, there are other basic restrictions like a total nudity ban and distance rule that keeps strippers from patrons, that would stem the negative secondary effects of SOB's. Until these restrictions are in place, Lexington and Fayette County will remain exposed to seedy businesses that most would rather not have in their community.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Academic intolerance leads to expulsion of Christian counseling student
On July 27, a federal judge upheld the decision of an Eastern Michigan University (EMU) counseling program to kick out a graduate student who declined to counsel gay clients in an affirming way. Julea Ward, an A student in her studies, was expelled from the program when she asked her superior if another person could counsel a homosexual client. Instead of accommodating Ward, who believed that the situation would have put her at odds with her moral conviction that homosexuality is wrong, the university told her to undergo “remediation.” In other words: gay sensitivity training. The goal was to change Wards moral convictions. Does this mean that aspiring counselors who hold orthodox Christian views on human sexuality cannot become certified? The answer is yes, if you are enrolled at EMU. So much for tolerance and viewpoint diversity at that institution of higher education.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Institutional bigotry just peachy
If you are planning to study counseling at Augusta State University in Georgia and also believe that homosexuality is wrong then you will have to make a choice. Either you acquiesce your moral convictions or you find another school that is, shall we say, more tolerant and accepting of diverse viewpoints. Augusta State graduate student Jennifer Keeton is now facing expulsion for daring to express her view that homosexuality is morally wrong. When the perceived infraction was discovered by the tolerance police, um administration, they insisted that she enroll in a one year "remediation plan" which boiled down to gay sensitivity training that would teach her the correct way to think about homosexuality. Now isn't that just peachy? A lawsuit is now pending.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Pornography finding a new market
The Washington Times released a story yesterday about the increasing number of women using porn. This may have something to do with increased revenues. The porn industry took in $13 billion in 2006. But what are the effects on the women who are using it? To read more go to:
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Jack Conway's best ally
Since Jack Conway won the Democratic primary in May, it is becoming clear who is his biggest cheerleader and fan: the Associated Press. It has churned out stories about Paul's income, his medical certification and affiliation, and recent attendance at a D.C. fundraiser. The latest story focused on his new position in support of a border fence to control illegal immigration. He was previously against the idea. Never mind the fact that there are substantive issues like over the cliff and out of control federal spending, looming bankruptcy of Medicaid and 10 percent unemployment.
By making mountains out of Paul's molehills, the AP has become Conway's biggest ally. Rumor has it that they will do an expose' on Paul's problem with snoring and dandruff. Just kidding. I'm not sure if Paul snores or has dandruff, but the recent stories are thin veneer over the AP's apparent contempt for him. Where are all the negative stories about Conway? After all, didn't he go to Duke? Instead of straining at gnats and swallowing camels, why doesn't the AP question the candidates on issues that matter?
By making mountains out of Paul's molehills, the AP has become Conway's biggest ally. Rumor has it that they will do an expose' on Paul's problem with snoring and dandruff. Just kidding. I'm not sure if Paul snores or has dandruff, but the recent stories are thin veneer over the AP's apparent contempt for him. Where are all the negative stories about Conway? After all, didn't he go to Duke? Instead of straining at gnats and swallowing camels, why doesn't the AP question the candidates on issues that matter?
Monday, June 21, 2010
6th Circuit: Thou shall not post
When the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals denied restoration of a Ten Commandments display in the McCreary County Courthouse on June 9, it left many free speech advocates in disbelief, mostly because the same court ruled that an identical display to remain in Grayson County Courthouse in mid-January was OK. So what gives?
The main issue percolating in this decade long legal dispute centers on whether the intent of posting the original display was secular or religious in purpose. If the intent is secular and educational, the display is OK. But when the men and women in black robes suspect even a hint of religious motivation then the displays are deemed contraband and cast into figurative purgatory.
Judge Eric Clay wrote for the 2-1 majority and said that McCreary and Pulaski counties failed to provide a “valid secular purpose” for the revamped display. “The fact that Defendants seek to minimize the residue of religious purpose does not mean that Plaintiffs do not suffer continuing irreparable injury so long as the display remains on the walls of the county courthouses,” Clay said.
Residue? Irreparable injury? Sounds like there’s been some kind of a mold outbreak in the county courthouse jeopardizing the very health of occupants. While Judge Clay didn’t order the courthouses to scrub down with Lysol, sanitizing of another sort by secularists has definitely taken place. In April, Federal District Judge Barbara Crabb ruled that it is illegal for governing bodies to officially recognize the National Day of Prayer. Another federal judge ruled in late May that a public high school graduation ceremony couldn’t take place in a Connecticut church largely because it had numerous religious symbols and large crosses that couldn’t be covered. Of course, seeing a large cross could cause nightmares and trauma for graduating seniors and their families.
In cases like these, secularists invoke the First Amendment separation clause which prohibits Congress from establishing a religion. But a school board planning a graduation ceremony is not Congress. Nor is a local governing body deciding what to hang on the Courthouse walls. And it has yet to be explained how merely posting the Ten Commandments establishes a religion? Don’t Jews, Christians and Muslims all honor the Ten Commandments? And what does the judge mean by “irreparable harm” anyway?
To arrive at Clay’s conclusion, one has to do great violence to our history. Our political fabric is enmeshed with acknowledgment of God. Just pull a dollar bill out of your wallet or purse and you see that Caesar’s image has been superseded by our National Motto: “In God we trust.” (Please note that pocketfuls of cash have yet to cause “irreparable harm” to atheists and ACLU attorneys who gladly accumulate as much of the stuff as they can—often at taxpayer expense).
Until recent decades, we’ve been able to freely acknowledged God in the public schools which were birthed out of 17th century colonial churches desiring to teach children to read the Bible. Many of these same classrooms had the Ten Commandments posted on their walls, including Kentucky’s until the U.S. Supreme Court banned them in 1980. The pilgrims and the Continental Congress gave us days of thanksgiving and prayer. In modern times, Franklin D Roosevelt led the nation in a Christian prayer on D-Day. Nobody asserted he was trying to establish a religion.
Secularists succeeded in leaving a void on the McCreary and Pulaski Courthouse walls, but the larger result is that they’ve left a vacuum in American history. One replete with reference to God and where citizens can freely acknowledge Him both inside and outside the public square. Yet a few understand the stakes in this struggle. Judge James Ryan, the lone dissenter in the McCreary case said, "The result, I fear, is that federal courts will continue to close the Public Square to display of religious symbols as fundamental as the Ten Commandments, at least until the Supreme Court rediscovers the history and meaning of the words of the religion clauses of the First Amendment.”
The main issue percolating in this decade long legal dispute centers on whether the intent of posting the original display was secular or religious in purpose. If the intent is secular and educational, the display is OK. But when the men and women in black robes suspect even a hint of religious motivation then the displays are deemed contraband and cast into figurative purgatory.
Judge Eric Clay wrote for the 2-1 majority and said that McCreary and Pulaski counties failed to provide a “valid secular purpose” for the revamped display. “The fact that Defendants seek to minimize the residue of religious purpose does not mean that Plaintiffs do not suffer continuing irreparable injury so long as the display remains on the walls of the county courthouses,” Clay said.
Residue? Irreparable injury? Sounds like there’s been some kind of a mold outbreak in the county courthouse jeopardizing the very health of occupants. While Judge Clay didn’t order the courthouses to scrub down with Lysol, sanitizing of another sort by secularists has definitely taken place. In April, Federal District Judge Barbara Crabb ruled that it is illegal for governing bodies to officially recognize the National Day of Prayer. Another federal judge ruled in late May that a public high school graduation ceremony couldn’t take place in a Connecticut church largely because it had numerous religious symbols and large crosses that couldn’t be covered. Of course, seeing a large cross could cause nightmares and trauma for graduating seniors and their families.
In cases like these, secularists invoke the First Amendment separation clause which prohibits Congress from establishing a religion. But a school board planning a graduation ceremony is not Congress. Nor is a local governing body deciding what to hang on the Courthouse walls. And it has yet to be explained how merely posting the Ten Commandments establishes a religion? Don’t Jews, Christians and Muslims all honor the Ten Commandments? And what does the judge mean by “irreparable harm” anyway?
To arrive at Clay’s conclusion, one has to do great violence to our history. Our political fabric is enmeshed with acknowledgment of God. Just pull a dollar bill out of your wallet or purse and you see that Caesar’s image has been superseded by our National Motto: “In God we trust.” (Please note that pocketfuls of cash have yet to cause “irreparable harm” to atheists and ACLU attorneys who gladly accumulate as much of the stuff as they can—often at taxpayer expense).
Until recent decades, we’ve been able to freely acknowledged God in the public schools which were birthed out of 17th century colonial churches desiring to teach children to read the Bible. Many of these same classrooms had the Ten Commandments posted on their walls, including Kentucky’s until the U.S. Supreme Court banned them in 1980. The pilgrims and the Continental Congress gave us days of thanksgiving and prayer. In modern times, Franklin D Roosevelt led the nation in a Christian prayer on D-Day. Nobody asserted he was trying to establish a religion.
Secularists succeeded in leaving a void on the McCreary and Pulaski Courthouse walls, but the larger result is that they’ve left a vacuum in American history. One replete with reference to God and where citizens can freely acknowledge Him both inside and outside the public square. Yet a few understand the stakes in this struggle. Judge James Ryan, the lone dissenter in the McCreary case said, "The result, I fear, is that federal courts will continue to close the Public Square to display of religious symbols as fundamental as the Ten Commandments, at least until the Supreme Court rediscovers the history and meaning of the words of the religion clauses of the First Amendment.”
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
The problem with out-of-wedlock pregnancy is a lack of marriage, not a lack of contraceptives
The inimitable Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation argues that the focus on teen pregnancy by liberals is a smokescreen hiding the fact that most out of wedlock pregnancies are among young adult women. It is a result, he says, of the breakdown of marriage and is the driving force behind the welfare state:
The steady growth of childbearing by single women and the general collapse of marriage, especially among the poor, lie at the heart of the mushrooming welfare state. This year, taxpayers will spend over $300 billion providing means-tested welfare aid to single parents. The average single mother receives nearly three dollars in government benefits for each dollar she pays in taxes. These subsidies are funded largely by the heavy taxes paid by higher-income married couples.In other words, the decline of marriage doesn't really bother liberals. But why?
America is rapidly becoming a two-caste society, with marriage and education at the dividing line. Children born to married couples with a college education are mostly in the top half of the population; children born to single mothers with high-school degrees or less are mostly in the bottom half.
The disappearance of marriage in low-income communities is the predominant cause of child poverty in the U.S. today. If poor single mothers were married to the fathers of their children, two-thirds of them would not be poor. The absence of a husband and father from the home also is a strong contributing factor to failure in school, crime, drug abuse, emotional disturbance, and a host of other social problems.
Despite the transparent linkages among poverty, social problems, and disintegration of the family, the liberal intelligentsia has watched the steady collapse of marriage in low-income communities with silent indifference.Read the whole thing here.
The reason? Most liberal academics regard marriage as an outdated, socially backward institution; they have shed no tears over its demise. Even worse, liberal politicians and anonymous government bureaucrats have a vested interest in the growth of the welfare state, and nothing grows the welfare state like the disappearance of marriage.
Single mothers are inherently in far greater need of government support than married couples, so an increase in single parenthood leads almost inevitably to an increase in government benefits and services and a thriving welfare industry to supply them. Marital collapse creates a burgeoning new clientele dependent on government services and political patrons. When liberals refuse to talk about marriage and the poor in the same breath, they are guilty of willful neglect of the major source of poverty.
For the statist, the collapse of marriage is a gift that keeps on giving. It’s no accident that the modern welfare system rewards single parents and penalizes married couples.
The Left, with the complicity of the liberal media, hypes the issue of “teen pregnancy” -- partly because feminists think girls should attend college for a few years before becoming single mothers, partly in order to strengthen their agenda of promoting condom use and permissive sex ed in the schools. (In reality, condom proselytizing is a bogus answer to actual social problems. Contrary to conventional wisdom, lack of access to birth control isn’t a significant contributor to non-marital pregnancy among teens or non-teens.)
Liberal journalists and pundits deliberately remain silent on the far larger issue of out-of-wedlock childbearing among adults because they believe the collapse of marriage is irrelevant, if not benign. From their perspective, concern about marriage is a mere red-state superstition; the important task is to increase government subsidies as we build a post-marriage society.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Murray State University should stick to education, not social engineering
When the Murray State University Board of Regents adopted a sexual orientation, non-discrimination statement in 2008, I testified against the idea, noting that it would be a stepping stone to domestic partnerships. Now, two years later, Professor Kevin Binfield cited that statement as impetus for change, and on April 6, MSU’s Faculty Senate took the first step by voting to extend health benefits to domestic partners. Is it farfetched to now make the case that widespread sanctioning of domestic partners will eventually open the door to gay marriage?
Professor Binfield, a philosopher himself, defines domestic partners as “people who have entered into long-term committed relationships comparable in duration and commitment to marriage.” But he and others in the marriage deconstruction movement fail to consider the long-term implications of domestic partnerships. In fact, they’ve neglected to answer several important questions . . .
Why use traditional marriage as a reference point for domestic partnerships? Why limit partnerships to two people? Why have a minimum age requirement? And why shouldn’t relatives qualify as domestic partners? The answers, of course, are elusive because when the core definition of marriage as one man and one woman is dismantled, then lesser requirements will tumble shortly thereafter.
It’s one thing to get a definition wrong in an academic setting. It’s quite another to impose a wrong definition on all of society and expect taxpayers to pick up the tab. University of Kentucky’s "Domestic Partner Benefits Committee” estimated in 2007 that extending the marriage-like benefits to domestic partners will cost UK an additional $633,000 per year.
Dr. Randy Dunn told The News (MSU’s student newspaper) that this is a recruiting issue. If that’s the case, why not just increase the salaries of prospective hires? Why the need for dramatic social engineering?
With such a bold proposal coming from Murray State’s elected academia, one would expect a more thorough analysis of the costs involved, not just economic costs (which is a real issue as state universities are facing 1-1.5 percent budget cuts over the next two years), but the price our culture will pay when bedrock relationships are manipulated by political interest groups.
In a day when marriage is struggling and four out of every 10 children in America are born out of wedlock, the last thing the traditional family needs is another hit. Giving marriage-like benefits to unmarried, sexual partners does just that. It sends the message that marriage is just another type of sexual relationship. It puts heterosexual marriage and non-marital, sexual relationships on the same plane, which clearly they're not. And it’s an incentive to sexual relationships outside of marriage –something the state and federal government have been discouraging for years.
When domestic partnerships are legitimized, marriage becomes marginalized. Fewer people are likely to marry so long as they’re treated like they’re married. In fact, the University of Louisville – Kentucky’s first public university to adopt domestic partnerships in 2006 – required a relationship of only 180 days in order to get the benefits. But do we really need more short-term relationships? Shouldn’t governing authorities promote stronger, more durable marriages and life-long commitments?
Most would agree that society needs healthier families with both fathers and mothers devoted to raising their children. Mere partnerships between adults don’t accomplish this. Marriage – not “marriage-lite” – is the relationship that deserves exclusive support from our university leaders. To do anything less is cheating our children in the long run.
Murray State Board of Regents is facing its biggest cultural test this year. Hopefully, they’ll choose to shore up the relationship which is foundational to society. If they don’t, marriage may become just another subject studied in history class.
Family group assails college tuition increases, calls on lawmakers to take action
LEXINGTON, KY--A state family advocacy group called the decision by the Council for Postsecondary Education to allow state universities to raise tuition by as much as 6 percent a slap in the face to Kentucky families struggling to afford to send their children to college.
The group is requesting that Gov. Steve Beshear place the issue on his call for a special legislative session and asking state lawmakers to place a moratorium on tuition increases at state colleges and universities.
"Instead of taking measures to control their costs, state universities want to continue on their spending spree on new building construction and expansion of non-teaching staff," said Martin Cothran, senior policy analyst with The Family Foundation, "and they are asking Kentucky families to foot the bill."
Cothran said that college costs are already out of reach for average Kentuckians and that the Council's decision will only make the problem worse. He pointed to a study commissioned by his group that showed that costs for a college education were rising faster than health care costs and that the problem lay with the universities themselves who refuse to control their own costs.
"Our college presidents are blaming everyone but themselves for the problem of rising costs. They need to take a good look in the mirror and ask themselves whether they really need to be building more expensive buildings at a time when taxpayers have to tighten their belts."
The group is requesting that Gov. Steve Beshear place the issue on his call for a special legislative session and asking state lawmakers to place a moratorium on tuition increases at state colleges and universities.
"Instead of taking measures to control their costs, state universities want to continue on their spending spree on new building construction and expansion of non-teaching staff," said Martin Cothran, senior policy analyst with The Family Foundation, "and they are asking Kentucky families to foot the bill."
Cothran said that college costs are already out of reach for average Kentuckians and that the Council's decision will only make the problem worse. He pointed to a study commissioned by his group that showed that costs for a college education were rising faster than health care costs and that the problem lay with the universities themselves who refuse to control their own costs.
"Our college presidents are blaming everyone but themselves for the problem of rising costs. They need to take a good look in the mirror and ask themselves whether they really need to be building more expensive buildings at a time when taxpayers have to tighten their belts."
Friday, April 16, 2010
Hopkinsville Tea Party speech
Thank you all for coming out today. What a great turnout. You know, the big three TV networks have disparaged and maligned this movement as fringe and disruptive, but I say that there is nothing more American than to assemble and protest government abuse and fiscal irresponsibility. And that is what the tea party movement is about. Today, April 15, the tax man cometh. But the tax man needs to remember and those who sent the tax man need to remember that in seven months the voters will have their say. Today each of you are sending the message to our leaders at all levels of govt. that we are taxed enough already and we expect fiscal responsibility. And if you don’t hear our voices now, you will hear from us at the ballot box in Nov!
It was in 1773 when Mass. colonists gathered on a wharf in Boston and protested against England’s heavy hand. The cry was “no taxation without representation.” Today we have plenty of taxation and with our leaders in Congress, we have to but wonder who exactly are they representing? It seems the average Washington politician is more concerned about debt-inducing stimulus packages and bailing out big multi-national corporations, than about tending to the business of preserving liberty and freedom of average citizens back in their districts
Consider that we have 12.8 trillion dollar in national debt, Medicaid is projected to go bankrupt in 7 years. In 2017, Social security will start paying out more than it takes in. Friends, our financial train is on a collision course with economic disaster and the political engineers who are conducting it need to be told to switch tracks or move out of the way for somebody more responsible to take the wheel to avert this head on collision ...... This is a disaster that our children and grandchildren will inherit and have to clean up.
Thomas Jefferson once said, “The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” Today’s biggest swindle isn’t happening by common thieves, but by too many politicians who get into public office by promising to deliver benefits and contracts to special interests and charging it to generations not yet born. This is like Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme cloaked in respectability. Madoff went to jail last year, but too many Congressmen who like to spend other people’s money will ask to be re-elected this year.
Leadership in our commonwealth isn’t much better. The KY retirement system has some $30 billion in future obligations that is not paid for. An audit of the KY League of Cities and KY Association of Counties has found gross mismanagement of millions of taxpayer dollars and When the KY House had a chance to pass the Taxpayer Transparency Act which requires the posting of public agency budgets online, they killed the bill
Currently, we have a $780 million deficit and the House proposal was to issue an additional $2 billion in bond initiatives for roads, water projects and schools. The speaker called it a jobs bill... Let's call it what it really is: election year fodder and fiscal irresponsibility.
Earlier this year, the governor proposed to expand gambling to make up the budget deficit. What I’d like to know is that if individuals shouldn’t depend on gambling for their income, then why should the government depend on gambling revenue for its income? It is foolhardy to believe we can gamble our way out of this recession and into prosperity. Just as it is wrong for the government to profit off the losses of its people--people they are charged with protecting.
Re: unemployment, in Dec 2007, the state’s unemployment rate was 5.7 % now stands at 10.7% -- 1.2% above national average, and while the unemployment rate increases state government-sector jobs increased by 2,300 since Feb. 2009. So we have fewer people working and less tax revenue going to support more government workers. As Dr. Phil would ask, "how's that workin for ya?" By the way: with the health care bill passed by Congress last month, will require the hiring of an estimated 16,500 IRS agents.
One of the problems with current politics is that politicians justify their existence by bringing back goods: more projects, more programs etc. And so our government grows deeper in debt. One of the headlines of the Kentucky New Era the other week was of Gov. Beshear visiting Guthrie with a $600,000 check to restore a historic home. The governor will point to this and say “look what we built, look what we did for your community, look at this new renovated building.” There is nothing wrong with preserving a historic house, but should we expect the state government to do this? And this scenario is repeated all across KY.
The system is broken is because there are built-in constituencies that will vote benefits over what is good for the commonwealth and our children’s future. And we have politicians who are willing to deliver the goods in exchange for political power. According to the Bluegrass Institute:
--24.7 percent of Kentucky’s adults collect disability checks
--768,876 Ky’s depended on SS check in 2005
--add in other welfare programs and its clear that a large number of the electorate is dependent on a government check and this is unsustainable.
A quote attributed to Scottish historian Alexander Tytler explains where we are today: “A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority (who vote) will vote for those candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with the result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies...”
Of course. many argue that social programs are necessary to be compassionate, but is that what government is about? Our first pres. George Washington said. Government is not reason, it is not eloquence--it is force! Like fire a dangerous servant and fearful master.” True compassion allows people to care for other people. (Alpha Alternative Pregnancy Care Center, Salvation Army, St. Luke’s free clinic, etc).
One of the biggest outrages this past GA session was when a Paducah State Rep. voted against the House budget bill on principle because of the amount of new debt and tax increases and in retribution, the Speaker of the House Greg Stumbo punished this person by stripping out necessary funds for a dilapidated school that needed fixing. There’s a term for this: political extortion. Our children shouldn’t be the casualty of somebody's political power trip. Kentuckians deserve to have their business conducted by their elected officials in a professional manner, not with threats and bribes.
I believe that this movement--that you are here because you desire to preserve liberty and freedom and give our children a better future--a future where they aren’t shackled down by the unconscionable debt incurred by our leaders today.
You understand that America is great not because of government involvement in our daily lives, but America is great because of the people who are free to pursue their God-given talents and use their abilities as they see fit.
Let’s agree together today, to not just let this rally be an emotional outlet for our frustration, but lets resign ourselves to find and work for candidates who are committed to preserving faith, family and freedom--candidates who believe in limited government and fiscal responsibility--candidates who will govern with the next generation in mind instead of just the next election. Candidates who we can trust in Frankfort and Washington to do what is right.
You know, the professional politicians may not be listening right now. and the media may not cover this event very well today, but come Nov. lets let our voices be heard at the ballot box so its a story they cannot miss. I believe that together we can make a difference. Thank you and God bless.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Western Kentucky University funds domestic partners
Beginning Jan. 1, 2011, Western Kentucky University will become the fourth Kentucky public university to extend domestic partner benefits to its employees. Ironically, while the commonwealth's current budget proposal cuts post-secondary education spending, WKU will increase its financial obligations by increasing its insurance pool to unrelated people who live together. Can anyone guess who's going to pay for it? To read more go to:
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100402/NEWS0105/4020366/WKU+to+extend+insurance+benefits+to+domestic+partners
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100402/NEWS0105/4020366/WKU+to+extend+insurance+benefits+to+domestic+partners
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
All inclusive child welfare
When Tim Moore (R-Elizabethtown) recently attached the ultrasound bill as an amendment to child welfare legislation, a cry went up in Frankfort from legislators who say they couldn't believe Moore would do something like that. Tom Burch (D-Louisville) and David Watkins (D-Henderson) garnered the most attention in last week's Louisville Courier-Journal.
“'These are two elected officials that are supposed to be serving the people of Kentucky, and they’re out killing all the good legislation that could help the people of Kentucky — particularly the children,'” Burch said.
Equally angry is Rep. David Watkins, a Democrat and Henderson physician whose children’s health bill is affected by one of Moore’s anti-abortion amendments. 'I wish he really did care about kids,' Watkins said of Moore. 'This is the most absurd thing I’ve ever seen.'”
File this in the "Did they really say that?" category.
Tom Burch (D-Louisville) chair of the House Health and Welfare Committee opposed the ultrasound bill which would force abortionists to offer women seeking an abortion a chance to see the ultrasound of their unborn child if they so choose. Rep. Burch may be for the welfare of some children but certainly not for those who are unborn at 40 weeks and younger.
Why the anger over ultrasound legislation that would help women to make a more informed "choice?" Why not consider a comprehensive measure that considers the welfare of all children? And why blame the demise of child welfare legislation on somebody who believes that an unborn child at 40 weeks deserves the same child welfare protection as a child out of the womb at 41 weeks?
“'These are two elected officials that are supposed to be serving the people of Kentucky, and they’re out killing all the good legislation that could help the people of Kentucky — particularly the children,'” Burch said.
Equally angry is Rep. David Watkins, a Democrat and Henderson physician whose children’s health bill is affected by one of Moore’s anti-abortion amendments. 'I wish he really did care about kids,' Watkins said of Moore. 'This is the most absurd thing I’ve ever seen.'”
File this in the "Did they really say that?" category.
Tom Burch (D-Louisville) chair of the House Health and Welfare Committee opposed the ultrasound bill which would force abortionists to offer women seeking an abortion a chance to see the ultrasound of their unborn child if they so choose. Rep. Burch may be for the welfare of some children but certainly not for those who are unborn at 40 weeks and younger.
Why the anger over ultrasound legislation that would help women to make a more informed "choice?" Why not consider a comprehensive measure that considers the welfare of all children? And why blame the demise of child welfare legislation on somebody who believes that an unborn child at 40 weeks deserves the same child welfare protection as a child out of the womb at 41 weeks?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
