IRISH EYES AREN’T SMILING
Re: James M. Thunder’s The Destruction of Notre
Dame:
Absolutely correct! A sellout, and for what?
— Tom Vandenberg
Class of ‘76.
Except for the headline, this article has it all right. 100%.
This should never have happened and it should be canceled.
— Patricia Kennedy
Poughkeepsie, New York
NO ALTERNATIVE
Re: Roger Scruton’s The
New Humanism:
Roger Scruton is of course right about the humanism he knew from
his parents, that sought to raise man rather than denigrate God,
but that was in a different England. Now it faces the levelling
of socialist education, the stridency of Islamists and
Christian evangelists and the ghetto-making dogma of
Multi-Culturalism, all directly attacking Englishness: if it
remained quiet and decent, humanism might simply evaporate (like
queuing and politeness have). Its fight might be badly phrased at
times, like the bus slogan about enjoying life (instead of
perhaps “be good for the sake of goodness”), but the fight was
brought to us.
Yours faithfully,
— Mark Baillie
London, UK
WITH GRATITUDE
Re: Quin Hillyer’s Monstrously Anti-Life:
Thanks for publishing this very thoughtful article. It is well
written to represent all the issues between the mother’s moral
judgments and the law’s duty to the baby. Thank you.
— Dina Luke
San Clemente, California
Thank you so much for your article. My thoughts about President
Obama are that when he spoke about abortion he wouldn’t want his
daughters to have to “suffer” through an unwanted pregnancy. He
would allow them to abort his own grandchildren. There is
definitely death in the White House not only for unborn but for
the country.
— C. Handley
Richmond, Illinois
I have nothing but respect and praise for the author of article.
It takes such courage to speak out in these times. May God Bless
You and may The Holy Spirit inspire you always.
— Alice Stackpole
AIG ON THEIR FACE
Re: The Prowler’s Plenty of Rahm at the AIG
Table:
Excellent article. Here is a proposed solution to the problem…
The AIG news stream has been flowing with the force of a fire
hydrant, and it’s becoming difficult to drink it all in. We
are now even hearing about how TARP funds are being recycled into
campaign contributions for members of Congress — perhaps someone
should send the CWFP a map to the capitol building instead.
Amidst all of the rhetorical fanfare, it should be noted that
there is a crucial standard of justice that is being ignored in
all of this. In fact I would submit that this legal standard
would accomplish much, not only in terms of eliminating the
feigned AIG-outrage in Congress, but it would stifle a host of
other corrupt pursuits in our nation’s capitol. The legal
standard of which I speak is actually one which formulates the
basis of the “presumption of innocence” standard native to our
modern legal system. It is a standard that is frequently quoted
in the N.T., and is offered here as “the solution to the AIG
debacle:”
Step 1 — The Pursuit of Proof: Deuteronomy 19:15: 15 “A single
witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any
iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of
two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.”
Our legal system is based upon the principle of a “presumption of
innocence” when dealing with an accused party. Therefore
accusations must not be assumed to be true, but must be
substantiated on the bases of witnesses who can confirm or deny
the veracity of an accusation. But what is rarely acknowledged
concerning this ancient standard of the law is this fact: the
requirement for multiple witnesses was also established in order
to deal with false accusers. Thus, the confirmation of the
innocence/guilt of the accused is only half of the judicial
equation in Deuteronomy 19 — what is often ignored in this legal
standard is the matter of judging those who dole out accusations
without sufficient warrant:
Step 2 — The Scrutiny of Witnesses: Deuteronomy 19:16-18: 16 “If
a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of
wrongdoing, 17 then both the men who have the dispute shall stand
before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who will be in
office in those days. 18 “The judges shall investigate
thoroughly…”
The O.T. and the N.T. Scriptures invest a great deal of ink and
parchment in dealing with this problem of refuting false
accusers. To be sure, the matter of resolving the innocence/guilt
of the accused is important by itself; however, it is only half
of the overall picture of Scriptural jurisprudence. Dealing with
talebearers (Proverbs 11:13), gossips (Proverbs 20:19), and liars
(even those who listen to them, Proverbs 17:4) is just as
important when applying the law in a meaningful way (1 Timothy
1:10). But this then leads us to the query regarding what one
should do if an accuser is found to be malicious. The answer is
quite simple:
Step 3 — Judgment of Malicious Witnesses: Deuteronomy 19:16-18:
16 “If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him
of wrongdoing, 17 then both the men who have the dispute shall
stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who will
be in office in those days. 18 “The judges shall investigate
thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has
accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him just as
he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the
evil from among you.”
Step 3 is perhaps one of the most neglected elements in biblical
jurisprudence, and yet it is crucial for this matter of purging
the practitioners of evil (1 Cor. 5:9-13). Without it, we ensure
that false accusers can repeat their offenses, time and time
again — with impunity. But can you imagine if this standard were
to be applied rigorously in our nation? All frivolous lawsuits
would dry up instantly if every false accuser was compelled to
pay the very penalty that he sought against the accused. Now
let’s apply this standard to the AIG debacle:
1. Congress has accused AIG of impropriety concerning their use
of TARP funds. The penalty which they seek is the repayment of
all bonus payments given to top executives.
2. What has become evident over the recent days is that the
stimulus bill, which was passed and signed with little or no
scrutiny by Congress, actually gave full license to AIG to pay
the aforementioned bonuses.
Based upon these truths I would suggest that the very purveyors
of the stimulus bill (which gave legal authority to AIG to pay
their bonuses) be adjudged as malicious witnesses in this case.
All those who voted for the bill should therefore pay back the
bonus monies themselves — dividing the debt evenly among them
(or perhaps making increase-adjustments for those who are
receiving campaign contributions from TARP supported industries).
Failure to do this will result in the nullification of the 4th
and final step of this important process:
Step 4 — Sending the Message of True Justice: Deuteronomy 19:20:
20 “The rest will hear and be afraid, and will never again do
such an evil thing among you.”
Can you imagine what our government would be like if men resolved
never again to engage in the practice of deception, lying, and
bearing false witness? Of course, my offer of the law (by itself)
is not the chief end here, for the law cannot change the human
heart. But it would be a helpful tutor in the right
direction.
— Mike Beasley
UNHOOKED
Re: The Prowler’s Screening
Obama:
Please, somebody put this guy back on a teleprompter now. Five
minutes into his 60 Minutes interview, he talked about
digging our country out of a hole. I think the appropriate
metaphor should be climbing out of the hole, not digging deeper.
Liberals will write Obama’s statement off as a misplaced
metaphor, but I think Obama’s dig-out-of-a-hole is true insight
into his administration’s strategy. Yes, the rest of us know that
the more you dig, the deeper the hole gets, and many of us think
Obama and his administration is good at “make-work” policy where
they are digging holes that they will later attempt to fill in
and take credit for doing something right.
Keep digging, Mr. Obama. Maybe you’ll make the hole big enough
for all of those who voted for you to jump in like political
lemmings during a presidential campaign.
— Bill Attinger
Carlsbad, California
