Post Republica

musings on life, liberty, and the walk of faith in America


Leave a comment

Obama places the power of the state over freedom of religion

From RealClearPolitics: The Chicago Tribune’s Steve Chapman discusses the contradictions and false logic (along with unintended consequences) of the Obama administration forcing religious groups to provide birth control options in employee health coverage policies.

Mark Levin, in his new book “Ameritopia,” covers this type of action by statist leaders and organizations as part of the continuing desire to suppress individual freedoms and private decisions at the expense of the state.

Even the most hallowed principles and foundations of the Constitution are subject to attack from this administration. Those who have religious values in this country should be watching this carefully, and respond accordingly.

Advertisements


Leave a comment

Krauthammer is right about Syria

Charles Krauthammer puts forth the thesis in a Washington Post column that a way to weaken Iran further and make it even more difficult for the mullahs to obtain and threaten to use nuclear weapons is to support regime change and a new government in Syria – breaking up the multilayer alliance between Assad and the mullahs.

Sometimes the best way to defeat an enemy is to remove his best friend; and here is a case to make that point … while pushing and supporting the rebels in Syria to remove the present regressive, tyrannical regime and replace it with a more Western-friendly one.


Leave a comment

I couldn’t have said it better myself …

One of my favorite websites is one run by Elizabeth Scalia called The Anchoress, and it’s a favorite because she is an exceptionally clear writer with a pragmatic, heartfelt view of a life lived in faith and the modern age. Today, she talks about last night’s GOP Presidential candidate debate, and specifically Newt’s Gingrich’s response when asked about the comments a former wife made. She includes the YouTube video of the clip, which I’ve watched over and over several times since it was posted; as, I’m sure, many others have. In her article, she pens a brilliant view of the mainstream media that echoes my position and feelings exactly. I include it here:

“We are done responding like Pavlovian dogs to your bells; we no longer trust you; we understand that you are no longer a press that is free, but one that is enthralled to its own ideologies and agendas. From this point on, a candidate is going to rise or fall on the substance of their ideas and abilities, not on your prosy gushes about his brilliance, or stern warnings about her stupidity. You savaged George W. Bush you savaged Sarah Palin and you got away with it. You carried your own preferred, utterly inexperienced, passionate ideologue into the White House with over-effusive rhetoric and you have buffeted him from inquiry (tax returns? Hell, we’d just like to see Obama’s college transcripts!), or what you perceive to be damaging stories, but you elevated your favorite at the cost of your own credibility, and now it comes back to bite you. Because a press with no credibility has nothing to offer us. It has nowhere to go, now, except into the arms of the political machine it has loved. Just like Pravda, actually.”
Thanks, Elizabeth, for your words and work!


Leave a comment

Giving journalists who judge what they dish out

From the Daily Caller: Rush Limbaugh on yesterday’s show asked a very insightful and, I think, important question: if journalists in today’s media are going to judge what they report on, shouldn’t they be examined in the same way? Why not ask questions of marital status, history, and fidelity of those who ask those same questions in public? It sounds eminently logical to me. If you’re a journalist, and you willingly inject your own judgment and biases in the way you report on public figures, then you should be held up to the same microscope. Why shouldn’t a newsroom editor assign a story on a candidates’ marital background such as Newt Gingrich’s to someone in the newsroom who has no – or, the least – bias, and who also doesn’t have any similar skeletons in his or her closet?

This is what it’s come to, folks … we have to think this way because of the state of the mainstream media in this country. They lost almost all of their credibility – and continue to do so on an almost daily basis – because they deliberately injected themselves into the 2008 Presidential election … taking an active, obviously biased stand on behalf of Barack Obama.

I would love to see their responses to this type of strategy; if you want to ask certain questions, you’d better be ready for the flashlights pointed in your own closets.