Epic speech is epic - Newt Gingrich Press Release [Colbert Report/John Lithgow]

The literati sent out their minions to do their bidding. Washington cannot tolerate threats from outsiders who might disrupt their comfortable world. The firefight started when the cowardly sensed weakness. They fired timidly at first, then the sheep not wanting to be dropped from the establishment's cocktail party invite list unloaded their entire clip, firing without taking aim their distortions and falsehoods. Now they are left exposed by their bylines and handles. But surely they had killed him off. This is the way it always worked. A lesser person could not have survived the first few minutes of the onslaught. But out of the billowing smoke and dust of tweets and trivia emerged Gingrich, once again ready to lead those who won't be intimated by the political elite and are ready to take on the challenges America faces.

--Newt Gingrich Press Release

Rob Bell: Christendom's Public Enemy Number One?

By Peter Merz

Rob Bell's newly released book, Love Wins: A Book about Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, has created quite an uproar in Christian circles and even in the world at large. The uproar began even before the official release with critics like John Piper and others taking shots at Rob Bell over his book. Now with the book's release the maelstrom of sharp criticism and personal attacks on Rob Bell have gone nuclear. My question is: is attacking Rob Bell in this manner healthy for the Body of Christ? I would strongly contend that it is not. How many of the many people, out there attacking Rob Bell and his book, have actually sat down and read the book? And how many have gone off half-cocked armed with information disseminated by John Piper and other Christian pastors and leaders? Christians everywhere caught in this heretic hunt would do well to just take a deep breath and take the time to actually read Bell's book first hand. Too many Christians have the anemic mentality of being spoon-fed their Christian doctrine and theology and rarely if ever at all take the time to search these matters out diligently themselves to see if these things be true or not.

"Now these [the Bereans] were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11).

The example we are given from the New Testament is to search and examine the Sacred Scriptures to discern whether a certain doctrine or theology is true. Somehow we have lost that. We have let laziness creep into the Church. Christians sit back in the pews being spoon-fed whatever comes out of the pastor or priest's mouth (or even some Christian personality on TV or radio). But how many truly check what's being said against the backdrop of the Canon of Scripture? Far too few.

What has this spectacle that's getting plenty of attention in the media and the press doing for Christianity as a whole? When the world watches us behaving this way do they see us loving one another or do they see us as some modern age Crusader striking down the infidel with written and verbal attacks? This does nothing to draw all people to Christ. If anything it will work to turn people off to the message of the Gospel. If we cannot speak the truth in love and show love for one another -- even for someone who is perhaps erring in their Christian doctrine and theology – why should the world believe us?

Now if Rob Bell has truly lost his way and is erring in what he is teaching in his new book what should the Christian response be?

"Brothers, if a person is caught doing something wrong, those of you who are spiritual should restore that person gently. Watch out for yourself so that you are not tempted as well" (Galatians 6:1).

I have yet to see this being played out.

I have not yet read Rob Bell's book and as such I will not make a comment yea or nay until I have read it entirely. But even if I should disagree with all of it or a portion of it my response is not to attack Rob Bell, but to merely point out where he may have gone amiss.

There is a certain irony to all of this. Because of the barrage of attacks on Rob Bell and his book many more people will end up reading it than had the "nosiest authorities" of Christendom had said nothing at all.

Should the United States Constitution Be Amended to Define Marriage?

 

by Peter Merz

Looking at the issue of "Should the United States Constitution be amended to define marriage" I have to look at this from two separate strains of thought. One is the moral implications of such an amendment. And the other is would such an amendment be unconstitutional in that it would be stomping on states' rights in an attempt for a uniform code regarding marriage?

Looking at this issue through moral lenses (moral lenses rooted in the Holy Bible) it is very tempting to say sure thing. Let's go ahead and amend the U.S. Constitution so that marriage stays as the Bible defines marriage (between one man and one woman). One could even justify this move by rationalizing that since over 30 states have passed state amendments defining marriage as being between one man and one woman that there are Biblically moral and that the majority would be in sync with such an amendment.

But then there are the stubborn facts like constitutional precedent. You know things like the fact that in the U.S.A., civil marriage is governed by state law and not federal law. You see each state is free to set the conditions for a valid marriage, subject to limits set by state's own constitution and the U.S. Constitution. In fact, "[T]he State . . . has absolute right to prescribe the conditions upon which the marriage relation between its own citizens shall be created, and the causes for which it may be dissolved," Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877). Traditionally, a marriage was considered valid if the requirements of the marriage law of the state where the marriage took place were fulfilled. (First Restatement of Conflicts on Marriage and Legitimacy s.121 (1934)). However, a state can refuse to recognize a marriage if the marriage violates a strong public policy of the state, even if the marriage was legal in the state where it was performed. (Restatement (Second) Of Conflict of Laws § 283(2) (1971).) States historically exercised this "public policy exception" by refusing to recognize out-of-state polygamous marriages, underage marriages, incestuous marriages, and interracial marriages. Following these precedents, nearly all courts that have addressed the issue have held that states with laws against same-sex marriage can refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that were legally performed elsewhere. Same-sex marriage is currently legal in five U.S. states: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, Iowa and Connecticut. In 2003 and 2008 respectively, the Massachusetts and California Supreme courts ruled in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health and In Re Marriage Cases that the states' constitutions required the state to permit same-sex marriage.

Now that being said the federal government has and still does play a role in defining marriage.

Although individual U.S. states have the primary regulatory power with regard to marriage, the United States Congress has occasionally regulated marriage. The 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, which made bigamy a punishable federal offense, was followed by a series of federal laws designed to end the practice of polygamy. In 1996 as a reaction to a state level judicial ruling prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying that may violate Hawaii's constitutional equal protection clause (Baehr v. Miike, 80 Hawai`i 341), Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as a legal union of one man and one woman for the purpose of interpreting federal law. Under DOMA, the Federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions, even if those unions are recognized by state law. For example, members of a same-sex couple legally married in Massachusetts cannot file joint Federal income tax returns even if they file joint state income tax returns.

So though it is true that primarily states have had first dibs at defining and regulating marriage in their respective states, it is also true that the federal government has also played a role that at times supersedes the states' laws with regards to marriage. So now coming full circle back to the whole issue of should the U.S. Constitution be amended to define marriage? That has demonstrated to be a matter of could've, should've, didn't.

The measure proposing a constitutional marriage amendment was voted down in 2006 with the final vote being 236 yea votes to 187 nay votes, where 290 yea votes (two-thirds) are required for passage. It is extremely unlikely given the current congressional and senate makeup of such an amendment passing by a two-thirds margin. So whether or not such an amendment should exist seems something of a speculative and hypothetical question at best for the time being.

Biblically speaking I would side with yes there should be a U.S. constitutional amendment defining marriage.

Legally speaking there are strong arguments for such an amendment being passed.

There has been a trend of the judicial system overruling the will of the people in individual states. The people by referendum would vote to define civil marriage as being between one man and one woman and then the courts would come along and basically give the people the bird and say regardless of what the popular vote was same-sex marriage can and should be permitted by state law (even though it is not recognized at the federal level).

Another strong argument would be application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which states that with certain exceptions, a state is obligated to honor the judgments and declarations of other states.

The fact that the federal government has passed and enacted the Defense of Marriage Act should not be ignored either.

So in theory yes there probably should be a constitutional amendment added to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as being between one mane and one woman. But in the current congressional and senatorial makeup in the U.S.A. it is highly unlikely that even proposing such an amendment would pass the two-third threshold needed to give wings to such an amendment so it can be given a ratification vote.     

What is the Problem with Illegal Immigration?

By Peter Merz

According to the L.A. Times 40% of all workers in L.A. County (L.A. County has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angles are illegal aliens. Over 2/3 of all births in Los County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.

Do we have an illegal immigration problem? Okay if you answered no, then perhaps reading comprehension isn't your friend or you like reading with your eyes closed or maybe you find yourself in the latter group described below:

The latest telephone poll taken by the Texas Governor's office, asked whether people who live in Texas think illegal immigration is a serious problem: 

11% of respondents answered: 'Yes, it is a serious problem.' 

89% of respondents answered: 'No es una problema seriosa.'

Okay humor notwithstanding, we need to be honest with ourselves and let it sink in that illegal immigration is a serious problem in the U.S.A and that it needs to be dealt with a serious approach. How we choose to respond to the problem of illegal immigration has ramifications in multiple areas and has grown into a near-unmanageable national problem.

The problem with illegal immigration is not any one answer. It affects the economy, as illegals take jobs for a lower pay than an American Citizen would; it affects the crime rate as demonstrated by the statistics cited by the L.A. Times and 29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens; it affects the ramifications of a national healthcare plan. 29% of illegal aliens are on welfare while only 2% are out their picking our crops. Why are we providing succor and sustenance to people who are here illegally in this country?

There's also the issue of population expansion. In some places we are bursting at the seams. Over 70% of the United States' annual population growth (90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration.

Getting back to the point on healthcare, let me ask: do you mind paying for healthcare and education for illegal immigrants while the states are broke? California alone is trying to close a $42 billion budget shortfall and is considered by more than a few to be the first failed state within the United States. 


In our president's helter-skelter haste to bring national healthcare to the U.S.A, it seems the issue of illegal immigration has been left by the wayside, let's not forget about securing our borders, enforcing the current immigration laws on the books, and doing something about the illegal immigration problem beyond just granting emancipation, pretending that the problem does not exist.

Stem Cell Research

By Peter Merz

Stem cell research is a touchy and controversial subject for many people. It calls into question our very ethics and morality in an ever-advancing society (see Daniel 12:4). And how do those who hold to a Christian Worldview find any sort of consensus on this somewhat volatile issue? Is there a line in the sand we can draw and say without hint or trace of ambiguity, "We will not cross over this line"?

First a little bit of housekeeping before delving into the ethics and morality of the stem cell research issue. What is a stem cell? Stem cells are found in most, if not all, multi-cellular organisms. They are characterized by the ability to renew themselves through mitotic (Mitosis is the process by which a eukaryotic cell separates the chromosomes in its cell nucleus into two identical sets in two daughter nuclei) cell division and differentiating into a diverse range of specialized cell types (see "Cytological Demonstration of the Clonal Nature of Spleen Colonies Derived from Transplanted Mouse Marrow Cells" by A. J. BECKER E. A. McCULLOCH & J. E. TILL, Nature 197: 452 – 454, 1963 and also "The Distrubution of Colony-Forming Cells Among Spleen Colonies" by L. Siminovitch and J. E. Till, Journal of Cellular and Comparative Physiology 62: 327–36).

Let's be clear the issue is not stem cells in and of themselves, but with how the research of these stem cells is handled or carried out. Research in the stem cell field grew out of the findings by two Canadian scientists (Ernest A. McCulloch and James E. Till) in the 1960's. The two broad types of mammalian stem cells are: embryonic stem cells that are isolated from the inner cell mass of blastocysts (The blastocyst is a structure formed in the early embryogenesis of mammals, after the formation of the morula, but before implantation. It possesses an inner cell mass (ICM), or embryoblast, which subsequently forms the embryo, and an outer layer of cells, or trophoblast, which later forms the placenta), and adult stem cells that are found in adult tissues.

The controversy is over embryonic stem cell research and not the latter adult stem cell research. Time and space does not allow me to get into the all of the specifics and potential ramifications, but needless to say there are scientists who believe that breakthroughs in medical science can be made through the use of these stem cells – breakthroughs that may offer substantial cures or relief for diseases such as Parkinson's and other degenerative maladies.

So we have two major trains of thought on this subject. One train of thought argues that the benefits outweigh the ethical and moral issues of destroying embryos so that they may save many lives or at least provide therapeutic and necessitating medical procedures available to the community at large. Perhaps to phrase it another way it is good that one life be destroyed so that many may be saved (see John 11:49-50). The other train of thought argues that all life is precious and destroying embryos for the benefit of science is nothing more than murder that only offers those suffering from incurable degenerative diseases the hope of a someday maybe or someday perhaps apple-pie-in-the-sky type of cures and benefits. Simply put: the end does not justify the means.

So now that the sides are clearly drawn let's proceed into the heart of the matter and see what the Bible has to offer us counsel on this oftentimes contentious matter. Murder outside of war or criminal punishment is always considered wrong and a sin in the eyes of God.

"Then the LORD said to Cain, 'Where is Abel your brother?' And he said, 'I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?' He said, 'What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to Me from the ground. Now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. When you cultivate the ground, it will no longer yield its strength to you; you will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth'" (Genesis 4:9-12 NASB).

"Whoever sheds man's blood,

By man his blood shall be shed,

For in the image of God

He made man" (Genesis 9:6 NASB).

"You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13 NASB).

"He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death" (Exodus 21:12 NASB).

"If a man takes the life of any human being, he shall surely be put to death" (Leviticus 24:17 NASB).

"If a man takes the life of any human being, he shall surely be put to death" (Numbers 35:30 NASB).

"Cursed is he who strikes his neighbor in secret. And all the people shall say, 'Amen' (Deuteronomy 27:24 NASB).

"For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another; not as Cain, who was of the evil one and slew his brother And for what reason did he slay him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother's were righteous" (1 John 3:11-12 NASB).

"For He who said, 'DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY,' also said, 'DO NOT COMMIT MURDER.' Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law" (James 2:11 NASB).

Okay so no matter how you try to twist, shape, and contort it. The Bible is not going to condone unjustified homicide. As with abortion the murder of embryos (whether frozen or unfrozen) is not compatible with an authentic Biblical Worldview. Sacrificing life at the altar of 'scientific research' is not acceptable, and it is not a gray issue where we whistle "Let Your Conscience Be Your Guide". Murder is murder, capiche?

Okay now all that being said. I do not see moral or ethical problems arising from the further and study and research of stem cells from adult stem cells and from cells don't are not from the result of the loss of embryonic life (i.e. umbilical cords, placenta, and the like). I believe there is a way to come to a consensus of morality while also finding ways and means to advance the cause of science that provides breakthroughs and cures that benefit humankind.

Bring Them Home?

By Peter Merz


The war in Afghanistan? Should the U.S. ramp it up? Well first let's look at strategy? Do we have a winning strategy in Afghanistan? Not that I can tell. We seem to be handling this war with kid's gloves on. Look at some of the ludicrous limitations we place upon our soldiers who stand in harm's way.



Unless our troops in combat are absolutely certain that no civilians are present, they're denied artillery or air support; If any civilians appear where we meet the Taliban, our troops are to "break contact" -- to retreat! We seem to think that we're fighting a prim and proper British gentleman who plays by all the rules – not a bunch of radical zealots who think nothing of blowing themselves up as long as their enemies get killed or their cause is elevated (that and the promise of 72 virgins on the other side).



I think any success from a surge in Afghanistan will be minimal as long as we hamstring our soldiers with these lame brain Politically Koreshed combat rules. Al Qaida will think of nothing to create battle maneuvers where civilians will be present, using them as shields and buffers against our troops who are expected to shout at the enemy, "Time Out!"



I would propose either fight this war like we mean to win it, or bring our troops home. There's no point in our men and woman in combat sacrificing their lives so our president and congress can pat themselves on the back at how PC they've executed the war in Afghanistan. If we had used these same rules in fighting Nazi-Germany and Japan in World War II, that war would have raged on for who knows how long and we would all either be speaking German or Japanese right now.



Perhaps if President Obama would spend less time apologizing to other nations for real or imagined wrongs this nation has done and more time putting into a place a winnable strategy into place in the War on Terror we could actually win this war. But as long as our military policy is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, we might as well call it quits and bring our troops back home.

Should President Barrack Obama have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?

By Peter Merz

The "Rainbow" Tour (featuring the dynamic duo of Oprah Winfrey and Michelle Obama, and the man of the hour himself – Barrack Hussein "I'm So Sorry" Obama) set out on an ambitious mission to Copenhagen to make the case for bringing the Olympics to Chicago. Hope was high. Can we bring the Olympics to Chicago? Yes we…can't. Michelle Obama's tears did not persuade the IOC. Nor did Obama's Perry Mason-esque (maybe he should have gone with more of a Matlock approach) arguments that the Olympics should be held in Chicago so he could walk to the Olympic Games without having to drive or worry about parking (perhaps he should have also mentioned it would help him leave a smaller carbon footprint).

Formerly Obama-friendly newspapers (like the Guardian) called attention to this loss and hinted that it would be damaging to Obama on the political scene. On the heels of that loss Saturday Night Live (SNL) decided that the honeymoon was over and trashed him in the opening spot on SNL – touting that he had basically done nothing since getting elected. Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark!

Not to worry though for all those out there who are still acorns about Barrack Hussein Obama. He's down but he's not out. It may beggar belief, but, he is this year's Nobel Peace Prize recipient!!! Now you may think that is an impressive accomplishment – but you may not realize just how impressive this feat of his really is. The nominations for Nobel Peace Prize nominees were due in by February 1, 2009. Which means that President Obama would have been on the job as President for a grueling 11 (yes, count 'em!) 11 days! After being the U.S. President for 11 stellar days, he gets nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize; thus joining the ranks of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson (both of whom received the coveted Nobel Peace Prize while in office as a sitting President of the U.S.)

So what great achievement or accomplishment did Obama receive this award for? Was it for the lassoing in of the economy? Nope. Was it for bringing a successful and peaceful conclusion to the War on Terror or even the engagement in Afghanistan? Nope. Was it for bringing Iran to their senses and getting them to finally abandon their nuclear programs? Good guess. But wrong. None of those answers. According to Norwegian Nobel Committee Chairman Thorbjorn Jagland it was for climate change. Way to go Barrack, you have brought about climate change. I'm sure Al Gore would be proud of you! But wait Chairman Jagland is not talking about the Inconvenient Truth type of climate change. Here are Chairman Jagland's words in context,

"He [Barrack Hussein Obama] got the prize because he has been able to change the international climate" (Emphasis mine).

Okay so that sounds like an achievement.  Sure it's a weak one, but an achievement nonetheless. But let's check out what Obama's press secretary (Robert Gibbs) has to say on this.

"This [Nobel Prize] represents not the achievements of one man but the hopes of millions around the world."

What the blazes?!! Obama got this award not for an achievement but for audacious hopes!

Oh, but it gets even better. Obama calls his receiving the Noble Peace Prize, "A call to action". So now we have completely politicized the Noble Peace Prize. It's no longer about what one can achieve, but about political capital. To borrow a line (well maybe a few lines) from Charles Dickens,

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only."

A fellow high school alumni of mine commented that,

"Obama should decline the Nobel Peace Prize and urge that the committee instead give the award posthumously to Neda Agha-Soltan, the woman killed by the Iranian government after the fake June elections (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan). Doing this would focus the world on the dangers and illegitimacy of the Iranian regime, while advancing sexual equality around the world. By trying to bring about peaceful reform of Iran's theocracy, Neda truly sought to advance the possibility of Middle East peace."

But sadly, President Obama has missed another golden opportunity in his presidency.

Not to worry; he's given plenty of ammo to the writers of SNL and to all the late night talk show joke writers. President Obama has even given me hope. I'm thinking of contacting the Pulitzer Prize committee about them awarding me the Pulitzer Prize for the novel that I intended to write.