A vehicle for venting on philosophy, religion, and the general state of things. Proprietor: C. W. Powell

Friday, October 07, 2005

: "Republican Senate Is Weak, Not Bush"

A great article by a great American. All you conservatives who are angry with Bush ought to read this.

Thursday, October 06, 2005 :: Columns :: President Bush, paradigm-changer by Marvin Olasky: " Heart: In so many ways, this appointment is classic Bush. Nearly six years ago, when asked in an early debate among Republican presidential candidates to name his favorite philosopher, W. famously said, 'Christ, because he changed my heart.' The pooh-poohing of his answer then (favorite philosopher -- the question was about mind, not heart) anticipated the current debate among conservatives: suffering servant? Why not intellectual leader?

It's George W. Bush's analysis that 'heart' is crucial, since a good mind by itself also does not a great justice make. We may end up having been bamboozled by this nominee, in which case the Republican Party will pay a heavy price. But give Bush credit for going beyond the assumption that the person who would be the best constitutional law professor makes the best nominee. He has not only nominated a justice, but implicitly called for a paradigm shift in conservative thinking. "


Heart Posted by Picasa

"Keep thy heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issue of life," said Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, except Jesus who was Solomon's wisdom. Yes, and that means the issues before the Supreme Court, too. The failure of the Supreme Court over the past one hundred years as not been a failure of intellect or judicial experience, but a failure of heart. A person with a bad heart and a great brain produces clever arguments for bad causes [Johnny Cochrain and O. J. Simpson come to mind]. Brilliant minds and judicial legerdemain that gave us Roe vs. Wade [an ephemerial finding of the right of privacy to justify the murder of infants--THAT was a triumph of brains and judicial experience over heart].

Justice Earl Warren, in the most famous equity decision in the history of the Court, skewered both brains and judicial experience in the most famous exchange in this history of the debate over whether or not blacks would be treated with equality in schools. After hearing brains and judicial experience argue for segregated schools and states right, he asked the question, "Yes, but is it fair?" Score: Heart 1; brains 0. Someone needs to ask a similar questions to the pro-abortionists and pro-gay marriage lobby: : "Yes, but is it moral?" Liberals dasn't ask the question, and conservatives are too chicken. Moral are private, you know, like in, "I personally am against abortion, but believe in a woman's right to choose. Let's keep morals out of the public debate. the right to choose, even if it means murder, is above morality, requiring brains and judicial experience to understand."

From what I have heard of Harriet Miers, she might just be the tough cookie to ask the question. Communism had many very bright people and Marxist judges in America and abroad had a wealth of judicial experience. But what good is all that with a rotten heart? There are very bright conservatives with rotten hearts, for the heart is not cleansed by political or judicial philosophy. Liberalism does not even want to ask the question, "What is a good heart?" or "What is a good person?" Liberalism is so morally and spiritually bankrupt that it wouldn't know a good heart if it stumbled over one in the brightness of noon sunlight.

Only God knows the heart and this writer certainly doesn't know whether or not Harriet Miers has a good one. But it might be a risk worth taking. As Paschal said, "The heart has its reasons that reason knows nothing of." It is time for the Supreme Court to connect with the conscience of America. There is no question where the conscience of America is with respect to abortion and gay marriage.

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

The American Thinker: "Ms. Miers has actually managed a business, a substantial one with hundreds of employees, and has had to meet a payroll and conform to tax, affirmative acttion, and other regulatory demands of the state. She has also been highly active in a White House during wartime, when national security considerations have been a matter of life and death. When the Supreme Court deliberates in private, I think most conservatives would agree that having such a perspective at hand is a good thing, not a bad thing."
Well, well, well. A Supreme Court justice with common sense and business experience? And conservatives are upset with this? Maybe they would rather have a blue state elitist.

Sunday, October 02, 2005

What's Not Evolving Is Public Opinion: "But here's the kicker: Although neither evolution nor creationism is accepted by a sizable majority, upwards of two-thirds of the public over the past 20 years has supported teaching both accounts of the origins of life. Even among proponents of natural selection, a majority wants students to be exposed to creationism. And a large minority of Americans -- around 40 percent in both the Gallup and Pew polls -- says that creationism should be taught instead of evolution."

Drives 'em crazy, of course. Jesus put it this way, "Heaven and earth may pass away but my words will not pass away." The words of the Bible cannot be removed from the minds of mankind because they have the indelibal ring of truth. There are people on the earth who do not accept the "scientific" definition of truth--that which can be observed with bodily senses and verified by these same senses. Man is more than an animal and has the sense of deity within that requires him to expand the definition of truth to include spiritual apprehension. Of course, this is superstition to the "scientific community, " who continue to insist that if they can't catch it in their net, then it is not a fish. The elect of God know that regeneration and eternal life are real, but if you don't have eyes you cannot see it. Without Christ men are as blind as moles. They probably will get irritated with this post.

No, No, No. Mr. Sutherland.

DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2005: "We have children. We have children. How dare we take their legacy from them."
No, Mr. Sutherland, it is neither Bush nor Rove who has stolen our children's "legacy." You and your liberal friends have and are doing it. In order to further your agenda you have deprived our children of a decent education, and you continue to oppose vouchers to that end--to promote liberal power and agendas. When twenty percent of California seniors flunk the gradutation test, how dare you blame Republicans for stealing "legacy." Who has had a blanck check in public education for the past sixty or so years? Hmmm??? Who took God and the Bible out of public schools? Who labors to remove the Ten Commandments from every walk of life? Who can't tell the different between right and wrong, morality and immorality, between God and the devil? Hm?

But dream on, Mr. Sutherland. Keep saying these things and Republicans will continue to win elections. You and yours are their best friends.


Blog Archive