Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
12:07 PM
Listen, read, watch the real life conversations between young girls and actual Planned Parenthood clinics. The crimes these phone counselors are committing is collusion with statutory rapists.
Call your Senator today and demand that they defund Planned Parenthood. 202.224.3121
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
10:18 AM
Drudge has the actual letter:
May 15, 2007
Senator Fred Thompson
American Enterprise Institute
110 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Senator Thompson,
Given that it has been publicly reported in The Weekly Standard, a leading neo-conservative publication, that you support Fidel Castro and the Cuban regime by being a purveyor of fine Cuban exports despite the trade embargo, I was surprised to see your recent op ed in a more traditional conservative outlet, The National Review, regarding my trip to Cuba (I suspect you choose The National Review in an effort to pander to an outlet that had criticized you for your opposition to medical malpractice legislation).
In your May 2, 2007 National Review article, "Paradise Island," you specifically raised concerns about whether my trip to Cuba with 9/11 heroes, who have suffered serious health problems as a result of their exposure to toxic substances at Ground Zero that have gone untreated was somehow going to support Castro ad the Cuban government:
"It always leaves me shaking my head when I read about some big-time actor or director going to Cuba and gushing all over Castro."
Putting aside the fact that you, like the Bush Administration, seem far more concerned about the trip to Cuba than the health care of these 9/11 heroes, I was struck by the fact that your concerns (including comments about CastroÕs reported financial worth) apparently do not extend to your own conduct, as reported in The Weekly Standard's April 23, 2007 story, "From the Courthouse to the White House Fred Thompson auditions for the leading role" (emphasis added):
"Thompson's work space looks just like what the home office of a successful politician or CEO should look like -- though a little messier: a large desk, dark wood, leather furniture, lots of books and magazines and newspapers, a flat-screen TV, and box upon box of cigars -- Montecristos from Havana."
In light of your comments regarding Cuba and Castro, do you think the "box upon box of cigars -- Montecristos from Havana" that you have in your office have contributed to CastroÕs reported wealth?
While I will leave it up to the conservatives to debate your hypocrisy and the Treasury Department to determine whether the "box upon box of cigars" violates the trade embargo, I hereby challenge you to a health care debate.
Survey after survey has indicated that health care is one of the top issues to the American voters. Today, more than 46 million people lack health are coverage, including 9 million children. We pay significantly more than any other country in the world -- and get less back. Americans life expectancy is lower than other Ground Zero 9/11 workers live in a society where the Bush Administration has shown more concern about their travel than about their health.
Our debate would provide you an opportunity to appeal to the right wing of the Republican Party by continuing to attack me; it would give me a chance to discuss health care and tell you exactly what happened in Cuba, given your apparent inters; and it would provide the American people an opportunity to see just how serious Hollywood can be, with a purported conservative and an avowed progressive Hollywood personality on stage.
Over the course of the debate, we could specifically address the following issues:
(1) Your work as a lobbyist in light of the fact that the health care and insurance industries have maintained the current health care system through their effective control of the political establishment.
(2) The fact that you raised hundred of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the health care and insurance industries.
(3) Discuss the fact, highlighted in yet another conservative outlet The New York Sun, that you inexplicably wanted to cut funding for AIDS research.
(4) Your relationship with the First family and by extension HCA, one of the nation's largest for-profit hospital chains. It has been reported that former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (who was renowned for his over-the-television-screen Schiavo diagnosis) is serving as one of your confidantes on your potential presidential campaign. The Frist family has historically controlled HCA, which paid a record $1.7 billion in civil and criminal fines, including a $631 million penalty for Medicaid fraud -- in other words, ripping off the taxpayers.
(5) Discussing whether Arthur Branch, as the District Attorney of Manhattan, supports a woman's right to choose, gun safety reforms, gay marriage, the trans fat ban and anti-smoking laws (which would impact Cuban cigars, including your Montecristos).
Like American Idol, we could even have the country vote to determine which one of us wins the debate. Though in the spirit of full disclosure, I feel obligated to forewarn you that I was the winner of the 1971-72 Detroit Free Press Debate Award for the state of Michigan.
The winner of our health care debate could even light a Victory cigar with one of your Montecristos (though we may want to consider shopping them to the safe house where I have put a master copy of SiCKO in the event that the Bush Administration tries to seize the film).
Sincerely,
Michael Moore
Monday, May 14, 2007
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
1:56 PM
This piece in the Washington Times is very telling.
Christian leaders are ready to throw their support behind Fred Thompson if/when he runs. In speaking to one of America's most prominent pollsters on Friday evening - such a move would seriously impact the Giuliani numbers, and all but eliminate the need for the Romney campaign to exist.
Nothing against Romney - I know of number of Christians - some high profile - that are willing vote Mitt if Fred's not there.
But for Christians it looks like Fred's the man!
Monday, May 14, 2007
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
1:25 PM
I pointed out in my syndicated column this week that Rudy Giuliani's logical collapse on abortion is centered around the personhood of the child.
Liberals are victims of this same dilemma. But now they are confusing personhood with apeness, or chimphood, or monkeyization...
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
1:05 PM
Color me unimpressed.
And really - I was surprisingly unimpressed with the whole thing. Just saying, "I'm going to keep us on offense" doesn't tell me much. Except for the specifics of "keeping the Patriot Act" and electronic surveillance of terrorist planks - this speech as a whole is pretty vapid. I mean we're talking Barack Obama territory. From the time he starts on marriage to guns to abortion to the "we need to be a big tent" party... it is VOID of substance.
I'm not sure he knows what a true "strict constructionist" judge is either. He kept repeating that when it came to guns and abortion - that's the kind of judge he'd look for. His record seems to show that he wouldn't know what one looked like if it him between the eyes.
And evidently the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire are losing interest...
Friday, May 11, 2007
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
1:50 PM
We've already covered two important issues of distinction between Mormons and Christians. The first was the Authority of Sacred Texts, The second - the non-negotiable doctrine of man's depravity/original sin.
Of all the reasons Mormons have pleaded with Christians to "please call us Christians too" has been the idea that "saying we love 'Jesus Christ' " should in fact be enough. This thinking isolated as its own argument is utterly ridiculous - and under such would have made the Branch Davidians or the Jim Jones followers "Christians" as well.
The issue of "loving Jesus Christ" depends fully upon WHO Jesus Christ is. And the Jesus Christ of Mormonism is a different Jesus - one of Joseph Smith's imagination - than is the Jesus of the Bible.
Let's examine some of the differences.
Biblical Christians believe that Jesus Christ, God the Son, existed eternally. Jesus Christ always was, and always will be. He existed before Abraham, and before Adam. The biblical term of "firstborn over all creation" in the biblical text is the word prototokos which means "preeminent one, or first in rank." Christians also believe that Jesus Christ is the "only begotten" Son.
Mormons believe their Jesus was "born of heavenly parents." This belief stems from another doctrinal issue the belief that the Mormon God the Father had many spirit wives and that Jesus was conceived in the sexual union with one of these wives. Thus the Mormon Jesus is born of a procreative act. Thusly they also hold that there were many other "spirit children" of the Mormon God the Father.
Lastly Christians clearly believe the biblical text when it ascribes attributes to Lucifer, who became Satan after is fall - as a created angel - a cherub. Mormons believe that Lucifer was actually a spirit brother to the Mormon Jesus.
Kirby Anderson states it this way:
Mormonism teaches that Jesus and Lucifer were involved in planning mankind's eternal destiny. In order to attain godhood like our heavenly parents, the spirit children needed to leave the presence of their heavenly Father, inhabit a physical body, and live a worthy life. Elohim knew that mankind would sin and thus require a savior to pay for sin and show us how to return to our heavenly father. At the heavenly council, Jesus and Lucifer proposed their plans. Lucifer offered to go to earth and be the savior but he wanted to force everyone to be saved and do everything himself. Jesus desired to give man the freedom of choice. The Father chose Jesus' plan. Angered by the decision, Lucifer persuaded one third of the spirit children to rebel and a war in heaven took place between Satan's forces and Jesus and His followers. Lucifer was defeated, cast out of heaven, and denied the right to inhabit mortal bodies.
This makes for some fascinating imaginative story telling...
But to Christians its blatant apostate heresy.
No one on this forum has said that Mormons must change their beliefs. They are much allowed as we all are to hold those beliefs in their hearts that the cherish most. But Biblical Christians do not worship the Mormon Jesus, and Mormons do not worship the Biblical Jesus. And it is heresy to Christianity to say otherwise.
And there is not getting past this divide. Thus Mormons place themselves outside the circle of Christianity and firmly inside the circle of Mormonism.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
9:44 AM
Today Rudy Giuliani is slated to set the record straight on his all-to-confusing back and forths on abortion. He is expected to state that he is personally pro-life (and always has been) but as a matter of public policy has been and will continue to be pro-abortion.
Carl Cameron has just busted Giuliani on Fox News this very minute.
Fox News has obtained a 1997 NARAL/PAC survey. Out of 10 questions on the survey, Rudy went 10 for 10 in favor of abortion.
He opposed parental notification, limits on late term (partial-birth) abortions.
He adamantly supported tax-payer funding for abortion.
Rudy's in deep trouble. And the fact that this NARAL survey response sheet has surfaced will essentially negate any overtures he might have tried to make to the pro-life voters he will need to win the nomination.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
9:38 AM
In the attempt to prove the point that Christians need not necessarily be afraid to vote for a Mormon for President, much confusion, and hysteria has been birthed. Atheists like Chris Hitchens have also mucked up the works by forcing marginally "Christian" characters like Al Sharpton to make theological assertions.
Many Mormons have expressed shock and surprise to discover that Christians do not consider Mormons to be Christians. Simple explanations such as, "If you don't hold to Christian doctrine, then you are not in fact Christian" has not seemed to satisfy this shock. Thus I have begun a multi-part series of explanation as to why Mormons and Christians are distinct.
In the last post I touched on the "sacred texts."
This installment will address one of the most essential key doctrinal differences - the theological assertion of "original sin."
Original sin refers to the depravity of man. Scriptures are replete with this assertion.
Romans 3:23: "For ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."
Christians believe that once Adam fell, that all of man kind has been born with the willful, selfish, craven desire to "do what I want." Parents easily see this in the will of their toddlers. But the point in Christian doctrine says that left to our own devices mankind would miss the mark of God's standard. Everyone has - no exceptions. The "sin nature" is in born in the heart of every person, and thus the need for salvation through Christ's death and resurrection to be "born again." The view that we can not save ourselves and that it is only Christ who can save us drives home our total dependency upon God's truth (scripture) and God's son (Jesus Christ) to receive God's salvation.
Mormons believe that there is no such thing as "original sin" or "human depravity." Mormon doctrine would essentially allow a "good person" to conceivably live their entire life and not be found guilty of having committed sin. And while they argue that mankind is not depraved, they then attempt to justify the need of an "atoning work" of Christ. But it begs the question - if mankind is not depraved - what atonement is necessary?
The rejection of the biblical, scriptural, textual view that man is born into sin - because of Adam's original sin is a key doctrine to the Christian faith. In other words it's one of the non-negotiables, one can not be a Christian - by definition one who aligns themselves with Christian teaching - if they reject that same teaching.
Mormons reject the absolute need of salvation, because they reject the condition that produces that need.
Since the depravity of man/the need of salvation is one of if not the central belief of Christianity - by definition Mormons place themselves outside the circle of Christianity.
As I have said repeatedly - we are NOT electing a "pastor" or "spiritual shepherd" to the office of President. In essence what we are hiring is a CEO. As such what we need to know from the hiring candidates has more to do with character - is he/she an honest person, competent in what they do, do they have a proven track record, and most importantly - do they hold the position on the issues that you do. If so - their faith is truly a secondary matter.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
12:59 PM
One thing is certain, Joseph Farah and Rick Warren will never be buddies. And by a biblical measure maybe they never should be.
Rick Warren is in large part, one of the problems when it comes to why Christianity as it is expressed in the "seeker sensitive" circles today has become nearly useless. Warren even went so far as to allow Barack Obama to come preach the gospel of condoms on his own stage, in his church's auditorium, from behind the podium that Rick uses. (All the while Rick claimed he would never allow Obama "in the pulpit.")
Well if WND's claim that Rupert Murdoch is a born-again Christian, better yet that Rick Warren is in fact his spiritual shepherd, than Murdoch and Warren both need to be taken to the woodshed over a believer's responsibility towards the stewardship of morality in the world around them.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
12:29 PM
According to U.S. Border Patrol...
The United States will have "operational control" of its border with Mexico by 2013 as it builds walls, installs surveillance equipment and beefs up manpower to keep out illegal immigrants, U.S. Border Patrol Director David Aguilar said on Wednesday.
He said currently there are plans to put up 370 miles of walls, but a high-tech network of radar, satellite technology, unmanned aerial vehicles and communications equipment will keep watch on most of the 2,000-mile border.
"We will have the capability to detect, classify, identify, respond to and resolve those border incursions," Aguilar told a border security conference.
"I made the statement that the U.S. Border Patrol will have operational control of that border by 2013," he said to reporters later.
Wow... so if the terrorists don't hit us for SIX YEARS, good Lord willin', and prayin' that de creek don't rise...
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
12:16 PM
In the back and forth over the bigoted barking terrier Al Sharpton's questioning of Mitt Romney's sincere commitment to his faith, the time has finally come for some basics between Christians and Mormons to be explained.
I have attempted in more subtle ways to point out - that it is perfectly acceptable - even agreeable to allow Mormons and Christians to disagree on what divides them. Hugh Hewitt has written a superb book on why such differences don't have to be a dividing point when attempting to achieve a political end - and on Hugh's point we both agree.
Where I must differ is with the constant meme's on TownHall and elsewhere that decries ANY differences between the groups as bigotry. Differences are differences - they can not be gotten around. Bigotry would be the lesser treatment of an individual on the basis of such differences. And sinice Mormons and Christians are NOT one and the same - many have requested that I point out what distinctions do exist.
1. The use of divine texts - also called "SCRIPTURE":
Christians in the Apostolic tradition (which Mormons reject) view the Biblical text as inspired "God breathed" and authoritative. There is careful textual instruction to not "add to" nor "take away from" the texts.
Mormons however allow the biblical text as sacred (not necessarily authoritative), and couple with it, "The Pearl of Great Price", "Doctrines and Covenants", and "The Book of Mormon."
Put in civic history terms - these are two different nations with two different constitutions.
Does this mean Mormons can't serve as President - HOGWASH - nothing could be further from the truth. What it does mean is that Mormons are Mormons - and not Christians, and the texts by which they govern their liturgy, practice, theology, and evangelism - are the distinguishing difference.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
11:23 AM
See whenever someone is running for office - particularly leftist commie types - they ALL resort to the same theme.
Putin's analogy came as a small part of a larger speech in which he unambiguously congratulated Russian veterans of World War II, known here as the Great Patriotic War.
Speaking from a podium in front of Lenin's Mausoleum on Red Square before troops mustered for a military parade, Putin called Victory Day a holiday of "huge moral importance and unifying power" for Russia and went on to enumerate the lessons of that conflict for the world today.
"We do not have the right to forget the causes of any war, which must be sought in the mistakes and errors of peacetime," Putin said.
"Moreover, in our time, these threats are not diminishing," he said as he delved into what one expert said was clearly an allusion to U.S. foreign policy. "They are only transforming, changing their appearance. In these new threats - as during the time of the Third Reich - are the same contempt for human life and the same claims of exceptionality and diktat in the world."
Which is fine because the Lovely Bride is more intent on now visiting Paris than Moscow.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
8:55 AM
Ok... let's get it on. Two days ago I began the discussion as to why the "new evangelists" of atheism are flailing and wailing in their efforts.
YouTubers took to the discussion like bees on honey. Nearly all of them attempting to dispute my basic premise. Being a good sport... we're taking it one more level. Feel free to jump in on the conversation!
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
7:50 AM
Sharpton just finished appearing on Paula Zahn in response to the memes coming from the Romney camp saying he had made a bigoted statement when discussing the history of slavery in the Mormon church in a recent debate with Christopher Hitchens.
First of all - it was most interesting that none of Sharpton's critics had to this point mentioned the fact that it was Hitchens who initiated the matter in the debate two nights ago. Hitchens pointed out that up until 1965 the Mormon doctrine held to the idea that the "Sons of Shem" were lesser humans.
Blacks have the right to be offended at such a theological doctrinal position in any faith system.
Sharpton reasserted after Zahn played the clip at least twice, that he was in fact making a theological distinction between the non-bibliocentric view of the Jesus/God that Mormons worship, and that of Evangelicals, Catholics, and Orthodox.
The statement that Sharpton made WAS bigoted - not on substance but rather because he questioned Romney's sincerety.
Let's face it Jews don't recognize Jesus and therefore they believe that Christians are not "true" believers. (Of course they are not by Jewish doctrine.) Christians see that Jews don't recognize Christ's diety and assert that Jews are not "true" believers - because unless they practice Messianic Judaism - they do not recognize Christ the Messiah. Neither Jews nor Christians view Mormons as "true" believers because according to their doctrines they aren't. To recognize these differences is NOT bigoted.
What Sharpton did was question Romney's genuine belief. Sharpton was claiming that Romney didn't truly hold to his beliefs.
The problem with giving the Nappy-Headed Reverend his 16th and 17th and 18th and 19th and 20th minute in the spotlight on this issue is that now he has given the occassion of the remarks context, and in doing so he has figured out how to REALLY pummel Romney amongst African American voters. (Many of whom would have been sympathetic to MANY of Romney's ideas.)
Now - when it comes to mainstream blacks Sharpton's bullhorn will repeatedly imply that Romney is racist because he was part of the LDS prior to the retraction of the racist "Sons of Shem" doctrine.
This all could have been avoided all together if everyone had given the yapping terrier Sharpton the dignity his original statement deserved - NONE!
This was a bad night for Romney, Republicans, Blacks, and the election of 2008.
The heartbreak reality is - it didn't need to be...
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
7:26 PM
There is not a doubt in my mind that Mitt Romney is a better Mormon than Al Sharpton is Christian. In fact it might be said (to hearken back to what John Mark Reynolds wrote in the rather-too-lengthy pieces Hugh cited here) that Mitt Romney is more Christian than Al Sharpton as well.
Having said that it doesn't take six overwrought columns from an Orthodox Christian for evangelicals to come to clarity on the matter.
Evangelicals will need to determine if Mitt's leadership competency measures up to their own standards. Moral considerations, even faith considerations - CAN BE ALLOWED in a Christian's discernment in choosing who to vote for.
Al Sharpton is a bigot (his aim at Imus and faux ignorance of the "hip-hop" issue for example)- and it doesn't take Paula Zahn, Kevin McCullough, or Hugh Hewitt to point it out. We ARE however giving Reverend Al WAYYYYYY to much spotlight in keeping it going.
Though he is NOT qualified to say as much Sharpton was making a theological statement. His belief is that Romney does not worship at the altar of the one true God - the God of the Bible (for Evangelicals, Catholics, Orthodox, and Jews). EVANGELICALS do not believe this either - biblical ones don't anyway.
SHOULD THAT BE the criteria for a person's vote? Probably not - depending on the available options. But voices who are not comfortable voting for a Mormon - because they may for example believe it to be a cult - should also not be excoriated.
Romney was on my show at CPAC. He and his campaign have been on several times since - and will be again. I like him as a man, think he has a lovely family, and he may yet earn my vote. His new campaign commercial "I like vetoes" is a good example of why he would.
All said his character is more important in the position of President than the practice of his faith. And on the issue of character he's given no sign that should cause any evangelical any concern...
|