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
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.
— Mark Baillie
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
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
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