"HOW SHALL WE THEN LIVE?" Francis Schaeffer

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Politics Without God--Europe's Secular Crisis

Captain's Quarters
In a statement today, Woodward and Bernstein said, "W. Mark Felt was 'Deep Throat' and helped us immeasurably in our Watergate coverage. However, as the record shows, many other sources and officials assisted us and other reporters for the hundreds of stories that were written in The Washington Post about Watergate."

The accompanying article has people describing Felt as a "hero", while some of the commenters here are more inclined to see him as a traitor. I don't think either applies. Felt worked with the Post for his own personal motivations of revenge and frustration at being passed over. If Nixon had made him Director of the FBI, he never would have lefted a finger for Woodward or Bernstein.

JB here: Bureacratic infighting influences so much of D.C. Apparently Felt wanted to be the number one man for the F.B.I. but Nixon went outside the agency. Felt got his revenge.

Amnesty International drinks the kool-aid

David Rivkin and Lee Casey show how dishonest Amnesty International's 2005 Report on worldwide human rights is, at least when it comes to assessing the U.S. "First and foremost," Rivkin and Casey state, "Amnesty�s report is emphatically not an honest assessment of American compliance with international law. Rather, it is an assessment of how well the United States complies with Amnesty International�s political and ideological agenda � equivalent to the grading of individual members of Congress by domestic advocacy groups."

JB here: So many of the advocacy groups simply become part of the "partisan politics" landscape - always far to the left. Show me an established advocacy group and I'll show you a group led by people who hate George Bush.

Then there's a faux Paris Hilton interview -- if you like those kinda things. Pretty funny but she's an extremely large target for those who find humor in people's idiosyncracies.

In our no boundaries culture, who "owns" the children?
In spite of being warned about these problems, the social-engineering whackos went ahead and re-engineered the human race and now discover the courts have their shorts tied in knots because they aren't up to the challenge.

The California Supreme Court struggled Tuesday to define parenthood for an age when technology permits two women to have children without a man in sight. The state's parenthood laws, with references to "paternity," give no clear answers. Prior court decisions de-emphasizing the role of biology in determining legal parenthood don't go so far as some of the women would like.

Finally okieonthelam "fisks" the L.A. Times and their extended piece seemingly glorifying late term abortions. Read it HERE!

No comments: