Wednesday

A New Chalenge To Traditional Marriage Looms Around the Corner via DADT



Two great callers open up the underlying aspect of the effects of this decision. Republicans didn't see it coming at all. (I combined two separate calls from two differing shows/days.)

For more clear thinking like this from Michael Medved... I invite you to become a Medhead:
medvedmedhead.com/​

The Recent Census Shows States With Business Friendly Outlooks and Taxes Are Reaping the Benefits



The great statitician he is, Michael Medved asks some provocative questions about which state model -- liberal or conservative -- is best for prosperity and equity.

For more clear thinking like this from Michael Medved... I invite you to become a Medhead:
medvedmedhead.com/​

Governor Abercrombie vs. the Birthers (Michael Medved)



A caller into the Michael Medved show explains his evidence for Obama not being born in Hawaii. His argument? The argument from silence. This is the best that comes from these conspiracy types.

For more clear thinking like this from Michael Medved... I invite you to become a Medhead:
medvedmedhead.com/​

Monday

Global Warming or Global Governance - (Full Length)

I am not the biggest fan of this documentary, but there is some good information to glean from this:

Friday

Is Homosexuality Condemned by the Bible?



In this first segment of Gregory Koukl's podcast, he explores some responses to skeptics or challengers to the Biblical and tradition understanding of marriage. Many of these challenges are easily shown to be self-refuting or counter-intuitive to the arguers position.

For more thoughts and input from Gregory Koukl, see his ministries site: str.org/​

Is It An Imposition -- Legally -- To Impose Christian Ethics On Society?



1. It fails to distinguish the reasons for a law from the content of the law

Such “exclude religion” arguments are wrong because marriage is not a religion! When voters define marriage, they are not establishing a religion. In the First Amendment, “Con­gress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” the word “religion” refers to the church that people attend and support. “Religion” means being a Baptist or Catholic or Presbyterian or Jew. It does not mean being married. These arguments try to make the word “religion” in the Constitution mean something different from what it has always meant.

These arguments also make the logical mistake of failing to distinguish the reasons for a law from the content of the law. There were religious reasons behind many of our laws, but these laws do not “establish” a religion. All major religions have teachings against stealing, but laws against stealing do not “establish a religion.” All religions have laws against murder, but laws against murder do not “establish a religion.” The cam­paign to abolish slavery in the United States and England was led by many Christians, based on their religious convictions, but laws abolishing slavery do not “establish a reli­gion.” The campaign to end racial discrimination and segregation was led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist pastor, who preached against racial injustice from the Bible. But laws against discrimination and segregation do not “establish a religion.”

If these “exclude religion” arguments succeed in court, they could soon be applied against evangelicals and Catholics who make “religious” arguments against abortion. Majority votes to protect unborn children could then be invalidated by saying these vot­ers are “establishing a religion.” And, by such reasoning, all the votes of religious citizens for almost any issue could be found invalid by court decree! This would be the direct opposite of the kind of country the Founding Fathers established, and the direct oppo­site of what they meant by “free exercise” of religion in the First Amendment.

(Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010], 31.)

Read more: RPT Quotes


At a Calvary Chapel event Michael Ramsden, and Stuart McAllister answer a question that involves state, anarchy, ethics, and morality.

For more clear thinking like this on a whole host of matters, see:
rzim.org/​

The Bush Era Tax Cuts Defended by the Clinton/Obama Team



After talking to President Bush (not in this excerpt), Michael Medved speaks about the vindication for Bush coming from the most unlikely people. The President prior to and after him.

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama should saying is: “I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th”.

Read more: RPT Too Poor 

For more clear thinking like this from Michael Medved... I invite you to become a Medhead: medvedmedhead.com/​

Hugo Chavez to Rule by Decree



CARACAS, Dec 17 (Reuters) – Venezuela’s parliament gave President Hugo Chavez decree powers for 18 months on Friday, outraging opposition parties that accused him of turning South America’s biggest oil producer into a dictatorship. [Who want's to bet that this will never be undone - Editor]

The move consolidated the firebrand socialist leader’s hold on power after nearly 12 years in office, and raised the prospect of a fresh wave of nationalizations as the former paratrooper seeks to entrench his self-styled “revolution.”

Chavez had asked for the fast-track powers for one year, saying he needed them to deal with a national emergency caused by floods that drove nearly 140,000 people from their homes. [Oh yes there is always a crisis that leads to these things isn't there - Editor]

But the Assembly, which is dominated by loyalists from his Socialist Party, decided to extend them for a year and a half.

That means the president can rule by decree until mid-2012, and can keep opposition parties out of the legislative process until his re-election campaign is well under way for Venezuela’s next presidential vote in December of that year. [Who want to bet that there will either be no election, or this will be the last one, or that the opposition gets "vanished" to the point where the election is pointless - Editor]

For more clear thinking like this from Dennis Prager... I invite you to join Pragertopia: dennisprager.com/​

DADT Repealed - Dennis Prager



Honest interjection by an honest man.

For more clear thinking like this from Dennis Prager... I invite you to join Pragertopia:
dennisprager.com/​

DADT Repealed - Michael Medved



Some interesting insights on this matter.

For more clear thinking like this from Michael Medved... I invite you to become a Medhead:
medvedmedhead.com/​