One of the nation’s largest denominational social services networks is in danger of a major split over the decision by one of the participants to take a tolerant stance on homosexuality. According to a report by the Associated Press, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (logo, top portion), a theologically conservative denomination, has announced “that direct work with its larger and more liberal counterpart, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America [ELCA, logo, bottom portion], has become ‘difficult if not impossible,’ because of doctrinal differences,” including the 2009 decision by the ELCA to allow for the ordination of homosexuals as clergy members. The AP report noted that like Catholic Charities, “Lutheran agencies are some of the biggest service providers in their communities and have been struggling to meet increased demand for help during the recession. Just one of the joint Lutheran agencies, Lutheran Services in America, said on its website that it encompasses more than 300 health and human services organizations with a combined annual budget of more than $16 billion.”
The Rev. Herb Mueller, first vice president for the St. Louis-based Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, said his denomination recognizes that “this is a difficult issue.
On July 12 Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) introduced H.R. 2497, known as the Hinder the Administration’s Legalization Temptation (HALT) Act in order to counter the Obama administration’s June 17 “prosecutorial discretion” policy of granting amnesty to illegal immigrants on a case-by-case basis.
President Obama’s open letter to the American people published yesterday in USA Today challenges them “to do something big and meaningful" and stand behind his efforts to raise the debt ceiling.
This debate [over the debt ceiling] offers the chance to put our economy on stronger footing, and [to] secure a better future for our children. I want to seize that opportunity, and [to] ask Americans of both parties and no party to join me in that effort.
Obama's letter is carefully crafted to persuade the average reader that the country’s present perilous financial condition was not caused by the Ruling Class at all but by all citizens working out their daily lives.
Is the United States bankrolling its own enemies in Afghanistan? According to a new report from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), the answer may very well be yes.
“Since 2002,” the report opens, “Congress has appropriated more than $70 billion to implement security and development assistance projects in Afghanistan, with some of those funds converted into cash and flowing through the Afghan economy.” But where has that cash gone? No one in the U.S. government knows for sure, and the Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai seems none too eager to assist Washington in finding out.
It’s been more than two and a half years since Barack Obama was inaugurated President of the United States. During that time he seems to have undergone some kind of metamorphosis from a left-wing, radical, socialist community organizer to the leader of the Democrat Party. And because the establishment media sees him mainly as a Democrat politician they are a bit confused by his refusal to act like a normal Democrat in the give and take between Dems and Republicans on the Hill.
What they forget is that he was elected by the left to destroy American capitalism. So it’s essential to remind those who voted for him, exactly how he intended to transform America, and what that transformed America will be like. And who better to explain that than the U.S. Communist Party itself which was rooting for Obama during the campaign.
A lot of good people who believe, as I do, that we need to balance the federal budget have fallen for a very bad idea. I’m referring to the notion that a balanced budget amendment will somehow help solve the fiscal disaster our country faces.
I just got a promotional email from Regnery Publishing, one of my all-time favorite book-publishing companies. I can’t count the number of truly important titles it has issued, from Witness to the whole “politically incorrect guidelines” series. My shelves are filled with things it has done, including numerous best-sellers.
But the most recent email I got from Regnery stopped me short. The subject line read, “Amending the Constitution Is Our Only Hope.”
Walter Williams is associated with that paradoxical phenomenon typically known as “black conservatism.” However, while Williams is a fierce opponent of the leftist political ideology that has overcome the majority of his fellow black Americans — he is a rightist — it is not altogether technically accurate to describe him as a conservative.
Unlike such black thinkers as George Schuyler and Thomas Sowell, as far as his ethical and political philosophical principles are concerned, the most appropriate label to ascribe to Williams is that of libertarian. What this means is that he is a liberal in the classical sense of that term.
Al Sharpton, the anti-Semitic demagogue, is expected to take the place of Cenk Uygur on MSNBC in the 6 p.m. weekday time slot. The New York Times reported that Sharpton and MSNBC are prepared to sign a contract, and that Uygur refused to sign a contract to work in a weekend slot. However, the Times article ignored Sharpton’s long history of anti-Semitic and racial instigation, and how he defamed police when inserted himself into the Tawana Brawley case.
On November 28, 1987, 15-year-old Tawana Brawley, supposedly missing for four days, turned up lying in a garbage bag in the street. She was smeared with feces and covered with slurs written in what appeared to be charcoal. She was supposedly nearly unconscious. She mumbled incoherently.
The Texas Board of Education debated on Thursday and Friday whether or not to adopt supplemental science materials that some conservatives felt relied too heavily on evolutionary theory and did not offer any alternatives to that theory. After two days of contentious debate, however, the board ruled 8-0 to adopt those materials, in a move seen as a victory for proponents of teaching evolution in public schools.
The debate focused in particular on supplemental science materials for high school biology books and their coverage of evolution. While many mainstream science education groups supported the e-books in question, conservative groups criticized the e-books’ failure to cover all sides of various issues and to critically analyze Charles Darwin’s theories.