Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Newsletter for May 5, 2010

Expand Messages
  • American News
    The American News Commentary - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Formerly EPOCH
    Message 1 of 1 , May 5, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      TheAmerican News Commentary
      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      Formerly "EPOCH Commentary"  -- Evangelical Perspective On Current Happenings
      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      Vol. 14, No. 18                               May 5, 2010                                           © 2010
      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      That's not just our opinion . . . it was expressed very clearly this week by two Internet
      writers and commentators. It isn't that we didn't already know this and believe it to be
      true -- but it's nice to know that someone else supports our views . . . this encourages
      us in what we are trying to do. First, there is this comment from Caroline Glick, of the
      Jerusalem Post: "At a time when the US media – the traditional watchdogs of
      American democracy -- have transformed themselves into President Barack
      ’s lapdogs, the new media, on the Internet plays a crucial role in bringing
      accurate news to the public’s attention.
      " And then Pamela Geller, author of "Atlas
      Shrugs," offered this evaluation, "A
      New Jersey court has ruled that bloggers are not
      journalists ... and so do not enjoy the same protections that journalists do from
       being forced to reveal their sources. Actually, this tool of a judge is right. For
      the most part, journalists today act as shills for the Democrat party. They cover
      up for the party’s crimes and excesses, obfuscate the effects of its disastrous
      policies, and propagandize for Obama’s agenda. In
      that sense, bloggers are not
      journalists. The best bloggers aren’t shilling for Obama and Pelosi the way
       journalists are. Instead, bloggers are doing the heavy lifting."
      We here at ANC
      are pleased not to be numbered with current day, main line journalists. We will continue
      to report and comment on current happenings from a Conservative Evangelical Christian
      perspective just as we always have. You can depend on that -- it is our pledge to you.

      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


      Despite all the handicaps and opposition,
      the National Day of Prayer as required by
      federal law, will be observed tomorrow, and all across America Christians will be united
      in prayer to thank God for His many blessings, and ask Him to guide our nation and its
      leadership into the paths our Founding Fathers laid out for us. As expected, President
      Obama has issued a Day of Prayer proclamation -- it is not his choice -- he is
      required by law to do so.  The ruling by the Wisconsin federal district judge that the
      National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional will be appealed, and it is expected that the
      decision will be overturned. Whether there will be any relaxing of the military's anti-
      Christian position, and whether the "disinvited" club will continue to grow, is still an
      open question. At the moment, the three charter members are Tony Perkins, Michael
      Youssef and Franklin Graham -- all strong Christian Evangelicals who were invited
      and then disinvited to offer prayer at a military event.

      And  the "Military Religious Freedom Foundation" isn't through yet. The MRFF,
      based in  Albuquerque, NM, and headed by a Mikey Weinstein, is the group that last
      week persuaded the Army to rescind its invitation for Franklin Graham to participate in
      a National Day of Prayer observance in the Pentagon. Now the MRFF has asked the 
      Army to change the emblem and motto of the Evans Army Community Hospital in Fort
      Carson, CO. The motto -- adopted in 1969 -- reads "Pro Deo et Humanitate" ("For
      God and Humanity"), and the design includes a cross. Weinstein claims the emblem and
      motto violate the unwritten constitutional requirement  for separation of church and state.
      [At least he's right on one point; it definitely is unwritten in the Constitution.] The Army
      spokesman said the usual, that the complaint would be reviewed. As the old radio
      newscasters used to say: "Stay tuned." And then there is this item in the news: Rep. Jack
      Kingston (R, GA) has asked the House Armed Services committee to hold hearings on
      what he calls,"a growing movement in the military to censor some Biblical teachings."
      And Rep. Trent Franks, (R, AZ), is asking others in Congress to join him in asking
      Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to explain what standards were used to deny to
      Christians the right to speak at military events. Franks called the action in disinviting
      Franklin Graham, "an outrageous affront to the ideals of freedom of religion and
      expression that are the essence of America"
      and adds that there is an effort to
      "stifle religious freedom in the name of tolerance." Rather than bothering Secretary
      Gates, wouldn't it be simpler to ask the Commander in Chief of our military?

      If you have been a regular reader of ANC, you have noticed that we regularly offer
      quotes from our Founding Fathers, the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence
      and the Constitution, and who established this nation as a bastion of liberty and freedom,
      unique in all the world of nations. That was over 200 years ago, and those documents
      still stand, but the principles set forth in them are being eroded by present day liberalism,
      and the new anti-moral virus: "Political Correctness."

      But we still hold forth the wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and begin with a statement
      from the first United States President, George Washington, in 1783, but still remarkably
      applicable to the illegal alien problem in Arizona: "The bosom of America is open to
      receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and
      persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation
      of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear
      to merit the enjoyment."
      A few years later, in 1801, Thomas Jefferson expressed the
      same conviction: "Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this,
      our laws acknowledge, as they should, your right to join us in society, conforming,
      as I doubt not you will do, to our established
      Those highlighted phrases,
      "decency and propriety of conduct," and "conforming to our established rules,"
      are the elements which are missing in the unregulated influx of illegal aliens into Arizona
      and the other states bordering on Mexico. Murders, kidnappings, drug and human
      smuggling are among the problems the controversial Arizona law is attempting to address.
      The need for establishing such standards goes back more than 200 years to the time when
      Washington and Jefferson founded this nation. After two centuries we can still learn much
      from those Founding Fathers.

      And this one additional note, as the debate over the Arizona law continues: Gary Bauer
      reminded us this past week: "Many on the Left are charging that the law will create
      a Nazi-like atmosphere with Arizona cops knocking down doors and demanding to
      'see your papers.' ... Current federal law already requires that legal immigrants
      carry proof of their immigration status 'at all times.' Here's what the law says:
      'Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and
      have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien
      registration receipt card issued to him ... Any alien who fails to comply with the
      provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor ...'" 
      It seems logical
      that instead of Mr. Obama trying to find ways to have the Arizona law deemed to  be
      unconstitutional, he must first have to cause the existing federal law (which he has chosen
      not to enforce) also deemed to be unconstitutional.

      Nationally syndicated columnists and authors, Floyd and Mary Beth Brown summarized it
      "Obama, the media, liberal elites -- and even some Republicans -- have rushed
      to decry Arizona's immigration enforcement law with shocking hyperbole. This bill
      is constitutional and it addresses a pressing issue at the state level because the
      federal government has shirked responsibility for years ... If the critics had read the
      law, they would know that it primarily focuses on enforcing existing federal law at
      the state level."

      An aspect of Mexico we don't often hear about, by New York Post columnist, Ralph
      Peters: "South of the border, down Mexico way, a new and savage revolution rages
      just beyond our inspection lanes. After less than five years of fighting, estimates of
      the dead have reached 22,000. The rate of killing accelerates each month. And
      Washington covers its eyes like a kid at a scary movie. Well, the Mexican narco-
      insurgency, in which well-armed  guerrilla forces confront the authority and presence
      of the state is our No. 1 security challenge."
      Maybe we asked too much of Barack Obama -- After all, the only prior experience he
      had was as a "community organizer" under the Chicago Democrat party machine, and part
      of a term as US Senator. Then suddenly the awesome responsibilities of the US presidency
      were thrust upon him.

      During his first 16 months in office he has tried to change (that was his big word: "change")
      American policy, and he has had some success in remaking America into his concept. He
      forced through the now proven failed "stimulus"  package in 2009, and the much-disputed
      "Obamacare" health care reform bill earlier this year. (Already 21 states have filed lawsuits
      challenging the law's constitutionality, and legislation has been, or soon will be introduced
      in at least 41 states banning certain key elements of the new law.) In neither case did he
      seem to pay any attention to the actual content of the bills. Free and open discussion and
      debate -- the "transparency" he and Nancy Pelosi had promised -- never occurred. Now
      he seems to be planning to jam through other legislation (while he still has a Democrat
      majority in the Congress) not for reasons of national policy, but purely for political reasons. 
      And he knows the language for such political procedure. He accuses Senate Minority Leader
      Mitch McConnell as being in bed with Wall Street "movers and shakers," and of fronting
      "cynical and deceptive"
      actions in their behalf. House Minority Leader John Boehner he
      describes as a health care Chicken Little. Sarah Palin is to be ignored on armament issues
      because she is "not an expert on nuclear issues." (The implication is that he is.) Glenn
      Beck and Rush Limbaugh he rates as a "troublesome" twosome spouting "vitriol." And
      the unprecedented digs and insults directed at George W. Bush by virtually everyone in
      the Obama administration and the Democrat Congress have reached a new low never
      even closely attained by other US presidents.  But incredibly, this past weekend while
      speaking at the University of Michigan graduation ceremony he said that partisan rants
      and name calling pose a serious danger to America's democracy. Recently Wall Street
      Journal editorial writer William McGurn labeled  him "The Post-Gracious President." 
      Maybe we did expect too much of him.

      Al Gore becomes news again, still promulgating his "Global Warming" hoax.
      Almost lost in all the newspaper headlines and TV news programs focused on the
      Pentagon disinviting Christians for religious events, and the Arizona law to cope with
      illegal (unlawful) aliens, plus the environmental disaster in the Gulf, was Mr. Gore's
      appearance recently at the annual meeting of the Council of Foundations in Denver.
      He told the nation's leaders in philanthropic giving,"Time's running out [on climate
      change]. We have to get our act together."
      The nation's foundations do play an
      important role in the climate change scam. It has been pointed out that the Joyce
      Foundation (with Barack Obama as a Board member) provided the funds to start the
      Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). CCX describes itself as "North America's only
      cap-and-trade system for all six greenhouse gases with global affiliates and projects
      worldwide." In other words, CCX provides the mechanism for trading the pollution
      permits and carbon offsets which the administration's cap-and-trade act -- if enacted
      -- would impose. Richard Sandor, the founder of CCX, estimates that such climate
      trading could be, in his words, "a $10 trillion dollar market."

      Former California TV meteorologist Brian Sussman did not miss this background, and
      in his new book, "Climategate," says Al Gore's "go green" mission has nothing to do
      with Global Warming, but has everything to do with another kind of green -- money.
      Sussman says of Gore that "he stands to make billions ... or maybe a trillion dollars
      is what these guys can make together off of this."
      It is Sussman's opinion that Gore
      and others in the Global Warming movement are trying to pull off one of the greatest
      scams of all time.

      And you may have missed this gem: on a recent "Good Morning America" TV show,
      ABC journalist Sam Donaldson touted Mr. Gore for the upcoming Supreme Court
      appointment, saying, "He's 62, but he's still a few years. I think he's confirmable,
      although there would be a fight to some extent. I think he might make a very
      good justice."

      An interesting story concerning "Love" that we noted this week: This is the
      news story that we read: The Dietrich von Hildebrand Legacy Project is proud to
      collaborate with the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in hosting a major
      international conference in Rome dedicated to the question, 'What is love?'"
      The conference will bring together philosophers, theologians, psychologists, artists,
      physicians and scientists to discuss and attempt to understand von Hildebrand's book
      titled "The Nature of Love." It is an impressive, almost overwhelming assemblage of
      scholars in so many branches of thought -- but they could have saved a lot of time,
      work and money by simply turning to the Bible. John -- who through the years has
      been referred to as the "Beloved Disciple" -- expressed these views which are totally
      relevant to the goal of the conference: "God is love. In this was manifest the love
      of God toward us, because that God sent His only begotten Son into the world,
      that we might live through Him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but
      that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved,
      if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another."
      (I John 4: 8-11) What
      more do they need to know?

      Sorry! Just these two "One Liners" this week . . .

      "All change is not growth, as all movement is not forward." -- -- Ellen Glasgow

      "If government could create jobs and raise children, socialism would have worked."
      -- Gerald Gilder

      We receive many favorable comments on "What others are saying" doubtless
      because you don't find comments like these in the main-line media, either press or TV:

      Jack Cafferty (CNN): "President Obama called the Arizona immigration law
      misguided. What's misguided, Mr. President, is the federal government's ongoing
      refusal to enforce the laws that are already on the books. Read the Arizona law.
      Parts of it are word-for-word the same as the federal statutes which continue to
      be all but ignored." 

      Matt Barber (writing in Townhall.com): "With a potential bloodbath looming
      in November, liberals are understandably desperate. They see it all slipping away,
      and it shows. The grassroots groundswell of opposition to Obama's neo-Marxist,
      secular, humanist agenda intensifies daily despite the left's best efforts to silence
      dissent. According to the latest Pew poll, America's trust in today's godless
      Obama-Pelosi-Reid federal government is at an all time low of 22%, little more
      than a year after Obama took office."

      Cal Thomas: "America is the only developed nation that has a 2,000 mile border
      with a developing nation, and the government's refusal to control that border is
      why there are an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona."

      Binyamin Jolkovsky (Editor in Chief, Jewish World Review): "If safeguarding
      international security is the chief aim of US President Barack Obama's foreign
      then at some point he can be expected to change course in the Middle East.
      For today, Obama faces the wreckage of every aspect of his Middle East policies.
      And largely as a consequence of his policies, the region moves ever closer to war."

      Larry Elder: "ODSD is Pandemic ... Obama Double Standard Disease: an affliction
      that causes the media to ignore, rationalize or trivialize in order to defend, support
      and advance the tax-the-rich, spread-the-wealth, expand-the government agenda of
      President Barack Obama and his party."

      Andrew McCarthy (National Review): "Barack Obama is a revolutionary on a
      mission to cut America down to size. One size fits all, to be precise. His post-sovereign
      America is a country no different from any other: economically bankrupt, morally
      rudderless, with nothing exceptional about it besides the heights from which it
      tumbles and the remorselessness of its choice -- his choice -- to decline."

      Barry Rubin (Director, Global Research in International Affairs): "The real
      problem is the refusal of policymakers to recognize just how bad things are and
      how negative has been the impact of their policy. It is not too late to change course.
      But how can opinion makers explain this to the administration when most of them
      don't see how much has gone wrong. Waking up is the first step."

      Oh, and did you notice, amidst all the liberal criticism -- Last week Arizona Governor
      Brewer signed that immigration law which launched national debate about it, all the way to
      the White House where Mr. Obama issued his description of the law as "misguided" and
      "irresponsible." That may be his opinion, but in Arizona it has helped the Governor . . .
      a new Rasmussen Poll report of likely voters in the state shows 56% now approve of the
      way Brewer is performing as Governor -- that's a 16 point jump over a similar survey just
      two weeks ago when only 40% voiced their approval. (That is a higher job-approval rating
      than the American people give to Mr. Obama.) And the figure that shows 70% of the people
      of Arizona favor the new law remains constant.

      A Few Random Afterthoughts  . . .

      This is no time to stop issuing a reminder about the next national election day
      on Nov. 2 -- now just 181 days away. This is the date when we can vote to reclaim
      America to the founding principles upon which this nation was established. But in order
      to vote, you must be registered. For a simple registration procedure, click on this link:
      Register to vote.

      Janet Napolitano is still suffering from "foot in mouth" ailment: last week in testimony
      before a Senate panel she said that she knew the US-Mexico border "as well as anyone"
      and added this gem: "I will tell you that it is as secure now as it has ever been." (That is
      almost worthy of being a Joe Biden comment!) Apparently she hasn't been to Arizona since
      being elevated to the head of Homeland Security.  (Just that thought is scary.) She was
      obviously not aware of these facts just released by the National Drug Intelligence Center, a
      division of the Obama Justice Department, that on average every day three Border Patrol
      Agents are assaulted at or near that border. Or that every 35 hours there is a kidnapping in
      Phoenix, usually by agents of alien smuggling organizations. And that 1-in-5 American
      teenagers use some type of illegal drugs smuggled across the unsecured US-Mexico border.
      And that illegal aliens (or whatever she chooses to call them) still enter America from Mexico
      by the thousands every year. Yes, Janet, it's as secure as it has ever been, whatever that means.  

      A word about the still not-forgotten Jimmy Carter. Lebanon-born, terrorism expert, Dr.
      Walid Phares, reminds us that Jimmy Carter is still on the loose in international affairs: "Former
      US President Jimmy Carter is often lauded by the Arab world for championing the
      Palestinian cause. However, after stumbling into the world of Sudanese politics, Carter
      has lost all credibility. Inexplicably, Carter gave his blessing (with perfunctory caveats)
      to a rigged election that has handed victory to a genocidal war criminal who granted
      safe haven to Osama bin Laden in 1990."
      (To say nothing of President al-Bashir's ethnic
      cleansing of Christians living in the Sudan.)  

      In continuing our references to statements from our Founding Fathers, we often focus
      on their views of the importance and meaning of the Constitution they had created for a new

      "In the formation of our constitution the wisdom of all ages is collected -- the legislators
      of antiquity are consulted, as well as the opinions and interests of the millions who are
      concerned. In short, it is an empire of reason."
      -- Noah Webster, 1787

      "The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered by me [as President]
      according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the
      people of the United States at the time of its adoption --  a meaning to be found in the
      explanations of those who advocated, not those who opposed it, and who opposed it
      merely lest the construction should be applied which they denounced  as possible."
      -- Thomas Jefferson, 1801
      - - - - - - - - -
      To Subscribe (no subscription charge), click on:
      To Unsubscribe, click on:

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.