Guess who wants to re-define religious "freedom" to make it fit The Agenda (TM)??

Here's a clue: It's NOT Chuck Colson



Here's the George Weigel article Colson referenced.

Excerpt:

"Religious freedom is already under assault from proponents of the LGBT agenda in Europe and Canada. Rocco Buttiglione’s convictions about the immorality of homosexual acts prevented his becoming Minister of Justice of the European Union, despite a lifetime in defense of the basic human rights of all and an explicit assurance that he would scrupulously enforce the EU’s equal-protection laws.

The Canadian Revenue Agency (their IRS) has recently removed the tax-exempt status of a Calgary church, in part because it spends more than 10 percent of its funds and time preaching and teaching against same-sex 'marriage' (and, to compound the offense, euthanasia and abortion). Anyone who imagines that this can’t happen in the Great Republic need only consider the recent efforts by the Washington, D.C., City Council to bring the Archdiocese of Washington to heel over the marriage question."

Hat Tip:Brenda Bowers

There is a concerted effort by local "progressive experts" to marginalize Christian-oriented bloggers. Two of the most prominent targets are Joe Guarino, and Michele Forrest.

These marginalizers have no qualms about re-defining Christianity and any particular individual Christian in a way that conveniently fits The Agenda (TM).

On bargaining away Israel's security

"...If the Muslim world were to disarm along its borders with Israel, nothing would happen except increased trade.

If Israel were to disarm along its borders with the Muslim world, there would be a bloodbath from one end of the country to the other.

Fools never even notice this point."

-- as posted by Tom Paine", in a comment here.

Let's see what the Obama administration does here.

Let's see if Hillary Clinton was lying during the campaign, when she expressed complete solidarity with Israel.

The Hillary Comeback

Dennias Keohane thinks it may be in the works.

Key point:

"Many people, including no doubt a goodly number of nervous Democrat super delegates, are asking themselves the David Brooks 'question about Obama's standing in the polls: "Where's the landslide ?" After evaluating him for several months, voters in the middle still aren't ready to embrace him.

National polls show not only a tightening of the Obama-McCain race to a statistical dead heat but momentum toward a McCain lead, something inconceivable only weeks ago. The specter of an Obama collapse has to haunt more than a few super delegates."

No big surprise in hearing that, is there?

The ego, the arrogance, the gaffes, and the cultish hero-worship, plus the policy issue problems are causing many level headed Dems (and some of the Screwballs) to have second thoughts.

More evidence on the weakness of an Obama candidacy for the Dems, pt 2

Lannie Davis puts more more fuel on the fire of the discussion that absolutely enrages the Tinker Bells who comprise a big slice of Obama supporters.

Excerpts from Davis:

"The latest state-by-state battleground polls (published May 21-23) by other respected polling organizations verify Gallup's findings that Sen. Clinton is significantly stronger against Sen. McCain in the key states that a Democrat must win to gain the presidency."

"Even the theory that Sen. Obama can open up significant numbers of 'red' states has not been borne out by recent polling."

On the other hand, the Dems won't figure this out until it's too late......when the networks call the election at 10PM on election day for President-elect McCain. Even Davis's fantasies of an Obama/Clinton or a Clinton/Obama ticket will not be able to avoid the inevitable.

If what Hillary says is true, it means that Dems are misogynists

Is she right?

Is she the victim of gender bias?

Key point:

"So let's give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that her campaign has indeed suffered because of sexism.

This fact (if it be a fact) reveals a hitherto unknown, ugly truth about the Democratic Party. The alleged bastion of modern liberalism, toleration and diversity is full of (to use Mrs. Clinton's own phrase) 'people who are nothing but misogynists.' Large numbers of Democratic voters are sexists. Who knew?

But here's another revelation. If Mrs. Clinton is correct that she is more likely than Barack Obama to defeat John McCain in November, that implies Republicans and independents are less sexist than Democrats."

Would we be surprised to find that the Dems, who are accomplished experts in marginalizing people, don't practice what they preach?

Is the Pope a Catholic?

More Dem discord on the way

Obama will declare himself the nominee, according to this source.

Excerpt:

"It’s a train wreck waiting to happen, with one candidate claiming to be the nominee while the other vigorously denies it, all predicated on an argument over what exactly constitutes the finish line of the primary race."

Hillary undoubtedly knows the truth-- that Obama is the nominee, but she's bound and determined to submarine him, so that she can contest for the loser's nomination against President McCain in the '12 election.

I love it when a plan comes together.

Whoever thought I'd be saying that about a Hillary Clinton plan?

The Dem New Deal coalition is finally history

......whether the 2008 version of the Democrats like it or not.

Here's why:

Key point:


"Unfortunately for the Democrats, the contest this year isn't just about politics and issues -- it's about identity. That won't be easy to mend. The big problem is the role for African Americans. No Democratic presidential candidate since Lyndon Johnson has won the white vote. African Americans -- usually voting 90 percent Democratic -- have become the party's core constituency. The Clintons knew this in their bones. That's why the constantly kowtowed to Jesse Jackson and every other black leader -- and why they feel so bitterly betrayed now.


Yet it was only going to be so long before blacks tired of carrying water for the Democrats and asked, 'What about one of ours?'' The Obama phenomenon was inevitable. At some point there had to emerge a bright, articulate appealing African American who would step forward and say, 'Now it's our turn to run.'

The problem with Obama isn't that he's African American. It's that he's a pure product of academia -- Columbia, Harvard Law School, Hyde Park. He's never been outside that circle, never bowled (imagine that!), and didn't even realize he had insulted tens of millions of small-town Americans with his guns-and-religion remarks."


The Democrats' presidential hopes for 2008 are in big trouble.

Hillary and Obama can solve our illegal immigration problem

So thinks Don Surber.


Excerpt:

"Let me get this straight: Socialists like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton bad-mouth the American health system and yet illegal immigrants flock here to give birth in our country. But that free health system in Britain is so bad that illegal immigrants are fleeing England.

Maybe they can sell their government-run health care as a border control plan."

"Obama and Clinton: two cynical losers"

The Times of London gets it. And I suspect many of the smarter Dems do also.

Key point:

"The longer the Democratic race goes on, the more obvious it appears that each is deeply, perhaps ineradicably flawed."

......and:

"What they want is a man - or a woman - of character and record to inspire and lead them. That may be why the Democrats are in trouble."

Exactly.

McCain's days as a Media Darling are now at an end

Stories like this are predictable, are they not?

That's particularly evident as the reality sinks in for our Lame Stream and Nutroot pals about the increasingly evident likelihood that Republicans will AGAIN win the White House, based on the continued revelations about the poor judgement and almost unconscious incompetence of the Democrat Heir Apparent.

Excerpt:

"John McCain may not be a whiz on economics (neither is Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton) but he's intelligent enough to understand that the following two decisions -- (1) whether to support legislation that will lower tax rates in 2001 and (2) whether to support legislation that will raise tax rates in 2008 -- are independent ones. In other words, raising tax rates is not the same thing as lowering them, and the economic environment in 2008 is not the same as the economic environment in 2001."

As always, the forces of Libthink want to have it both ways.

Pssst! Wanna make some big bucks fast? Here's how....

Now Available! New Relief from ED!

"The Midnight Ride of Paulette Revere"

Doug Ross quotes Hillary:


" ' Senator Obama has been very timid and very unenthusiastic with doing anything with the economy,' Clinton, D-N.Y., said at a tarmac press conference in Burbank, California on Thursday,

'I feel like Paulette Revere -- the recession is coming, the recession is coming!' "



Don Surber has more:

Listen my children and you shall hear
Of the many cries of Paulette Revere,
On the third day of April, in two-oh-oh-eight;
Hardly a man is now alive
Who remembers that famous day and year.

She said to her Bill, “Oh, it is up to me
“Barack’s too timid on the economy
“I shall warn the people of what’ll transpire.
“Please watch my back if there’s sniper fire.
“One if Barack, two if McCain.
“And I on the opposite shore will remain.
“Ready to ride and warn thee again!
“As I did in oh-one, oh-two, and three.
“For the country folk to fear the economy.”

Exposing the Dem/Lefty/"Progressive"/Media lie about McCain's Iraq policy

Hillary and Obama are starting to take aim at McCain, and they've chosen an outright lie about his Iraq policy for one of their highlights.

Krauthammer has details.

Noteworthy:

"But a serious argument is not what Democrats are seeking. They want the killer sound bite, the silver bullet to take down McCain.

According to Politico, they have found it: "'Dems to hammer McCain for '100 years.'" The device? Charge that McCain is calling for a hundred years of war."

"The Annenberg Political Fact Check, a nonprofit and nonpartisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, says: 'It's a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage "endless war" based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea.'"

On his final point, I disagree with Krauthammer.

It's quite frequently you see a dirty lie being propagated by this crowd.

The entire eight years of George Bush's presidency was subjected to such a tactic by the not-so loyal opposition.

Hillary is one TOUGH presidential candidate!

Oh, but wait! There's more!

I love the smell of napalmed candidate in the morning.......

UPDATE: link fixed

Political Lie of the Day

Hillary:

"I was deeply involved in the Irish peace process"

Dick Morris provides the truth.

Noteworthy:

"Those words were uttered by Hillary Clinton — with a straight face!

Ever since she began her campaign for the presidency, Hillary and

 Bill Clinton have both boldly — and falsely — claimed that she played

 an important role in the Irish peace process. Suddenly rewriting history,

they’ve claimed that her success in bringing peace to Ireland is all part

of the vast experience that makes her qualified for the White House.

It’s funny that they both forgot to mention her magical diplomatic skills

in their respective memoirs.


But now her recently released White House schedules show that 

Hillary’s assertions are one big fantasy. Hillary’s role 

in all of the Irish visits were no different than any other

first ladies, the ones who didn’t think that accompanying

the president to a foreign country was a major diplomatic coup."

(hat tip: Fred Gregory)

Will we hold the Dems accountable for their race demagoguery?

It's time to call them on their despicable wink and nod attitude on this subject.

Noteworthy:

"So the Left, and its mouthpiece the Democrats, have chosen the destructive demagogues and not the peace makers. So be it. But it's high time to call them on it. Voters must finally send that clear and unmistakable message: If you peddle hate, you don't get my vote."

"If race hatred is bad, it is bad no matter who cultivates and teaches it. That includes the Rev. Jeremy Wright. It also includes his cheering congregation, including the Obama.".

A fundamental tenet of Class Warfare, as practiced by those of a certain political persuasion

It's used here in the context of social security, but it also applies to such issues as "tax cuts for the rich", health care/health insurance, "recession" drumbeating, American combat statistics, "global warming", race, "constitutional" rights, "torture, "wiretapping".......the list is too long to fully enumerate.




"When you have a choice, always pick the scarier of two numbers, to incite the maximum possible resentment in the voters you are addressing."

As discussed here.


Other gems of truth:

1. To incite resentment about the regressive social security tax, be sure to talk about tax percentages, not tax dollars;

BUT...

2. To incite resentment about income tax cuts, do the opposite: talk about tax dollars, not tax percentages.

Beware the October surrender

Farfetched?

Consider the current scenario, then ask yourself:

Why now?

Why Assad?

Why representatives from BOTH Dem contenders?

Regarding the latest Democrat iteration of "hope and change"

It turns out it's just the 21st century application of the McGovern abroad/Mondale at home approach that worked so well for them previously.