Kathleen Parker is the “conservative” columnist liberals can count on to bash conservative personalities and causes. This is why her column is syndicated by the Washington Post and why she is featured on the Chris Matthews show.

Now, Parker has done her best imitation of lesbian MSNBC-TV commentator Rachel Maddow by writing a column bashing Uganda’s Christian majority for considering passage of a bill to toughen laws against homosexuality. This has been a Maddow cause for months, and Parker is now on the bandwagon.

When the MSNBC-TV host isn’t attacking Christians here and abroad for opposing homosexuality, she is promoting homosexuality in the U.S. military, as Post media critic Howard Kurtz was recently forced to acknowledge in a story about her preoccupation with this matter. But it’s really not surprising. Maddow’s show is an extension of her lesbian lifestyle. She is gay and proud and given free rein at MSNBC because of her role as the first “out” lesbian to host a show on a national cable news network.

It’s another “first” for the homosexual lobby and the media, which seem to go together.

Parker’s interest in the issue is not as clear but it may stem from her eagerness to please those who syndicate her column and quote her approvingly in the liberal press. This is how “conservatives” become mainstream media stars. However, her column is even worse in its accusations and charges than what we can find in the hysterical gay press. Parker finds those Christians opposed to homosexuality in Uganda and who base their opposition on the Bible to be in favor of “genocide.”

Losing complete control of her senses, Parker states that a proposed law against homosexuality constitutes “state genocide of a minority [that] is proposed in the name of Christianity…”

Once again, as we have documented on so many occasions, the death penalty in the bill is only one provision and is for “aggravated homosexuality” or serious crimes mostly involving homosexual behavior targeting children and spreading disease and death.

The potential genocide in Uganda is the AIDS epidemic that the government and Christian leaders are successfully combating. They understand, although Parker apparently does not, that homosexual behavior promotes the spread of AIDS.

There is a myth that AIDS in Africa has been spread exclusively through heterosexual conduct. But the internationally acclaimed medical journal The Lancet last August published the first scientific study showing that male homosexuals are more often than not infected with HIV than the general adult population in sub-Saharan Africa. The study is titled, “Men who have sex with men and HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa.”

Here, all of this is out in the open and well-known. Indeed, the Cato Institute held an event on Wednesday in which HIV-positive writer Andrew Sullivan strode to the podium during a conference on “gay conservatives” with ashes on his forehead from having attended a Catholic Church Ash Wednesday service. Sullivan was caught soliciting a partner for dangerous “bare-backing” sexual practices and has since “married” another man. This is “conservative?”

Like Kathleen Parker, he is still considered a “conservative” by some and was introduced by Cato executive David Boaz, a member of the Independent Gay Forum and pro-marijuana activist. Like Sullivan, Cato is also misleadingly described in the media as “conservative” too many times to mention.

Today, as the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) gets underway in Washington, D.C., participants will find a literature table established under official CPAC auspices from a homosexual Republican group calling itself GOProud. CPAC organizer David Keene, whose lobbying activities have been an embarrassment to the conservative movement, approved letting the gay rights organization officially attend the conference, despite complaints from traditional conservative groups such as Catholic Families for America.

Talk of tolerance and diversity aside, male homosexuals constitute most of the HIV-AIDS cases and they are still prohibited from donating blood because of their propensity to come down with various life-threatening diseases. Facts are facts. But don’t expect to see this information analyzed and reviewed by the mainstream media when considering such issues as allowing active and open homosexuals into the Armed Forces and into close quarters with normal heterosexuals.

Gay activists complain that thousands have been forced out of the military because of their homosexuality. The evidence, in the form of opinion polls and letters from former military officers, suggests that many thousands more will leave if the military brass force acceptance of homosexuality-and the diversity training that will inevitably go along with it-on the military rank and file.

The purpose of the Ugandan bill, quite clearly, is to keep homosexuality in the closet, where it used to be in this country. The country’s literal survival may depend on passage of this legislation, after it undergoes hearings and some revisions.

The bill will likely have more of a deterrent effect than anything else. Some of the controversial passages, such as restrictions on “touching,” are included for the purpose of defining homosexual behavior. It may sound strange to Americans who are accustomed to in-your-face homosexuality on national television and almost everywhere else in society, but Uganda is serious about avoiding a return to the time when a notorious homosexual king was ruling the country and tortured and killed young Christian men who resisted his homosexual advances.

Ironically, Parker makes reference to this terrible period, but only to contrast it with a frightening future in which she speculates that gays will be offered up by authorities in Uganda as martyrs for the gay rights cause. To drive the point home, a gay rights group recently held a news conference in Washington, D.C. featuring an alleged gay rights activist from Uganda wearing a paper sack over his head. It was a good publicity stunt, designed to generate sympathy and attention for people who only want the “right” to celebrate a behavior that is a documented public health hazard.

Hedge fund manager George Soros, who is behind the campaign to homosexualize Uganda, doesn’t wear a bag over his face and doesn’t need to. He operates mostly out in the open, in the name of promoting his version of an “open society” here and abroad. The problem is that most of the liberal media agree with his policies and proposals and therefore don’t shed light on what he is doing in terms of interfering in the affairs of not only the U.S. but other nations of the world.

In fact, the Ugandan legislation seems designed to send a message to Soros and his minions in the foreign homosexual lobby to keep their hands off Uganda’s families and kids. Soros funds efforts to legalize homosexual behavior and prostitution in Uganda and other African nations. It’s too bad Parker didn’t notice and condemn that. But such a reference might provoke criticism from the left, and she wants to avoid that so she can keep going on the Matthews show.

The eminent historian Paul Johnson, who was recently on C-SPAN taking questions from viewers, has something to say about this. His book The Quest for God  laments that Western society made a huge mistake by decriminalizing homosexuality and thinking that acceptance of the lifestyle on a basic level would satisfy its practitioners. Instead, he wrote, “Decriminalization made it possible for homosexuals to organize openly into a powerful lobby, and it thus became a mere platform from which further demands were launched.” It became, he says, a “monster in our midst, powerful and clamoring, flexing its muscles, threatening, vengeful and vindictive towards anyone who challenges its outrageous claims, and bent on making fundamental-and to most of us horrifying-changes to civilized patterns of sexual behavior.”

Today, this monster makes even more demands and inroads, especially into our government, as President Obama appoints subversives such as homosexual activist Kevin Jennings to the Education Department, and some poor mixed-up “transgendered” person to a post at Commerce. Plus, adding to our health care problems, he has lifted the ban on AIDS-infected foreigners from traveling to and living in the U.S.

His gays-in-the-military proposal would not only make the Armed Forces a laughingstock but would end its value as a fighting force capable of defending us against foreign threats. Indeed, a homosexualized military could itself become a threat, just like it was in the Nazi period.

Instead of finding a “monster” in a gay rights movement that wants to impose itself on all of us, including our children in the schools, Kathleen Parker finds the monster to be the Christians in Uganda who want to spare their children from a lifestyle that too frequently ends in premature death. She accuses them of “genocide” for being patriots and good parents. Shame on her.

Parker’s “conservatism” is a farce and a fraud. But it seems to be in fashion at CPAC this year.

In a recent article, Chicago Sun-Times’ columnist Neil Steinberg criticizes the Illinois Family Institute’s website for not “addressing what an individual could do to improve his own family.”

While Mr. Steinberg would love to see our organization relegated to self-improvement, family entertainment and leisure activities, IFI is a public policy organization that addresses policy issues that are substantial and consequential to the families of Illinois. If Steinberg bothered to look past the home page of our website to the “About Us” section, he may have understood our mission and purpose.

The Illinois Family Institute is a nonprofit research and education organization committed to protecting and defending the family by influencing policy and promoting timeless values consistent with Judeo-Christian teachings and traditions.

Disagreeing with our mission and our positions on these issues is fair. Mr. Steinberg obviously disagrees with our position on homosexual behavior and specifically our statement that “volitional homosexual acts are immoral,” calling them “superficial, silly, ad hominem non-arguments.” He is right: that statement is not an argument. It is a moral claim for which there are both religious and secular justifications. Similarly, the view that homosexual acts are moral is not an argument. It is a moral claim that requires justifications.

Unfortunately, Mr. Steinberg offers nothing to substantiate his criticisms other than name-calling. While he waxes poetic about tolerance, Mr. Steinberg describes opposition to so-called same-sex marriages and civil unions as “sick,” “twisted sexual” obsessions, “creepy, fixated” fundamentalism, “religious prejudice,” “intolerant,” and “inhuman.”

He compares opposition to the radical, subversive, a-historical effort to jettison the central defining feature of marriage — sexual complementarity — to teeth flossing and clean underwear checks.

In his anti-IFI article, Mr. Steinberg points out that he doesn’t want to impose his values on other people or “write an amendment into the Illinois constitution” to impose his beliefs. Since he feels so strongly about the immorality of imposing values on others, will Mr. Steinberg write a column critical of the efforts of homosexuality-affirming organizations to impose through public education and legislation their unproven ontological claim that homosexuality is equivalent to race and their unproven moral claim that gender is irrelevant to marriage?

And in his self-righteous advocacy of absolute moral neutrality in the public square, will he defend polyamorists’ right to marry?

Mr. Steinberg ends his tirade with an emotional appeal saying that our country “is a vast, varied place where people from all sorts of races, religions, creeds and, yes, differing sexuality, dwell together in harmony…” I guess this sentiment applies to everyone except religious conservatives.

If the superficial, silly, ad hominem non-arguments that constitute the sum total of Chicago Sun-Times columnist Neil Steinberg‘s indictment of conservative positions on homosexuality were not so dangerous, they would be laughable.

In a rant in the Sunday Feb. 14 Sun-Times, Mr. Steinberg describes opposition to faux same-sex marriages and civil unions as “sick,” “twisted sexual” obsessions, “creepy, fixated” fundamentalism, “religious prejudice,” “intolerant,” and “inhuman.”

He compares opposition to the radical, subversive, a-historical effort to jettison the central defining feature of marriage–sexual complementarity–to teeth flossing and clean underwear checks.

Ah, yes, I can hear the mellifluous tones of tolerance wafting through his rhetoric.

One wonders if Mr. Steinberg applies these same epithets and feckless analogies to opposition to jettisoning any of the other defining features of marriage, like the binary requirement, or the blood kinship requirement. Are those who oppose adult consensual incest or polygamy sick, twisted sexual obsessives, and creepy, fixated fundamentalists?

Mr. Steinberg’s cliche non-arguments lead me to wonder if he has ever engaged with the substantive arguments of real intellectuals, either in person or through a thorough study of the best writing of conservative scholars. I think not because nary a substantive counter- argument can be found in his thicket of epithets.

Here are some questions for the moral philosopher, Mr. Steinberg:

• Is homosexuality ontologically equivalent to race or skin color? If so, what is your evidence for that claim?
• Is homosexuality morally equivalent to heterosexuality? If so, what are your justifications for that belief?
• What is the basis of the government’s involvement in marriage?
• Is the government in the business of simply affirming affection and sexual desire?
• If so, why not affirm through legal mechanisms like marriage or civil unions the affection and sexual attraction some siblings feel for each other, or the affection and sexual attraction polyamorists feel for multiple people?
• Is marriage an utterly private institution, or does it impact the public good?
• If marriage is an utterly private institution with no impact on the public good, then why is the government involved at all?
• If the government’s involvement in the marriage business is wholly severed from supporting the type of relationship into which children may be born, why limit it to two biologically unrelated people. (After all, in Mr. Steinberg’s moral universe, no one should be permitted to impose his intolerant, inhuman moral views on others. How very sick and prejudiced it is for anyone to prohibit those who love and want to express that love sexually to their siblings or multiple people. Moreover, how could a marriage between two siblings or five people hurt anyone else’s marriage?)

Islam, Orthodox Judaism, The Roman Catholic Church, and many Protestant denominations believe that volitional homosexual acts are immoral, and that marriage is by nature a heterosexual union. Before writing another anti-religious screed devoid of intellectual substance, it would behoove Mr. Steinberg to spend some time studying the work of the following scholars:

Hadley Arkes, Francis Beckwith, Henri Blocher, Joseph Bottum, Michael L. Brown, Don Browning, D.A. Carson, Charles Chaput, Mark Dever, Anthony Esolen, Douglas Farrow, John S. Feinberg, David F. Forte, John Frame, Robert Gagnon, Robert George, Arthur Goldberg, Wayne Grudem, John Finnis, Harold James, Stanton Jones, Walter Kaiser, Meredith Kline, Peter Kreeft, Daniel Lapin, Al Mohler, Douglas Moo, Russell Moore, Jennifer Roback Morse, Mark Noll, David Novak, J.I. Packer, John Piper, Patrick Henry Reardon, Leland Ryken, Thomas Schreiner, Roger Scruton, Janet E. Smith, Katherine Shaw Spaht, John Stott, Seanna Sugrue, Bruce Ware, Thomas Weinandy, W. Bradford Wilcox, Christopher Wolfe, N.T. Wright, and Ravi Zacharias.

Chicago Tribune reporter Rex Huppke recently wrote an article titled “Marriage benefits costly for gay couples” in which he addresses the economic costs for gay partners to legally protect their relationships. The article failed to address the underlying issue in this debate: the public purpose of marriage.

Marriage is not a relationship that society created in order to give some people benefits and deny them to others. Marriage is the institution that societies worldwide have recognized and encouraged because this unique relationship between a man and a woman provides particular benefits to society, chief among them, the procreation and nurturing of the next generation.

If marriage were centrally or solely about affirming love between individuals, the government would have no reason to be involved in the business of sanctioning marriage. Government sanctions the type of relationship into which children may be born and raised because the government recognizes that that institution which best serves the needs and rights of children is the institution that best serves a healthy society.

Of all the criteria that define marriage — number of partners, blood kinship, minimum age, and sexual complementarity — the one that has been historically and cross-culturally the most fixed is sexual complementarity.

The social science is clear and irrefutable: children do best in stable, healthy homes with both a mom and dad. The government acts in the interest of children and society when it protects the institution of marriage through legal benefits.

During the Roman Empires secularist era those who acknowledged the deity of Christ were frequently fed to the lions to entertain for lack of a better word the progressive elites of the day. Theres little doubt that if many of todays secular-progressives (more accurately: moonbat liberals) had their way, Caesar Obama would call out the lions once again.

Nothing makes the left lose its collective noodle like an open proclamation of Christian faith. You don’t see it when Muslims proselytize in government schools; the ACLU doesn’t sue when Wiccans share their witchy ways; militant gay activists don’t picket Buddhist temples with bullhorns while inhabitants grasp at Zen. No, theres something about Christianity that just drives em nuts. Always has. Always will.

Case in point: Recently, on two separate occasions, Fox News veteran Brit Hume both publicly pronounced his own faith in Jesus Christ and boldly suggested that Tiger Woods might find forgiveness and redemption for his serial philandering should he turn to the Christian faith.

Hume first offered Tiger the advice on Fox News Sunday and then reiterated his sage, though decidedly non-PC council on The OReilly Factor the following night. When asked by host Bill O’Reilly what kind of response he’d received for his comments, Hume replied, in part: Its always been a puzzling thing to me. The Bible even speaks of it. You speak the name Jesus Christ and all hell breaks loose.

Yes indeed.

After Hume made his comments, and as if on cue (Lord forgive them for not knowing what they do or why they do it) liberals went apoplectic. Heres a small sampling:

As reported by CNSNews.com: Tom Shales, media critic for the Washington Post, in a Tuesday column, demanded that Hume apologize and called his Christian remarks even only a few days into January, as one of the most ridiculous of the year.

MSNBCs reliably raspy Keith Olbermann accused Hume of attempting to threaten Tiger Woods into converting to Christianity and demanded that his Fox News ratings superior keep religious advocacy out of public life (back in the closet, Brit old boy).

Olblubberman then compared Hume to a terrorist, suggesting that the worst example of this kind of proselytizing are jihadists. Finally, he betrayed the lefts typical anti-Christian bigotry, suggesting that Jesus may have been a homosexual and wondering aloud: WWJDIHS: What would Jesus do if hes straight?

While the mainstream media’s rage was clumsily managed (or masked), unbridled hate boiled over in the left-wing blogosphere.

On the sexual anarchist site, JoeMyGod, poster QScribe suggested that Brit Humes deceased son had been gay and viciously accused Hume of being responsible for the young mans suicide: Brit Hume still hasn’t repented for trashing his gay son and driving him to suicide. When I want moral guidance from a pig like that, I’ll be sure to ask. Until then, he really ought to STFU. (Hume has publicly shared that his sons heartbreaking suicide played a large role in his acceptance of Christ.)

The next commenter went so far as to cruelly imply that Hume had sexually molested his own child and further mocked the tragic suicide, writing: Dead victims don’t tell on their molesters.

Commenting on the Huffington Post, Kandaher bypassed Hume altogether and aimed his vitriol directly at his Creator: anyone (sic) watched The passion of Christ? I thoruhgly (sic) enjoyed it. Nothing like watching this bloke getting beaten up! He deserved what he got and more!

You get the idea.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I must confess that I very much enjoy watching liberals go goofy when the light of truth pierces that shadowy void called moral relativism. When the lefts religion of choice secular-humanism is challenged through exposure to the gospel message, they almost universally and instinctively react with such visceral, knee-jerk spasms. You can set your clock to it.

But believe it or not, there’s actually something rather delightful about such hateful lashing about. These poor souls to be pitied and prayed for fail to realize that, manifest within their own unwittingly bizarre behavior, is certain affirmation of the very words of Christ on the subject.

Jesus addressed this peculiar and deeply spiritual phenomenon on more than one occasion over two thousand years ago. In John 15:18-20 (NIV), for instance, He reminds His followers: If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.

Now, I’m real sorry that most progressives and other non-believers feel that Christianity is deficiently tolerant or inclusive of various man-made religions and lifestyle choices. But it’s just not our call. Christ Himself reveals over and again that the pathway to heaven is a very narrow one, requiring membership in a rather exclusive club– a club wherein belief in Him and repentance from sin are the only membership requirements.

Christ said: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) Note that, rather conspicuously, He did not say: “No one comes to the Father except through me, the Buddha, Muhammad, Ganesh, and on Tuesdays L. Ron Hubbard.”

But lest you have any doubt, consider John 3:36, which warns every man, woman and child on earth past, present and future: “Whoever believes in the Son [Jesus] has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for Gods wrath remains on him.”

So, Brit Hume had it right, didn’t he? I mean, it is kind of an all or nothing proposition, isn’t it?

As my favorite author and Christian apologist C.S. Lewis famously pointed out in his blockbuster book Mere Christianity, Christ could only have been one of three things: A lunatic, a liar, or, as Jesus oft claimed and as billions have believed, the sovereign Lord and Creator of the universe.

Noted Lewis:

A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. –C.S. Lewis

So, what does this all mean? Well, and please take this in the spirit (little ‘s’ intended): Brit Hume’s woolly, wily, wandering critics really ought to just un-knot their knickers; mudra, mantra or something; and seriously reflect upon the man’s words and heart.

Perhaps they should (being all tolerant, diverse and whatnot) consider, if only for a moment, the very Spirit (big ‘S’) from which came those words and were formed that heart.

In the meantime, to Mr. Hume: Well done, good and faithful servant.

IFI Voter Guides Help Voters Make Informed Decisions At The Poll

There are those who believe America is at its zenith as a nation. They claim “tolerance”–which was a result of the cultural revolution of the 1960’s and 70’s–has made the United States a better place to live. I strongly disagree with this assessment–which mostly comes from liberals who feel the sexual revolution has liberated men and women and that diversity has created a more “just” nation. They see the Judeo-Christian ethic as a mechanism which binds the true expression of self–both on the individual and societal level. I could not disagree more with this myopic view of our country.

I still believe in the vision our Founding Fathers had when they created a nation that was radically different from anything the world had ever seen before. But there are forces which are bringing America to its ruin.

The mainstream media has played a significant role by misinforming the public regarding issues that truly matter. The dominant press, in many ways, has abandoned the true tenets of journalism. This is reflected in recent polling which indicates more than 70% of the American public no longer trusts the dominant media. Some claim the Internet is responsible for the fact so many print publications are going out of business. Also, some assert the falling viewership of television news, including that of the three major networks, is a result of cable TV’s 24 hour news cycle. However, these are simply excuses which hold no merit. Americans believe, and rightfully so, the press has an agenda which advances a liberal worldview contrary to their own.

The reason why many newspapers and network news divisions across the country are in dire financial straits is because these journalistic entities have lost touch with the American people. The facts are: Polling indicates 50% of the American public considers themselves conservative. In contrast, over 90% of the journalistic community is radically liberal. Therefore, this has created a disconnect between the public and the dominant press. Conservative cable news networks like the FOX News Channel are flourishing, while other cable networks including CNN, CNBC, and MSNBC are losing propositions financially. Their ratings continue to plummet while FOX News’ ratings soar.

However, the dominant press still has a tremendous influence on the public. Because most Americans work hard every day and have little time to research issues like health care reform and its impact on their lives, they turn to the major networks for information even though they look at the information with a jaundiced eye. Clearly, our nation is at a turning point like never before in our history. Subsequently, the decisions that are made during the next few voting cycles may determine whether our country will remain that “Shining city on a hill.” I believe the choices that will be made in the voting booth in the near future, be they Democrat or Republican, should result from the public obtaining as much information as they can regarding who they send to Springfield and who they elect to represent them in Washington , D.C.

But where and who can the public trust to provide them with the facts needed to make informed decisions in the voting booth?

The Illinois Family Institute (IFI) Voter Guides, which are currently available, is one way to learn about political candidates in order to make an educated decision regarding the future of America. The Voter Guides are non-partisan. Voters can see where a candidate stands on issues they care about. The IFI Voter Guides can be distributed at churches because they are non-partisan and completely legal under IRS guidelines for distribution in churches.

The IFI Voter Guides can be obtained by downloading them from the web site or by calling the Illinois Family Institute at (708) 781-9328.

The IFI has a Voter Guide for each of Illinois’ 19 Congressional Districts. You can look up your Congressional District HERE or call IFI. The full version of the IFI 2010 Primary Election Voter Guide is available for download HERE. Bulk Voter Guides can be obtained by contacting IFI.

The Illinois Family Institute Voter Guides are a good first step to find candidates who share your values. At this important time in America’s history, we need to do all we can to make informed decisions which will impact our lives, the lives of our children and their children as well.

Americans are wise people. It is no accident that we live in a nation that is truly blessed. Millions have paid the price with their blood for our freedoms. We owe it to the generations before us to do as much as we can to preserve the liberty and the inalienable rights given to us by God. These rights do not come from governments, but government can surely take them away.

The February 2nd Republican and Democratic primaries and the general election in November will have an impact on the road America will take. Standing on the sidelines simply won’t do. Letting someone else make the decisions for us will not do either. Ignorance may be the greatest foe of liberty.

If you’re looking for a family holiday movie that extols pantheism and environmental alarmism while denouncing the genocidal, rapacious history of America, it sounds like Avatar just might fit the bill. The title of John Nolte’s review of Avatar for the website “Big Hollywood” tells it all: “Cameron’s ‘Avatar’ Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC Revenge Fantasy.”

According to New York Times Op-Ed columnist, Ross Douthat,

“Avatar” is Cameron‘s long apologia for pantheism–a faith that equates God with Nature, and calls humanity into religious communion with the natural world. In Cameron’s sci-fi universe, this communion is embodied by the blue-skinned, enviably slender Na’Vi, an alien race whose idyllic existence on the planet Pandora is threatened by rapacious human invaders. The Na’Vi are saved by the movie’s hero, a turncoat Marine, but they’re also saved by their faith in Eywa, the “All Mother,” described variously as a network of energy and the sum total of every living thing.

Douthat explains the reasons that this film will appeal to Americans:

We pine for what we’ve left behind, and divinizing the natural world is an obvious way to express unease about our hyper-technological society. The threat of global warming, meanwhile, has lent the cult of Nature qualities that every successful religion needs–a crusading spirit, a rigorous set of “thou shalt nots,” and a piping-hot apocalypse.

At the same time, pantheism opens a path to numinous experience for people uncomfortable with the literal-mindedness of the monotheistic religions–with their miracle-working deities and holy books, their virgin births and resurrected bodies. As the Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski noted, attributing divinity to the natural world helps “bring God closer to human experience,” while “depriving him of recognizable personal traits.” For anyone who pines for transcendence but recoils at the idea of a demanding Almighty who interferes in human affairs, this is an ideal combination.

Indeed, it represents a form of religion that even atheists can support. Richard Dawkins has called pantheism “a sexed-up atheism.” (He means that as a compliment.) Sam Harris concluded his polemic “The End of Faith” by rhapsodizing about the mystical experiences available from immersion in “the roiling mystery of the world.” Citing Albert Einstein‘s expression of religious awe at the “beauty and sublimity” of the universe, Dawkins allows, “In this sense I too am religious.”

The question is whether Nature actually deserves a religious response. Traditional theism has to wrestle with the problem of evil: if God is good, why does he allow suffering and death? But Nature is suffering and death. Its harmonies require violence. Its “circle of life” is really a cycle of mortality. And the human societies that hew closest to the natural order aren’t the shining Edens of James Cameron’s fond imaginings. They’re places where existence tends to be nasty, brutish and short.

Religion exists, in part, precisely because humans aren’t at home amid these cruel rhythms. We stand half inside the natural world and half outside it. We’re beasts with self-consciousness, predators with ethics, mortal creatures who yearn for immortality.

This is an agonized position, and if there’s no escape upward – or no God to take on flesh and come among us, as the Christmas story has it–a deeply tragic one.

And then there’s lead editor for science fiction and science blog i09, Annalee Newitz, who criticizes Avatar for entirely different reasons. It’s clear that Newitz has drunk deeply from the “critical race theory” well:

Avatar imaginatively revisits the crime scene of white America’s foundational act of genocide, in which entire native tribes and civilizations were wiped out by European immigrants to the American continent. In the film, a group of soldiers and scientists have set up shop on the verdant moon Pandora, whose landscapes look like a cross between Northern California’s redwood cathedrals and Brazil’s tropical rainforest. The moon’s inhabitants, the Na’vi, are blue, catlike versions of native people: They wear feathers in their hair, worship nature gods, paint their faces for war, use bows and arrows, and live in tribes. Watching the movie, there is really no mistake that these are alien versions of stereotypical native peoples that we’ve seen in Hollywood movies for decades.

And Pandora is clearly supposed to be the rich, beautiful land America could still be if white people hadn’t paved it over with concrete and strip malls. In Avatar, our white hero Jake Sully (sully – get it?) explains that Earth is basically a war-torn wasteland with no greenery or natural resources left. The humans started to colonize Pandora in order to mine a mineral called unobtainium that can serve as a mega-energy source. But a few of these humans don’t want to crush the natives with tanks and bombs, so they wire their brains into the bodies of Na’vi avatars and try to win the natives’ trust. Jake is one of the team of avatar pilots, and he discovers to his surprise that he loves his life as a Na’vi warrior far more than he ever did his life as a human marine….a white man who was one of the oppressors switches sides at the last minute, assimilating into the alien culture and becoming its savior….

Our main white characters realize that they are complicit in a system which is destroying aliens, AKA people of color – their cultures, their habitats, and their populations. The whites realize this when they begin to assimilate into the “alien” cultures and see things from a new perspective. To purge their overwhelming sense of guilt, they switch sides, become “race traitors,” and fight against their old comrades. But then they go beyond assimilation and become leaders of the people they once oppressed. This is the essence of the white guilt fantasy, laid bare. It’s not just a wish to be absolved of the crimes whites have committed against people of color; it’s not just a wish to join the side of moral justice in battle. It’s a wish to lead people of color from the inside rather than from the (oppressive, white) outside.

Think of it this way. Avatar is a fantasy about ceasing to be white, giving up the old human meatsack to join the blue people, but never losing white privilege…. Whites need to stop remaking the white guilt story, which is a sneaky way of turning every story about people of color into a story about being white.

The problem with this anti-military, anti-capitalism, anti-American, anti-white film–according to the white Ms. Newitz–is the film isn’t quite anti-white enough.

For the complete review by Ross Douthat, click here

For the complete review by John Nolte, click here

For the complete review by Annalee Newitz, click here 

A little over a year ago, I wrote a column regarding the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services’ (DCFS) supposed confidential hotline.  The DCFS hotline itself was a means by which Illinois citizens could report cases of child abuse and/or neglect.  I had a personal experience regarding the use of the confidential hotline which was disturbing, to say the least.

I was aware of a family who lived near me in which children were exposed to an unhealthy environment according to anyone’s standards.  During a visit to the home, three children (all under the age of ten) were found to be living in filthy conditions.  There was animal excrement on the floors and carpeting which obviously exposed not only the children, but the entire family, to disease.  My wife saw these children walking around in the home barefoot, negotiating their way around feces.  Indeed, when the door to the home was opened, the stench was overwhelming, literally causing us to gag.  While it was apparent that the situation was something this family considered normal, I felt a duty to report this matter to DCFS.

I used the DCFS “confidential” hotline in my attempt to notify the state agency regarding the unhealthy conditions these young children were subjected to.  However, to my surprise, I could not make a “confidential” phone call to a hotline which, for many reasons, is designed to protect the confidentiality of those reporting the abuse and neglect of children.  After inquiries, I was told by a DCFS spokesman that those using the hotline had to reveal their personal information or else DCFS would not document their calls.

After learning this, I contacted major news organizations in Illinois to expose DCFS’ new policy.  It is obvious why a hotline devoted to protecting children must be confidential.  Let me first relate a prior experience I had with the Illinois Dept. of Children and Family Services.

A number of years ago, when I resided in the Chicagoland area, I knew a drug-addicted couple who lived in my neighborhood.  I had known this family for years– in fact, since grade school.  The woman had recently given birth to a child who was born with a drug addiction as a result of her mother’s drug use during pregnancy.  Though I wasn’t at their home often, it was obvious to me that this baby was in grave danger.  After months of observing the family, the child–who was now six months of age– had not gained much weight, if any.  In official terms, this is called “failure to thrive.”  I thought the situation was so serious and life-threatening to this child, I called DCFS, revealing my name to the state agency.  In response to my report to what was then truly a confidential hotline, a DCFS caseworker visited the home. During a visit to the home, the caseworker saw the condition of the infant, who was living in a dark and damp basement while possibly enduring sexual abuse as well.

During the DCFS caseworker’s visit, she made a trip to the bathroom,  leaving her files in clear view of the family who I had reported on. They then looked through the caseworker’s notes and found my name listed as the individual who filed the complaint.

Obviously, the family was not happy with me.  I received threats regarding the incident.  This situation proved to me the importance of confidentiality in reporting instances of child abuse.  (By the way, the baby was ultimately removed from the home due to “failure to thrive.”  The child was adopted by a responsible family member, and, to my knowledge, this child is now leading a happy, healthy life, approaching her college years.)

I relate this story because I now know DCFS’ new policy–which does not allow for reports of child abuse in confidentiality–is putting many thousands of children in danger.  We often hear reports about people who say “I didn’t want to get involved.”  Unfortunately, this is a result of a culture where too many people feel their involvement in what may be a life or death situation for a child (or for anyone for that matter) is not worth what may come back to them regarding their attempt to be a caring member of our society, simply for being good citizens.

The protection of our children should be a priority in our culture.  I do not understand why the mainstream media does not pick up on the story regarding the DCFS hotline and its policy regarding the lack of confidentiality.  However, in essence, DCFS, which I consider a rogue state agency in desperate need of deep and thorough reform, has received a pass from the dominant media, a pass which is putting the lives of children in danger.

Since my original story on the DCFS “confidential” hotline, I have received literally dozens of horror stories regarding the actions of this state-run agency, not all related to the confidentiality issue.  Many of the stories had merit and were heart-breaking.  Other reports I received were simply from disgruntled individuals who disagreed with DCFS’ decision regarding their family.

The duty of the press is to act as a “check and balance” for our government and our society.  The protection of children should be the highest priority of everyone, especially a media which finds itself more interested in political intrigue and the advancement of a liberal political agenda than it does reporting on things that should truly matter.

In these days when child abuse is rampant due to the collapse of pro-family values (i.e., divorce, children born out of wedlock, abortion, etc.), children are treated more as a commodity than they are as human beings.  The mainstream media is filled with stories of abduction, sexual abuse, and murder of the most innocent and vulnerable in our society.  Perhaps if the dominant media reported on an agency whose duty is to protect children, it would reveal the root cause of why children are in danger.  And maybe, just maybe, this is a place the press doesn’t want to go.

Of course, it is past due for our media to start the investigation of Obama that they should have launched during the Democratic primaries and the general election campaign.

If you want some indication of the disarray that the “progressives” find themselves in, consider that disgraced broadcaster Dan Rather will be keynoting a September 23 event sponsored by The Nation magazine on “What Will Become of the News?” The Nation calls Rather “legendary,” ignoring how he was put out to pasture by CBS News after he used fake documents in 2004 to smear then-President Bush. Tickets to hear and see Rather are $200 each.

Rather is a legend in his own mind- and apparently the minds of those left-wingers who appreciate his effort to defeat Bush’s re-election bid and throw the election to Senator John Kerry. However, the effort backfired, thanks to conservative bloggers who exposed Rather’s anti-Bush documents as fake. If liberals want to understand “What Will Become of the News?,” they first have to understand what Rather & Company did to it. They seem ignorant.

Similarly, there are many “progressives” who pretend not to understand why Van Jones had to resign.

One is John Nichols, writing on The Nation website, who says that Jones’ signature on a 9/11 truth statement is comparable to a Republican congressman speaking at a teabagger rally with controversial signs in the audience or a talk-show host agreeing with callers claiming Obama wasn’t born in the U.S.

Liberal blogger Jane Hamsher is mystified as well by the Jones exit, saying she remembers only about a year ago going to a Campaign for America’s Future conference and noticing how Jones “was being swarmed by all of the liberal institutional elite…” But now, “he’s being thrown under the bus…” There are photos of Jones posing with such luminaries as Bono, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama.

On the left-wing website AlterNet, Adele Stan insists that Jones was done in by oil interests. A variation on this theme was offered by Harvey Wasserman on the Rag Blog website, who claims Jones was a victim of “King CONG,” standing for coal, oil, nukes, and gas.

Don Hazen and Arianna Huffington, who, it turns out, once employed Jones, are trying to put a happy face on his ouster, saying that he’ll do better on the outside of government than on the inside. Huffington, who acquired her wealth from her ex-husband, Michael Huffington, who turned out to be a secret homosexual, was one of those whose endorsements had been featured on the back of Jones’ book. She’s got egg all over her face.

(We still need to find out how a sister company of Fox News published the Jones book, The Green Collar Economy).

Nichols and Carl Davidson, also writing on the Rag Blog site, insist that “McCarthyism” did Jones in, which only serves to prove that the left finally understands that Senator Joseph McCarthy did go after real communists.

Jones was a real communist, which makes White House flak Robert Gibbs’ statement to ABC News that Obama “thanks him for his service” very troubling but revealing.

Davidson, a friend of Obama, said my column posted on Saturday night-hours before Jones resigned-was the “motherlode,” meaning that we had connected the dots between Jones and Obama himself, and that scrutiny of Jones would lead to Obama.

Here’s what Davidson said, referring to my column: “Here’s the motherlode piece fueling the rightwing blogosphere that helped bring down Van Jones. The text will show you that it won’t stop here. They will use everything they can to cripple and take down Obama from the right, and will use more and more sham ‘connections,’ such as with me, to do it.”

It’s hardly a “sham connection” when Davidson, a Marxist and former SDS activist, has a history of working with Obama and was a member of the “Progressives for Obama” network. New Zealand blogger Trevor Loudon has all of this and more.

This is what the “progressives” really fear-that Obama himself will be unmasked. It should cause them further indigestion that Loudon was also the first to disclose that Obama’s childhood mentor was Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis. The major media didn’t do much with that revelation last year, but after the Jones debacle things may change. Obama’s radical past didn’t begin in Chicago; it began in Hawaii. There are 600 pages ofDavis’s FBI file that reporters should take the time to go through. A 40-page summary is also available.

Of course, it is past due for our media to start the investigation of Obama that they should have launched during the Democratic primaries and the general election campaign.

We are proud to have played a small role in uncovering the Van Jones scandal but much more needs to be done. We have Freedom of Information Act requests pending with Jones’ former employer, The White House Council on Environmental Quality. It may be difficult for them to frustrate these requests, since we were quite specific about needing information on Jones’ communications via email. It’s time to stop the stonewalling.

Now that Jones has been forced to resign, Trevor Loudon argues that “the focus needs to go on who hired him and why an easily identifiable communist revolutionary with a police record could serve as a presidential adviser.” He explains, “The Obama administration boasted of its extreme vetting procedures, so I find it unlikely that if a blogger from New Zealand could identify Jones as a communist militant that the White House didn’t know.”

AIM is suggesting inquiries to FBI Director Robert Mueller and Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan.

As for Trevor Loudon, he promises, “more to come.” Amen, brother. 

Earlier this year, it was revealed that a number of American newspapers were either greatly downsizing, solely publishing on the Internet, or completely going out of business.  [IFI Media Watch, 04/02/09:  Local and National Newspapers in Deep Financial Troubles: Is Technology or Ideology at Fault?]  However, the print media is not alone regarding the fiscal woes facing many in the field of journalism.
 
It is clear there is a new paradigm concerning how the public now receives information.  The Internet has revolutionized the media in content, presentation, and dissemination of news.
 
Indeed, there are young people who have never picked up a newspaper or waited for the 5 P.M. local television news to find out what’s going on in the world around them.  Print journalism has felt the greatest impact from these changes as a result of the technological boom which has swept across the world during the last two decades. 
 
A prime example of how advancements in technology have played a role in the reporting of news became evident during the social unrest in Iran.  After recent elections, thousands of Iranians demonstrated in the streets.  A government, which was accustomed to controlling what information went out to the world, encountered something they had never dealt with before.  Due to the fact an estimated 70% of the Iranian population is under the age of 25, Twitter, YouTube and FaceBook took the place of major news sources concerning reporting on what was taking place in the streets of Tehran.  The technological know-how of these young Iranians far exceeded that of the government and it took weeks for state officials to come up to speed.
 
But the influence of the Internet has had considerable impact on those who provide local news coverage as well.  In America, station managers are learning to make their news products more relevant to a new generation while attempting to meet the needs of the entire community.
 
“Consumers are getting their news and information from many different sources,” said Frank Whittaker, Station Manager/Vice President of News, NBC 5 Chicago, WMAQ-TV.  “They’re still watching television, but they’re also logging on to websites, watching digital channels, and getting information and pictures from their cell phones.”
 
Indeed, many in news management are learning how to deal with this rapidly-changing field of communications on the fly.  Traditional media outlets must meet the demands of long-time viewers and readers who are sometimes resistant to change, while meeting the ever-developing capabilities of technology which, seemingly, have no limits. 
 
“We need to be where our viewers are,” added Whittaker.  “Our challenge is to make sure our content is distributed on a variety of different platforms.  How we do that, and when we do it, has required us to change our business structure to meet that demand.  No longer do we just produce content for the 6 o’clock news.  Now we distribute content throughout the day, on several platforms.  And our reporters and producers have to be trained in how to make that happen.”
 
Some long-standing methods of news delivery will fall by the wayside in the field of communications.  How this information is provided may take precedence over journalistic quantity and quality.  The challenge to managers in the print media and television is not to sacrifice one for the other. 
 
The public will ultimately judge what it wants, when it wants out, and how much.  Indeed, these are the attributes which make the Internet so attractive to many.  In the same breath, there is a hope that tradition will continue to play a role in news delivery.  Only the future will weed out the wheat from the chaff and it will be the innovative, not the strong, who will survive.

In a democratic republic, good governance is dependent upon an informed citizenry. This is more than a clever saying or catchy motto. The Constitution’s framers gave special consideration to the press in the First Amendment. The Founding Fathers did this because the newly formed government was created by the people and for the people.

Unfortunately, many in the mainstream media have lost sight of this important duty to provide information to Americans without political bias or ideological spin. When the system works the way it was designed, the public can evaluate the merits of legislation. Subsequently, the voter’s wishes are supported or not supported by the elected officials who represent them. However, the only way most Americans receive information on issues involving government is through the media.

Two very important pieces of landmark legislation are now pending in the United States Congress. Health care reform, a plan which many agree would place government in control of one/sixth of the nation’s economy, is now being hotly debated in Washington, D.C. Another crucial bill that would have the potential to drastically change America, referred to as “Cap and Trade,” has already passed in the U.S. House of Representatives and awaits a vote in the U.S. Senate.

One of the most astounding facts regarding these two bills is the lack of information provided by the dominant media concerning exactly what and how these pieces of legislation would effect every citizen. There are those who believe the celebrity status of President Barack Obama has led to this dearth of coverage. Others cite liberal political bias in the press as the reason why the details written into national health care reform and Cap and Trade have not been given the scrutiny these issues deserve.

Of course, it has become clear many politicians themselves, including the President, are not entirely up to speed on what Congress has written into these bills. But, if this is the case, the media has a responsibility to report on this fact as well.

Sadly, journalism in recent years has strayed from its charge to just present the facts. Today, the press does more in the way of commentary than reporting on the hard, cold facts concerning issues that are vitally important to Americans. There has been very little reporting on how a health care system dominated by government control would impact the average individual and family in our country. Questions need to be asked and answered concerning the cost of nationalized health care: Who would benefit from such a program and who would not? Would government bureaucrats be making life and death decisions for patients, rather than doctors, under this proposed bill? How would nationalized health care impact small businesses? These are all crucial queries which should not be hidden in the fine print.

Supporters of the Cap and Trade bill admit it would drastically raise the cost of energy for every family in America. The legislation would have an impact far beyond the monthly energy bills. There are legitimate concerns regarding how Cap and Trade might lead to hyper-inflation, due to costs passed along to consumers by businesses who would also face higher operating costs if this proposed legislation is signed into law.

Americans should not have to scour the Internet looking for answers regarding these issues. Yet it is apparent that a vast majority of the public knows little about Cap and Trade or how health care reform would change their lives– for good or bad.

The failure of the media to adequately report on subjects of such great importance represents a gross dereliction of duty. The special consideration given to the Fourth Estate by the U.S. Constitution demands more. Indeed, our nation’s current form of government needs information from the media offered without political bias or ideological bent, in order to perform as it was designed.

Some may say the concerns I have addressed here are over-stated. But, to the contrary, America may find itself at a point of no return. Therefore, those who toil in the journalistic profession must do some deep soul-searching. When the press fails to do its duty, dire consequences can occur.

Honest journalism is a necessity. This should be sought by every American–Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal.

After Barack Obama’s controversial visit to the University of Notre Dame where he gave the commencement speech to the graduating class of 2009, many in the mainstream media believed the President won the day.  Mr. Obama’s flowery words calling for “compromise” over the issue of abortion supposedly threw water on the heated debate over the dispatch of the innocent unborn–which he supports.
 
However, Obama’s trip to Notre Dame did more for the pro-life cause than many realized.  The issue of abortion was front and center in the media for at least a month, due to the flap over a pro-abortion president being honored by the nation’s preeminent Catholic University.  There were some on the pro-life side who felt victory would only be achieved if Notre Dame rescinded its invitation to Obama.  In fact, at first, I was among those who held that opinion.  But, in reality, a tremendous victory was achieved because the mainstream media was forced to focus on the issue of abortion, and this would not have happened without Obama coming to Notre Dame. 
 
I believe the more Americans learn about the tragedy which has resulted from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 landmark decision in the case titled Roe v. Wade, the better.  Because of Obama’s Notre Dame visit, a plethora of polls were taken which revealed–for the first time in over 45 years–most Americans now support the rights of the innocent unborn.
 
A recent Gallup Poll indicated that 51% of Americans describe themselves as pro-life while only 42% say they are pro-choice.  A Rasmussen Report told us 58% of Americans believe abortion is morally wrong most of the time, compared with 25% who do not think abortion is morally wrong.
 
A Pew Poll taken earlier this year revealed 46% of Americans think abortion should be legal in most cases or all cases–while 44% of Americans think abortion should be illegal in most or all cases.  [These figures  are within the margin of error, indicating a virtual dead heat.]  According to Operation Rescue [www.StopObamaNotreDame.com (no longer exists)] these numbers represent “a stunning 10% change from just last August when 54% of Americans said that abortion should be legal in most cases.”
 
Another poll taken by FOX News directly before Obama appeared at Notre Dame said 49% of Americans considered themselves pro-life, compared to 43% who say they are “pro-choice.”
 
What has brought about this seed change in the opinions of the public regarding the issue of abortion? 
 
Certainly, advancements in medical technology have proven unborn babies are not simply “globs of tissue” which organizations like Planned Parenthood (the largest abortion provider in the U.S.) would like us to believe.  Most women, through technology, including ultrasound, can now see their babies in the womb.  Indeed, operations on the preborn have become commonplace. 
 
Documentaries have followed the development of babies from conception to birth.  In reality, the mainstream media–which, for the most part, has been hostile to the right to life movement–have played an unwitting role in efforts to educate the public concerning the viability of the unborn through such programming.  Many of these factors have combined to state the obvious.   
 
But Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame may have led to, by far, more public enlightenment regarding abortion than anything.  The press was forced to cover the issue.  There was no escape from the subject, which drove the controversy surrounding Obama’s visit to a Catholic University.  The situation laid open a door for discussion which is usually closed by those in the left-leaning media.
 
It is said evil is allowed to flourish in the darkness.  However, what many thought would be a political coup for supporters of abortion turned out to be quite the opposite.  The “dirty little secret” regarding abortion was exposed to the light of day in America.  It was a subject for discussion around office water coolers instead of being a topic obscured by the rhetoric of politics.  Abortion and the positions held by those who support the horrific procedure were made known to all who cared to know. 
 
I’m sure there are many who do not believe the controversy over a pro-abortion politician being honored by a Catholic institution was worth it.  However, sometimes the Lord works in mysterious ways, and, perhaps, what many believed would be a disaster has instead ended up stimulating the debate over what truly matters–the lives of innocent unborn children.

After Barack Obama’s controversial visit to the University of Notre Dame where he gave the commencement speech to the graduating class of 2009, many in the mainstream media believed the President won the day.  Mr. Obama’s flowery words calling for “compromise” over the issue of abortion supposedly threw water on the heated debate over the dispatch of the innocent unborn–which he supports.

However, Obama’s trip to Notre Dame did more for the pro-life cause than many realized.  The issue of abortion was front and center in the media for at least a month, due to the flap over a pro-abortion president being honored by the nation’s preeminent Catholic University.  There were some on the pro-life side who felt victory would only be achieved if Notre Dame rescinded its invitation to Obama.  In fact, at first, I was among those who held that opinion.  But, in reality, a tremendous victory was achieved because the mainstream media was forced to focus on the issue of abortion, and this would not have happened without Obama coming to Notre Dame.

I believe the more Americans learn about the tragedy which has resulted from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 landmark decision in the case titled Roe v. Wade, the better.  Because of Obama’s Notre Dame visit, a plethora of polls were taken which revealed–for the first time in over 45 years–most Americans now support the rights of the innocent unborn.

A recent Gallup Poll indicated that 51% of Americans describe themselves as pro-life while only 42% say they are pro-choice.  A Rasmussen Report told us 58% of Americans believe abortion is morally wrong most of the time, compared with 25% who do not think abortion is morally wrong.

A Pew Poll taken earlier this year revealed 46% of Americans think abortion should be legal in most cases or all cases–while 44% of Americans think abortion should be illegal in most or all cases.  [These figures  are within the margin of error, indicating a virtual dead heat.]  According to Operation Rescue [www.StopObamaNotreDame.com] these numbers represent “a stunning 10% change from just last August when 54% of Americans said that abortion should be legal in most cases.”

Another poll taken by FOX News directly before Obama appeared at Notre Dame said 49% of Americans considered themselves pro-life, compared to 43% who say they are “pro-choice.”

What has brought about this seed change in the opinions of the public regarding the issue of abortion?

Certainly, advancements in medical technology have proven unborn babies are not simply “globs of tissue” which organizations like Planned Parenthood (the largest abortion provider in the U.S.) would like us to believe.  Most women, through technology, including ultrasound, can now see their babies in the womb.  Indeed, operations on the preborn have become commonplace.

Documentaries have followed the development of babies from conception to birth.  In reality, the mainstream media–which, for the most part, has been hostile to the right to life movement–have played an unwitting role in efforts to educate the public concerning the viability of the unborn through such programming.  Many of these factors have combined to state the obvious.

But Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame may have led to, by far, more public enlightenment regarding abortion than anything.  The press was forced to cover the issue.  There was no escape from the subject, which drove the controversy surrounding Obama’s visit to a Catholic University.  The situation laid open a door for discussion which is usually closed by those in the left-leaning media.

It is said evil is allowed to flourish in the darkness.  However, what many thought would be a political coup for supporters of abortion turned out to be quite the opposite.  The “dirty little secret” regarding abortion was exposed to the light of day in America.  It was a subject for discussion around office water coolers instead of being a topic obscured by the rhetoric of politics.  Abortion and the positions held by those who support the horrific procedure were made known to all who cared to know.

I’m sure there are many who do not believe the controversy over a pro-abortion politician being honored by a Catholic institution was worth it.  However, sometimes the Lord works in mysterious ways, and, perhaps, what many believed would be a disaster has instead ended up stimulating the debate over what truly matters–the lives of innocent unborn children.

The television broadcast giant CBS should take severe action against David Letterman for several crude sexual jokes he made recently on CBS’ “The Late Show” about Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her teenage daughter.

According to a Fox News report, Letterman, in his monologue Tuesday night (June 9), noted that the 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate attended a Yankees game during a trip to New York City, where she was honored by a charity which helps people with disabilities. Letterman referred to Palin, Alaska’s governor, as having the style of a “slutty flight attendant.”

The “Late Show” host also took a shot at Palin’s 14-year-old daughter, joking: “One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game,” Letterman said, “during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez.” And the studio audience laughed.

Can you imagine Letterman making such jokes about other, liberal political figures? Can you imagine him saying Hillary Clinton looking “slutty?” Or making sexual jokes about President Obama’s daughters? The liberal media would be all over him and CBS would likely fire him. But Gov. Palin is fair game because she is a Christian woman who is pro-life and stands for traditional family values.

It is time for the Christian-bashing to stop. And make no mistake, that is what is going on here. Gov. Palin does not deserve these attacks and CBS needs to hear from fair-minded Americans that they — CBS — and Letterman owe Gov. Palin and her family a public apology.

On Wednesday, however, Letterman refused to fully apologize for his comments, simply saying they were in “poor taste” as “an act of desperation to get cheap laughs. According to an article on One News Now, on NBC’s Today Show, Sarah Palin said that’s not good enough and that David Letterman owes an apology to young women across the country for his joke about her daughter.

For years, traditional Catholics and Evangelical Christians have been under a withering attack from the mainstream media.  Those who take their faith seriously are usually depicted as everything from intolerant bigots to Bible-quoting serial killers in movies and television.  Indeed, when Christians are portrayed in a positive light by the media it is something unusual.

Sadly, many dismiss this anti-Christian agenda as nothing more than entertainment.  The same can be said for the political schism which exists in America today.  “It’s just politics,” is the opinion held by many Americans who are not aware of the dangers that may confront people of faith and the pro-family movement in the very near future.

Currently, there is legislation working its way through Congress which would define Scripture as possible hate speech.  The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill which will set aside a group of people and give them special protection under the law.  A hate crimes bill–which will almost certainly become law–may place those who espouse traditional values in great legal jeopardy.

No, it’s not just politics any more.  Supported by the dominant media, politicians on the left are taking full advantage of a situation which has the potential to threaten religious liberty and the freedom of speech guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

For example, one of the groups which will be granted special protections under this new bill, if passed, include homosexuals, bisexuals, transgendered, and others whose choice of lifestyle has become politically correct–not only in society, but under the law as well–if some have their way.

What does this mean to Christians, Orthodox Jews, and others who hold conservative views in respect to subjects like traditional marriage and abortion?  The answer to this question should put a chill through reasonable people–both on the right and left.

The hate crimes bill pending in Congress may actually silence members of the clergy from preaching Biblical principles.  It would not be outside the realm of possibility to see a Minister, Priest, or Rabbi one day charged with inciting hate for relating God’s word on subjects which may be contrary to evolving societal norms.

In an article on FOX NEWS.com, referring to the hate crimes legislation, “In and of itself this law can be applied to speech.  The nature of assault — putting someone in fear of their safety — what will that mean for someone preaching against homosexuality?” asked Mathew Staver, founder of the Liberty Council, a law firm that works on religious freedom cases.  “It elevates homosexuality to the same protective category as race.  It’s all part of the radical homosexual anarchist agenda.”

Of course, Mr. Staver hit the nail right on the head with his comment.  The question is:  Do those of us who cherish the ideals of free speech and religious liberty remain silent and wait for the day when we are standing in front of a pad-locked church or in a courtroom where we are defending ourselves from charges of hate?  Truly, in those days, our silence will no longer be our choice.  It may be mandatory, under the law.

This is why organizations like the Illinois Family Institute (IFI) are so important.  IFI is in the front lines, defending pro-family values in Illinois.  The hate crimes bill violates the Constitution in at least one important way.  Americans are guaranteed “equal” protection under the law.  However, if passed, the current hate crimes bill will relegate the faithful to second-class citizens.

I’ve never said this before in a column.  I know times are hard for many Americans, economically.  But if you have the resources, perhaps it is time to express support for organizations like the Illinois Family Institute before it is too late.  Janet Napolitano, the head of Homeland Security, has already made it clear– some believe veterans, right to life activists, and those who fight against illegal immigration are possible extremists who also may become terrorists.  If this kind of rhetoric does not prove the danger is very real, nothing will.

So, I’m asking anyone who thinks this fight is worthwhile to get out their check book and send whatever you can to the Illinois Family Institute.  Information on how to donate to IFI is below.   It is a donation that will not be wasted and will be put to good use in the attempt to defend your rights.