Caffeinated Thoughts |
- Don’t Bet on Santorum 2016
- National Right to Life Committee Addresses Prolife Concerns with the Parental Rights Amendment
- Tom Latham Votes to Expand Assistance to Homeless Veterans
- Parental Rights Amendment: Why Is It Taking So Long?
- Top Ten Reasons Why Students Need More Literature (Not Less)
- Presidents, Goobers & Bibles
- Hot Topic: The Hunger Games
| Posted: 27 Mar 2012 11:24 PM PDT The Romney campaign put out a meme that Rick Santorum’s in the race for President to ensure Romney loses in 2012, so that Santorum can run in 2016 and the media has joined in the speculation that 2016 is the real prize for Santorum. Even some supporters have whispered that if Santorum doesn’t win in 2012, there’s always 2016. Opponents and the press are guilty of extreme cynicism, while some supporters may be presuming too much about the future. All of this is based on a tradition that probably doesn’t apply to Santorum. In Republican politics, repeat candidates commonly win the nomination: Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, and John McCain. Romney supporters hope to add his name to the list. So, losing a nomination battle is almost considered a pre-requisite to winning it in the future, particularly if you finish second. You’re next in line. However, this isn’t always the case. In 2008, Governor Mike Huckabee was the last man standing against John McCain. He, like Santorum, had remained in the race after the media and many pundits had considered the GOP race over. Many supporters hoped that Huckabee would repeat in 2012. Huckabee even hinted at a possible 2012 run in the conclusion of his 2009 Campaign book, Do the Right Thing. However, with strong poll numbers in Iowa and nationwide, Huckabee announced in May that while all the signs said “go,” his heart said, “no.” Purely cynical political analysts concluded that despite Huckabee simply didn’t want to give up the money he was earning. But perhaps the deeper truth is that Huckabee likes what he’s doing. He grew up in broadcasting and grew up listening to Paul Harvey. Now, in most markets, Huckabee holds the radio time slot previously occupied by the late Harvey’s News and Comment show. Huckabee also is in a position to advocate for issues he cares about with his Learn Our History video series, a pro-life documentary, and a successful PAC. All of this would have to be placed aside to enter the fray. In addition, Huckabee’s health has not been as strong as it was in 2008 campaign. He’s gained weight due to a knee injury that has hindered the former marathon runner’s exercise routine. A second Santorum bid would be less likely for an entirely different reason. While Huckabee’s children were all grown by the time of his 2008 bid, Santorum has four children that will be at home when the 2012 campaign starts, and two that will be in college. Santorum has made clear that this campaign has been a sacrifice for his entire family. It would be the height of presumption to assume that Santorum and his family would be up for another year plus of the craziness that Presidential candidates and their families must endure, and that Santorum would miss even more time with his family to begin again inIowa. In addition to that, six of Santorum will hit college age before this decade is out, making another year or more without income a costly gamble. This also, by the way, partly explain Santorum and Huckabee’s continued fight. Reagan, Bush, Dole, McCain, and now Romney were financially well off, their child-rearing days were, for the most part, over by the time their second presidential bid began. For Huckabee, Santorum, and others who have just arrived in the upper middle class, the realities of life mean that this may be their only chance to run. By design, Presidential campaigns are expensive, complicated, and emotionally and physically draining. This scares off some people who would make great presidents and benefits those who are supported by large political organizations or have significant personal fortunes. When candidates like Santorum or Huckabee see success, they have every reason to carry on their fight as long as they can because they know that this may be their only chance to make their case. This may be their only opportunity to fight for their principles as a candidate for the highest office in the land. Those who expect Rick Santorum to leave the race because he faces long odds should forget it. The truth is, he’s faced long odds this whole campaign. With all the sacrifices he and his family made over the year-long campaign, there’s no chance that he’ll quit as long as he has any chance of winning. Having endured twenty-one Presidential debates, hundreds of townhalls, and months on end away from hearth and home for this long, there’s no reason for Rick Santorum to quit as long as there’s a chance that his principles will prevail in 2012. He’s certainly not soldiering on in hopes of starting from scratch in 2015. Link to this post!        |
| National Right to Life Committee Addresses Prolife Concerns with the Parental Rights Amendment Posted: 27 Mar 2012 02:30 PM PDT
The article written by Mr. Farris contains numerous misstatements, which we may address in detail at a later date. Suffice it to say, for the moment, that Mr. Farris provides only a crude caricature of the scope of NRLC’s actual concerns regarding the current language of the PRA — concerns that are shared by a number of key pro-life leaders Congress. We are attaching a letter sent by NRLC to members of the House of Representatives that outlines the actual nature of NRLC’s concerns; the letter is signed by three veteran pro-life attorneys, in addition to myself. As the NRLC letter explains, “We do not quarrel with a desire to reinforce a legal presumption that responsibility for the protecting and nurturing of a child rests primarily with the parents. Yet, NRLC believes that each child has an independent, intrinsic right to life, and in cases in which a parent or parents disregard that right, by choice or by neglect, the parent's right to decide must be overridden and the child's right to life protected by others – most often, by government actors, such as courts and law enforcement personnel. Cases in which parents disregard the right to life of their own child, while not the norm, regrettably are far from rare. Indeed, abortion itself, in most cases, may be regarded as a circumstance in which one or both parents initiate, or at least consent to, the violation of the right to life of an unborn child.” The letter goes on to discuss three areas — and this is not an exhaustive list — in which the PRA, as currently worded, could have the unintended effect of providing a powerful new legal weapon to “bad parents” — those being, cases involving handicapped newborns whose lives are deemed burdensome (“Baby Does”), human embryos created through laboratory techniques such as in vitro fertilization, and parents who seek to coerce their minor daughters to submit to abortions. The memoranda cited by Mr. Farris deal in a cursory fashion or not at all with the first two issues, and with respect to the third, the memoranda engage in rather evasive and circular argument that does not squarely consider the powerful implications of the language that the PRA proposes to put into the U.S. Constitution. We are also enclosing a response letter that NRLC received from Congressman John Fleming (R-La.), who is the chief sponsor of the Parental Rights Amendment in the House of Representatives, who wrote in part, “Consequently I agree with the concerns you raised . . .” Amending the U.S. Constitution is an undertaking of the gravest consequence. NRLC recognizes the positive goals that the PRA is intended to achieve, but those goals must be achieved without giving powerful new legal weapons to persons (including judges) who do not share our determination to protect the right to life of each innocent human person. We are not seeking to hijack the PRA by incorporating language that would directly protect unborn children. Rather, our goal is to ensure that the PRA does no harm with respect to protection of the right to life. We believe that this goal is achievable. Indeed, during the current Congress, various parties who are concerned with resolving this issue have proposed three different solutions to the problem. Two of these have involved inserting brief language in the PRA to affirmatively prevent applications of the PRA that would undermine the independent right to life of the child. Mr. Farris ultimately rejected both of those proposals. After that, a prominent pro-life lawmaker proposed a third revision that did NOT involve inserting any reference to “abortion” or the “unborn child,” but that also would have fully resolved NRLC’s concerns — but this proposal, too, has been deemed unacceptable by Mr. Farris. NRLC remains open to other ideas for solutions, but we continue to be opposed to the PRA in its original form for the reasons that we have enunciated. We are talking about permanent changes to the U.S. Constitution; these issues cannot be dismissed by wishful thinking, circular arguments, or appeals to authorities who are not squarely addressing the real issues at stake. It should be obvious that unless the concerns of pro-life lawmakers regarding these issues are fully resolved, there is no chance of the PRA achieving the required two-thirds level of support in either house of Congress. It is our hope that Mr. Farris will work with us, and with key pro-life Members of Congress who share our concerns, to constructively achieve a pro-life resolution to this matter. Douglas Johnson is the Legislative Director for the National Right to Life Committee Link to this post!      |
| Tom Latham Votes to Expand Assistance to Homeless Veterans Posted: 27 Mar 2012 02:00 PM PDT
"No one has done more to protect our liberties and freedoms than our veterans," Congressman Latham said following the vote. "Every American owes them a debt of solemn gratitude for their service and sacrifice. We have to make sure they're taken care of after their tours come to an end. That means making sure they're given the dignity and respect they've earned, and it means finding new ways to ensure they have a roof over their heads during difficult times." The Homes for Heroes Act, HR 3298, would assign a special veterans assistant to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to make sure that veterans get full access to federal housing assistance programs provided by Congress and to facilitate greater communication and coordination between HUD and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The legislation also would require a yearly federal report on the status of homeless veterans. Congressman Latham has led numerous legislative initiatives to protect and improve benefits for veterans during his service to Iowans in the U.S. House of Representatives. For instance, he's introduced legislation known as the VALOR Act that would allow veterans in rural areas to use their VA health benefits at local facilities. Currently, rural veterans often must travel for hours to receive care at the nearest VA facility. In addition, Congressman Latham has worked to pass legislation expanding benefits for members of the Guard and Reserve, and he hosted a roundtable with area employers last year focused on encouraging businesses to offer good jobs to veterans returning from deployments. The U.S. House of Representatives approved the Homes for Heroes Act by a 414-5 vote on Tuesday. The legislation now awaits action in the U.S. Senate. Link to this post!      |
| Parental Rights Amendment: Why Is It Taking So Long? Posted: 27 Mar 2012 01:15 PM PDT
On January 4, 2011, we were hopeful and excited. We had lead sponsors for the new Parental Rights Amendment (PRA) and anticipated having as many as 160 sponsors in the House soon after its introduction that month. On January 5, we learned (much to our surprise) that Rep. Fleming of Louisiana had introduced the language as HJR 3. Within 2 days, it already had 17 cosponsors. Then, just as surprisingly, Rep. Fleming ceased to accept cosponsors. On the surface, the PRA has gone nowhere since. So what happened that first week of January, and what has been happening since, that the PRA should be so solidly stalled for the last 14 months? We recognize that you have every right to know, but we have had to keep things quiet in the interest of trying amicably to resolve a conflict with another organization. The week Rep. Fleming introduced HJR 3, an organization contacted several key members of Congress urging them to withhold support of the Parental Rights Amendment. They charged that the Amendment would "pose a serious threat to pro-life interests" as it was currently worded. That organization was the National Right to Life Committee, Inc. (NRLC). Frankly, they caught us somewhat by surprise. Though we've been promoting the Amendment since 2007, it wasn't until December of 2010 that we heard any concerns about the language of our Amendment – and then it was indirectly, and not from NRLC. And we never imagined that anyone would come up with the legal issues they chose to raise. But we wanted to be responsive rather than reactionary, so we put the Amendment on hold and tried to work with NRLC to find an acceptable solution. Sadly, they insisted that we specifically address "abortion" or "unborn children" in the language, a move that everyone we've spoken to in Congress agrees would render the Amendment "dead on arrival." Even though I am 100% pro-life myself (and would be thrilled to accomplish a pro-life objective), I believe that these issues must be resolved distinctly and not tied together. Even so, to address NRLC's concerns we sought outside counsel on the question: Could the PRA as worded be used, as NRLC charged, to empower parents of a pregnant teen to force their daughter to abort her child? (This, we learned from NRLC, is the heart of their argument.) We went first to former Attorney General Edwin Meese, an impeccable legal expert known also for his pro-life stance. His analysis, available here, points out that the PRA accurately reflects the longstanding traditional view of parental rights. Since that standard did not allow parents to force abortions on their unwilling daughters between the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 and the Troxel decision in 2000, neither will it do so under the PRA. When NRLC was not persuaded, we called on arguably the foremost pro-life legal expert in the country, Professor Robert George of Princeton University. Were we still missing something NRLC had not? Prof. George studied the matter and delivered his own opinion,available here. His conclusion, like our own, was that the existing language of the Parental Rights Amendment in no way weighs on the matter of abortion, and cannot reasonably be used to promote abortion as NRLC has charged. (Neither can it be used to prevent abortion; the PRA is abortion-neutral.) We also checked with other pro-life groups to see if they saw a threat in our language. Everyone else agreed: the PRA as written does not touch on abortion. As a result, other pro-life organizations remain neutral to the Amendment – they have seen no need to join NRLC's opposition. Still NRLC persisted, and we have spent months trying to resolve the matter with them. Sadly, NRLC has caused such delays before. When I championed the popular Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the 1990's, NRLC stood alone among conservative groups in applying their energies to its defeat. Their efforts did not work then – RFRA was overwhelmingly adopted by bipartisan votes in Congress a few months later – and we must be sure they do not work now, either. Yes, we have finally reached an impasse. Should we wait for NRLC to be satisfied, we will simply never advance the PRA. But that is not an option. So, as much as we dislike the idea of contention, especially with an organization which so clearly should be an ally, the time has come to move the PRA forward once again.This will not be easy or convenient, but it is the right thing to do. Nor are we alone in the battle. Although many members of Congress have concerns raised by this debate, many others stand with us unwaveringly. They have researched the issue, considered the legal arguments, and remain convinced that the Parental Rights Amendment can and must be secured (and will not harm the pro-life cause). Michael P. Farris is the founder of ParentalRights.org, as well as the cofounder and chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and Chancellor of Patrick Henry College. Link to this post!      |
| Top Ten Reasons Why Students Need More Literature (Not Less) Posted: 27 Mar 2012 12:30 PM PDT
One of the many problems with the federally coerced Common Core State Standards is that they greatly de-emphasize the study of literature — in favor of studying "informational texts" such as government documents, computer manuals, etc. (A cynic might suspect that Bill Gates, whose foundation is funding Common Core, needs entry-level workers who have been trained to read computer manuals rather than employees who are educated in the English language.) If schools move to this approach via Common Core, they will be shortchanging their students. Dr. Steven Lynn, Dean of the Honors College at the University of South Carolina, addresses the folly of reducing our students’ exposure to literature:
The South Carolina Senate Education Committee is pondering whether to rescind the state's adoption of the Common Core. They –along with legislators across the country– should consider how the Common Core will affect children. And they should consider what we lose as a society, as a culture, when we decide to settle for training students rather than educating them. Jane Robbins is a Senior Fellow with American Principles Project. Her works includes education policy, student privacy and parental rights issues. Ms. Robbins is a native of Pendleton, South Carolina, and is a graduate of Harvard Law School and Clemson University. Joe Mack is the South Carolina State Director for American Principles Project. Mr. Mack prior to working for American Principles Project was the legislative liaison for the South Carolina Baptist Convention. Link to this post!      |
| Posted: 27 Mar 2012 10:47 AM PDT
While that expression — though describing a reality that would be unsavory — is used to affirm laudable tenacity, occasionally it is a fair assessment of a simply ubiquitous and unceasing presence. Cue President Jimmy Carter. Since serving his term in the late 70s, President Carter has hung around: refereeing world bad guys, negotiating important deals, earning Nobel prizes, building Habitat for Humanity houses. Now President Carter’s forays include an NIV study Bible that bears his name, published by Zondervan and available here. Called NIV Lessons from Life Bible: Personal Reflections with Jimmy Carter, this study Bible touts Presidents Carter’s experience as a Plains, GA Sunday School teacher, an activity that predates his term in national public office. President Carter recently sat for a Huffington Post interview (seen here) to talk about his new Bible. His responses should lead us to question Presidential hermeneutics and Zondervan’s discernment, as well as wonder if Jefferson wasn’t thinking of just such a situation when he told the Danbury Baptists of a “high and impregnable” wall between Presidents and biblical commentary. As revealed in the HuffPo interview, President’s Carter’s hermeneutic is suspect, to say the least. His interpretation would neglect an acknowledgement of figures of speech — including metaphor and hyperbole — as when he posits “we know that stars can’t fall on the earth.” He engages in a form of “chronological snobbery” (C.S. Lewis) to reject both young-earth theory and male leadership in the church. He employs a “red-letter hermeneutic” to permit such things as homosexual marriage because Jesus didn’t forbid it, ignoring the rest of the biblical witness on the subject. And he proposes a sort of theological smorgasbord to permit believers to decide “if and when” certain passages should apply to them. This is all consistent with President Carter’s low view of biblical authority: “God inspired the Bible but didn’t write every word in the Bible.” President Carter reveals an understanding of Scripture that is, oddly, Jeffersonian, when he denies the authority of those miraculous elements of Scripture while advocating focus on social and moral concerns. President Carter maintains that “the basic principles of the Bible are taught by God, but written down by human beings deprived of modern day knowledge. So there is some fallibility in the writings of the Bible” (emphasis added). Zondervan cannot be faulted for the business acumen displayed by publishing a Bible with a former President’s name and comments. But the publishing of Bibles and biblical materials is no mere business enterprise. That a Sunday School teacher of such tenure would still exhibit such woefully inadequate interpretation of Scritpure should have been a clue to Zondervan to pass on this project. And it should have been a clue to a former President that election to national office and receipt of a Nobel prize does not a teacher make. Link to this post!      |
| Posted: 27 Mar 2012 05:30 AM PDT
So, is there ever the situation where we enjoy something like a movie simply for entertainment purposes? What do you think of the movie – especially if you saw it? Would love to hear your feedback… Link to this post!      |
By Michael Farris
Well, you may have been living under a stone on an island – or just not have internet or TV – to not have heard about | You are subscribed to email updates from Caffeinated Thoughts To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
If you are looking into making money from your traffic by popup advertisments - you should try one of the biggest companies - SHORTEST.
RăspundețiȘtergere