Cheney’s Got a Gun
Not since Aaron Burr (or, for you conspiracy buffs, Lyndon B. Johnson) has a sitting vice president shot another person. I guess it was only a matter of time. Is it really any surprise that this latest incident involves one of the most calculating, heartless veeps in American history? I think columnist Andrew Sullivan said it best:

Dick Cheney’s behavior in this incident is exactly the same as his behavior elsewhere. He thinks he’s answerable to no one. He doesn’t just disagree with his critics; he has complete contempt for them. The reason he didn’t contact the police or perform routine notification of the press is that he’s Dick Cheney. Why should he deign to tell anyone? It’s his private life; and he has a war to run, detainees to order tortured, phones to tap, laws to break.

For those of you who think this has been blown out of proportion—that there is nothing wrong with having to wait over 24 hours to find out that the nation’s second in command was involved in a shooting, and that the press should just back off—would you be singing the same tune if this had been Al Gore? What if Cheney was the one who was shot? What if he wasn’t armed and dangerous but had been driving a car and accidentally run over a young child? Would you still think the incident wasn’t worth reporting?Give the press a break. Yes, reporters and journalists can be just as hypocritical as anyone else, but, for crying out loud, we want a press that can take on the role of government adversary. That’s why we have the First Amendment. If anything, we should be complaining that the press isn’t adversarial enough.

Hello Mullah, Hello Fatwa
Speaking of freedom of the press, have you seen any good political cartoons lately? The refusal of many newspapers to print the infamous cartoons that have caused such an uproar in the Muslim community is being viewed (and rightly so) as a dereliction of duty on the part of the media.

Many editors believe that to reprint those cartoons—even as part of a news story dealing with the violent Muslim reaction to said cartoons—would be offensive. Really? You think a caricature of Muhammad is sacrilegious? Have you seen Monty Python’s The Life of Brian?

But I think there is a real lesson to be learned from all of this. Pastor John Piper of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minn., points out that the reaction to these cartoons reveals the difference between Islam and Christianity:

The work of Muhammad is based on being honored and the work of Christ is based on being insulted. This produces two very different reactions to mockery. … It means that a religion with no insulted Savior will not endure insults to win the scoffers. It means that this religion is destined to bear the impossible load of upholding the honor of one who did not die and rise again to make that possible. It means that Jesus Christ is still the only hope of peace with God and peace with man.

Amen, brother.

It’s Not Easy Being Green
There are some prominent Christian leaders who believe that we aren’t doing enough to protect the environment. The Evangelical Climate Initiative issued a statement entitled “Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action,” reminding us that it is our duty as Christians to practice good stewardship.

How do we do that? By following a few helpful tips, like switching to fluorescent light bulbs, using public transportation and learning to “study the Bible in light of the impacts global warming will have on people and God’s other creatures.”

But let’s not forget that really good stewardship means more socialist government regulation:

In the United States, the most important immediate step that can be taken at the federal level is to pass and implement national legislation requiring sufficient economy-wide reductions in carbon dioxide emissions through cost-effective, market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade program.

It isn’t enough to exercise personal responsibility and encourage others to do the same. No, we must call upon the power of government to force people to respect God’s creation. Never mind that the “science” upon which global warming fears are based is dubious at best. The important thing is that our lives appear to be “purpose-driven.” And what better way to do that than to champion a social cause like radical environmentalism in the name of saving the poor people of the world from complete annihilation?

All in the Family
It has been reported that former presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton are extremely close. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), once a top adviser to Clinton, said that the two have “a secret handshake that nobody else knows about.” President George W. Bush, in his State of the Union speech, even referred to Clinton as one of his father’s “favorite people.”

Consider this: If we include Bush Senior’s stint as vice president, then that means the Bush and Clinton families have been in control of the Executive Branch of government for over 25 years. That’s a quarter of a century. Now, if Hillary Clinton were to be elected president in 2008 and win reelection in 2012, we stand to be ruled by the same two families for 36 years. In any other country, and at any other time in history, that would be considered a political dynasty.

Politics makes strange bedfellows, but only to those on the outside. Birds of a feather flock together, and these birds of prey are here to stay. Clearly there is a distinct, elite ruling class in this country. How can anyone continue pretending that there is a difference between the two major parties?

As an intrepid chronicler of the cultural landscape, I must occasionally do some unpleasant and reprehensible things, including watch “Hannity and Colmes,” listen to Rush Limbaugh, and read Ann Coulter.

Then there are those fun projects that lead to the emission of giant belly laughs, such as reading the Louisville Courier Journal and watching Christian television. I can always find something on TBN to scare the kids. Jack Van Impe carrying on about human/animal hybrids or Benny Hinn knocking down half an arena with a little bit of hocus pocus. Ah, good stuff!

Saturday evening, I was channel surfing quickly before hitting the sack and stumbled across “The Hour of Power.” The Rev. Robert A. Schuller was speaking about his plan to increase membership at the Crystal Cathedral to one million. Yes, you read that right, one million members.

I was concerned that a fairly serious building project would have to be undertaken, and then I read an L. A. Times article that explained Schuller’s scheme. According to the Times, “The other main goal of the new senior pastor is to recruit as church members a million people around the world who watch the ‘Hour of Power’ broadcasts or view church programs on the Internet.”

That begs the question: Does it matter if a Christian joins a local church?

Church membership entails a commitment to formally join a body of believers for the purpose of living visibly obedient lives before Jesus Christ, and the world. The people of God exist to demonstrate God’s glory (I Peter 2:9, Is. 43:6-7). While we are called as individuals to live in obedience before God (Rom. 6:1-4, Rom. 12:1-2, Col. 3:5-11), there is also an affirmative duty to be part of a COMMUNITY in obedience to God. The Apostle Paul says, “Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2). Christians are to be “kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other” being “imitators of God” (Eph. 4:31-5:2). In short, we are to be together.

The New Testament is also filled with numerous “one another” commands. We are to be “devoted to one another” in love, “honor one another,” “live in harmony with one another,” be at peace with one another, and so on (see Rom. 12:10, 16; 14:13, 19; 15:7, 14; I Cor. 6:7, 7:5, 12:25, etc.)

Likewise, the author of Hebrews commands us to meet together, for the purpose of spurring one another to love and good deeds. These things cannot be accomplished from behind a television screen.

As the church of Christ, we also have practical obligations to one another’s souls. In my church we speak of formative and corrective church discipline. Formative discipline is inherent in the preaching and teaching of the word and the exercise of church ministries. The goal is to conform ourselves to the image of Christ.

Corrective discipline occurs when a member is found in sin and the church seeks his/her repentance and restoration. One problem with Dr. Schuller’s plan is that it makes corrective discipline impossible. How are elders in California going to care for the souls of viewers in south Florida, or London?

But discipline is largely ignored in the church anyway, as I noticed in this article in the Louisville Courier Journal. According to the C-J, a local man, Kevin Talley, scored a centerfold layout with Playgirl magazine in the spring of 2005. The Playgirl spread brought a small amount of local fame to Talley, who attended several red-carpet affairs during the Kentucky Derby festival. Talley also spent weekends signing pictures of himself and copies of Playgirl at a seedy local establishment.

In December, Talley received an email from Playgirl editor in chief Jill Sieracki indicating that he been voted Playgirl’s Man of the Year. He was offered a cover and photo spread, a contract worth an estimated $25,000 to $30,000.

Talley ultimately turned down the offer, after asking “What Would Jesus Do?” Really. Here is how the C-J tells it:

Talley also considered his faith. Baptized at Southeast Christian Church in 1996, Talley attends Saturday evening services. As he grappled with how to proceed, he thought back to what he’d been taught in the church.

“We are all given challenges in our life that we can overcome if we just ask for help. I’m definitely not a holy roller, but it became more and more evident that this wasn’t the right path,” Talley said.

“I’ve got my morals. I know what’s right and what’s wrong in my world.”

Baring it all — again — was decidedly the wrong thing to do, Talley decided.

But don’t misunderstand. Talley isn’t sorry he posed. “Would I do it all again? Yes, because I didn’t know (then) what I know now about myself.”

Southeast Christian Church, where Talley is a member, is a mammoth local mega-church, complete with a retreat center, 400-person chapel, newspaper, and racquetball courts. When asked about Talley’s previous involvement with Playgirl, Southeast administrator Cindee Coffee said that while they were disappointed, “We’re encouraged that he is attending Southeast, growing spiritually and beginning to make wiser choices.”

While church discipline takes a back seat in our Arminian dominated churches, America’s religious leaders are discussing weightier matters. A group of 86 evangelical bigwigs issued a “call to action” on global warming. At a press conference in Washington, “the signers urged U.S. lawmakers to pass a law requiring that emissions of carbon dioxide be reduced.”

Among those signing the statement were several Southern Baptist leaders, including pastor Rick Warren, Timothy George, dean of Samford University’s Beeson Divinity School and David Dockery, president of Union University. Hmm, just think of all the trees that could have been spared if the “Purpose Driven Life” had never seen the light of day. Other signers included Todd Bassett, national commander of The Salvation Army; Paul Cedar, chairman of the Mission America Coalition; Jack Hayford, president of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel; David Neff, editor of Christianity Today; Ron Sider, president of Evangelicals for Social Action; and Richard Stearns, president of World Vision.

The climate initiative was undertaken after other prominent Evangelicals sent a letter to the National Association of Evangelicals urging that no official possition be taken on global warming because there is disagreement among on the severity of the problem. Signers included James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family; Charles Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries; the Rev. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention; Richard Roberts, president of Oral Roberts University; Donald Wildmon, head the American Family Association; the Rev. Louis Sheldon, head of the Traditional Values Coalition.

Finally, there is John Hagee. In the bizarro world inhabited by the likes of Hagee, American foreign policy is driven by striped-pants Arabists who have an anti-Israel, and probably anti-Semitic bias. To stem the anti-Israeli predisposition of American institutions and defeat the various pro-Palestinian parties that are obviously dominating the scene, Hagee has teamed up with the likes of Benny Hinn, Rod Parsley, and Jerry Falwell to launch Christians United for Israel (CUFI).

CUFI, says Hagee, will be a “Christian version of AIPAC [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee]. The goal is to organize Christians to put pressure on Washington “to stop pressuring Israel to give up land for peace.”

A 2002 analysis by economist Thomas Stauffer, which likely won’t interest General Hagee and company, calculated that since 1973, Americans have poured $1.6 trillion dollars into Israel. Yeah, sounds like they’re getting a raw deal to me.

So there you have it. To be a Christian in this day and age, one can attend a giant church on Saturday night, or simply watch the festivities on the tube, and have no contact with other believers or church officers. Posing nude once for all the world to see is troubling and disappointing, but surely no cause for church discipline. I mean really, didn’t Jesus have a relaxed attitude about sin? As long as we’re taking care of the important matters, like sending letters to your congressman expressing support for onerous environmental regulation or demanding perpetual war on behalf of another nation, everything will be just fine.

Who knows whether this will make any difference or not, but there is yet more evidence that the Bushies fixed intelligence around the policy of regime change. 

Foreign Affairs is publishing an article by Paul Pillar, who served as National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005.  In this capacity, Pillar was responsible to coordinate all of the intelligence community’s assessments regarding Iraq.

It is interesting that these charges are gracing the flagship publication of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).  The CFR is a who’s who of the liberal, internationalist foreign policy establishment.  These are “New World Order” types who get along just swell with old-man Bush, Jim Baker, Brent Scowcroft and the whole crowd from the Bush I presidency.  In short, these characters are the enemy of America First paleos like yours truly.

What’s interesting is that those characters now seem infinitely preferable to the neocrazy crowd that has seized the ship of state. 

In any case, I’m just going to repeat of a few choice nuggets from the essay.  Please read the rest for yourself.

Pillar says:

“In the wake of the Iraq war, it has become clear that official intelligence analysis was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community’s own work was politicized.”

“A view broadly held in the United States and even more so overseas was that deterrence of Iraq was working, that Saddam was being kept “in his box,” and that the best way to deal with the weapons problem was through an aggressive inspections program to supplement the sanctions already in place…If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication, it was to avoid war — or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath.”

“The administration used intelligence not to inform decision-making, but to justify a decision already made. It went to war without requesting — and evidently without being influenced by — any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq.”

“The Bush administration deviated from the professional standard not only in using policy to drive intelligence, but also in aggressively using intelligence to win public support for its decision to go to war. This meant selectively adducing data –’cherry-picking’ — rather than using the intelligence community’s own analytic judgments. In fact, key portions of the administration’s case explicitly rejected those judgments.”

“In the upside-down relationship between intelligence and policy that prevailed in the case of Iraq, the administration selected pieces of raw intelligence to use in its public case for war, leaving the intelligence community to register varying degrees of private protest when such use started to go beyond what analysts deemed credible or reasonable.”

“Another problem is that on Iraq, the intelligence community was pulled over the line into policy advocacy — not so much by what it said as by its conspicuous role in the administration’s public case for war. This was especially true when the intelligence community was made highly visible (with the director of central intelligence literally in the camera frame) in an intelligence-laden presentation by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the UN Security Council a month before the war began. It was also true in the fall of 2002, when, at the administration’s behest, the intelligence community published a white paper on Iraq’s WMD programs — but without including any of the community’s judgments about the likelihood of those weapons’ being used.”

“The intelligence community never offered any analysis that supported the notion of an alliance between Saddam and al Qaeda. Yet it was drawn into a public effort to support that notion.”

“The actual politicization of intelligence occurs subtly and can take many forms. Context is all-important. Well before March 2003, intelligence analysts and their managers knew that the United States was heading for war with Iraq. It was clear that the Bush administration would frown on or ignore analysis that called into question a decision to go to war and welcome analysis that supported such a decision. Intelligence analysts — for whom attention, especially favorable attention, from policymakers is a measure of success — felt a strong wind consistently blowing in one direction. The desire to bend with such a wind is natural and strong, even if unconscious.”

“That is what happened when the Bush administration repeatedly called on the intelligence community to uncover more material that would contribute to the case for war. The Bush team approached the community again and again and pushed it to look harder at the supposed Saddam-al Qaeda relationship — calling on analysts not only to turn over additional Iraqi rocks, but also to turn over ones already examined and to scratch the dirt to see if there might be something there after all. The result was an intelligence output that — because the question being investigated was never put in context — obscured rather than enhanced understanding of al Qaeda’s actual sources of strength and support.”

Imagine yourself in the stands at the Kentucky Derby. A new horse by the name of President’s Choice, a strong thoroughbred that racing aficionados have been talking about, is favored to win.

“And they’re off!”

Now imagine everyone’s shock when the gates fly open and the odds-on favorite starts running the wrong way. We saw something similar last night.

Samuel Alito, the “conservative” judicial nominee over whom all good little Republicans were drooling, cast his first vote as the nation’s newest black-robed oligarch. This morning’s edition of the Washington Post reported:

New Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito split with the court’s conservatives Wednesday night, refusing to let Missouri execute a death-row inmate contesting lethal injection.

Alito, handling his first case, sided with inmate Michael Taylor, who had won a stay from an appeals court earlier in the evening. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas supported lifting the stay, but Alito joined the remaining five members in turning down Missouri’s last-minute request to allow a midnight execution. …

Is this what “conservatives” were hoping for when President Bush nominated Alito to the Supreme Court? I doubt it.

But perhaps I’m rushing to judgment (pardon the pun). Who is this Michael Taylor anyway? As a Jan. 27 article in the Columbia Missourian explains, Taylor was “sentenced to death after being convicted of the rape and murder of 15-year-old Ann Harrison on March 22, 1989.”

Okay, so the defense must have discovered some new DNA evidence that casts a reasonable doubt on Taylor’s guilt, right? Not really. The article continues:

A federal judge last week issued a stay of Taylor’s Feb. 1 execution in response to his lawyer’s request for a hearing to present evidence challenging the lethal injection process. … Taylor’s lawyer, John William Simon of St. Louis, has since filed a federal court action arguing that the three drugs the state uses in executions create a risk of gratuitous pain that is not necessary to carry out “the mere extinguishment of life.”

Let’s see if I understand this. The case before the Supreme Court yesterday had nothing to do with using the normal appeals process to examine new evidence that had come to light. In fact, it had nothing at all to do with determining Taylor’s guilt or innocence. It was all about the method of execution? Was Taylor’s lawyer able to interview death row inmates who had been executed by lethal injection to see what they had to say?

Michael Taylor has already spent the last 17 years living on taxpayer expense. That’s two years longer than the girl he kidnapped, raped and killed had her entire life. Now, the Supreme Court of the United States wants to stand in the way of justice simply because the drugs used to carry out an execution may not provide the condemned murderer with the comfort he expects when paying the price for his brutal crime.

I find this rather odd. When this country was young, no one questioned the constitutionality of death by hanging or firing squad. But now, in the 21st century, we find ourselves debating whether or not the act of sedating murderers before executing them is cruel and unusual punishment.

At the very least, that should be left for the states to decide. After all, not every state has the death penalty, so there is obviously still some consideration given to the concept of states’ rights. I think it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that if individual states are able to decide whether or not they will implement capital punishment, then they should be allowed to determine the means of execution.

The fact that Samuel Alito chose to side with the liberals on the Court in a ruling that tramples on states’ rights is cause for concern. Those who threw their enthusiastic support behind George W. Bush’s nominee may wake up one morning to find that they have been duped yet again, and the nation’s highest court has another Souter on its hands.