Nick Parsons Project

Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has given big business, unions and nonprofits more power to spend freely in federal elections, a major turnaround that threatens a century of government efforts to regulate the power of corporations to bankroll American politics. In a 5-4 ruling, the court's conservative majority crafted a narrow overhaul of federal campaign spending Thursday that could have an immediate effect on next year's congressional midterm elections. "Our nation's speech dynamic is changing, and informative voices should not have to circumvent onerous restrictions to exercise their First Amendment rights," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. The conservative-led opinion radically alters the election calculus, offering greater spending flexibility for a broader range of for-profit and nonprofit groups seeking a voice in the crowded national political debate. In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "In a democratic society, the long-standing consensus on the need to limit corporate campaign spending should outweigh the wooden applications of judge-made rules."

 

The U.S. military's just-released report into the Fort Hood shootings spends 86 pages detailing various slipups by Army officers but not once mentions Major Nidal Hasan by name or even discusses whether the killings may have had anything to do with the suspect's view of his Muslim faith. And as Congress opens two days of hearings on Wednesday into the Pentagon probe of the Nov. 5 attack that left 13 dead, lawmakers want explanations for that omission. (See TIME's photo-essay "The Troubled Journey of Major Hasan.")

John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 commission and Navy Secretary during the Reagan Administration, says a reluctance to cause offense by citing Hasan's view of his Muslim faith and the U.S. military's activities in Muslim countries as a possible trigger for his alleged rampage reflects a problem that has gotten worse in the 40 years that Lehman has spent in and around the U.S. military. The Pentagon report's silence on Islamic extremism "shows you how deeply entrenched the values of political correctness have become," he told TIME on Tuesday. "It's definitely getting worse, and is now so ingrained that people no longer smirk when it happens." (See pictures of Major Nidal Malik Hasan's apartment.)

The apparent lack of curiosity into what allegedly drove Hasan to kill isn't in keeping with the military's ethos; it's a remarkable omission for the U.S. armed forces, whose young officers are often ordered to read Sun Tzu's The Art of War with its command to know your enemy. In midcareer, they study the contrast between capabilities and intentions, which is why they aren't afraid of a British nuclear weapon but do fear the prospect of Iran getting one.

Yet the leaders of the two-month Pentagon review, former Army Secretary Togo West and the Navy's onetime top admiral, Vernon Clark, told reporters last week that they didn't drill down into Hasan's motives. "Our concern is with actions and effects, not necessarily with motivations," West said. Added Clark: "We certainly do not cite a particular group." Part of their reticence, they said, was to avoid running afoul of the criminal probe of Hasan that is now under way. Both are declining interview requests before their congressional testimony, a Pentagon spokesman said. (Read TIME's cover story on the Fort Hood massacre.)

But without a motive, there would have been no murder. Hasan wore his radical Islamic faith and its jihadist tendencies in the same way he wore his Army uniform. He allegedly proselytized within the ranks, spoke out against the wars his Army was waging in Muslim countries and shouted "Allahu akbar" (God is great) as he gunned down his fellow soldiers. Those who served alongside Hasan find the Pentagon review wanting. "The report demonstrates that we are unwilling to identify and confront the real enemy of political Islam," says a former military colleague of Hasan, speaking privately because he was ordered not to talk about the case. "Political correctness has brainwashed us to the point that we no longer understand our heritage and cannot admit who, or what, the enemy stands for."

The Department of Defense Independent Review Related to Fort Hood, ordered by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, is limited in scope. Despite the title of its report — Protecting the Force: Lessons from Fort Hood — there is only a single page dedicated to the chapter called "Oversight of the Alleged Perpetrator." Much more space is given to military personnel policies (11 pages), force protection (six pages) and the emergency response to the shootings (12 pages).

Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut said he was "disappointed" because the inquiry "does not adequately recognize the specific threat posed by violent Islamist extremism to our military," and added that the homeland-security panel he chairs will investigate. The Congressman whose district includes Fort Hood agrees. "The report ignores the elephant in the room — radical Islamic terrorism is the enemy," says Republican Representative John Carter. "We should be able to speak honestly about good and bad without feeling like you've done something offensive to society."

The report lumps in radical Islam with other fundamentalist religious beliefs, saying that "religious fundamentalism alone is not a risk factor" and that "religious-based violence is not confined to members of fundamentalist groups." But to some, that sounds as if the lessons of 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq, where jihadist extremism has driven deadly violence against Americans, are being not merely overlooked but studiously ignored.

 

- from Time.com

Welcome To Israel, We Shot Your MacBook!

11:57 pm, December 14th, 2009, Leander Kahney

A woman traveling to Israel is questioned by security officers who are suspicious of her bag. So they take it out the back and shoot it, killing her MacBook. Amazingly, the hard drive survived.

“The Israeli security’s decision to shoot my laptop was nonsensical on multiple levels – unprovoked, unduly aggressive, a waste of government funds, etc.” the woman, Lilly Sussman, wrote on her blog.

Someone in the comments added: “These guys shoot every day at unarmed people, even children. Why so much surprise about a simple laptop?”

Link.

 

Posted by Leander Kahney in Apple, News | Comment on this article

 

Via:

http://leavethebuildingblog.com

__________________

To some, this may seem like a ridiculous question and to others this question is of the upmost importance.  It is one that has recently been asked by an increasing number of Christians with the help of folks like Liberty Counsel and Focus on the Family.  Liberty Counsel recently released their “Naughty and Nice” list indicating which retailers do not recognize Christmas (“naughty”) and which do (“nice”) as part of their Friend or Foe campaign while Focus on the Family launched a new website allowing consumers to rate how Christmas-friendly retailers are.  That way, when we go shopping, we know it is going to be with a retailer who doesn’t offend us by saying “Happy Holidays” or “Seasons Greetings.”

After all, if we’re going to indulge our consumerist greed on the occasion of the birth of our Savior, we need to make sure we’re doing it with those retailers who say words we like, right?

Well, now that I’ve said that, you probably guessed that my answer to the question is, “No, we shouldn’t care.”  But if you’re on the other side of the fence, allow me to explain why I feel this way:

Only Pharisees Clean the Outside of Cups While Leaving the Insides Filthy

As I’ve noted elsewhere, Jesus and Paul were both surprisingly silent on how secular culture conducted itself.  Paul even went so far as to say that the Christian has no business judging those outside of the Church (1 Corinthians 5:12-13).  This exposes our faulty thinking.  You see, the only reason why we care about whether secular businesses say “Merry Christmas” rather than “Happy Holidays” is because for some reason we expect non-Christians to act like Christians.  Even worse, we actually want non-Christians to act like Christians and are willing to throw around our collective weight to ensure that it happens.

So what’s the problem with that?  It is a self-defeating goal.  It is like tolerance…if it works, there is no reason to solve the real problem – in this case, their unbelief and/or their unwillingness to commit to Christ.  Jesus said that this was cleaning outside of the cup while leaving the inside (the part that matters) filthy.  He said that to the Pharisees (Matthew 23:25-26).  Do we really want to go down this road?

Boycotting Non-Christian Retailers Sends The Wrong Message

I’m surprised that neither Liberty Counsel or Focus on the Family ever stopped to ask this simple question, but that’s okay, I’ll ask it for them:

What message is being sent to those “naughty” retailers when Christians boycott their stores?

There are a few that come to mind: do what we want or else; if you don’t cater to us exclusively, we’ll take offense; we will love you if/we will hate you if; etc.  But guess which one isn’t being communicated?  That’s right, the Gospel message – you know, the one that says that even while we were sinners, Christ died for us?  The one that says that God loves us no matter what we do?  That the gift of salvation is readily available to anyone who will believe and repent, committing to follow Jesus and make him Lord?

You know, the one that we are to be preaching at all times, in all circumstances, to all people?

Turns out, when we’re busy boycotting people and throwing our weight around to ensure their demise, we cannot simultaneously communicate the love of God to them.  Now, I’m not saying that by giving them your money, you are communicating the Gospel to them.  I’m just saying that boycotting them doesn’t communicate it and it can’t.  At the very least, if you were to shop at one of these retailers, you could communicate the Gospel to the employees there and that could turn the business around.

Which brings another point to the forefront: just because a retailer doesn’t say “Merry Christmas” doesn’t mean there aren’t Christians employed there.  And if you’re boycotting the retailer, are you not also harming your brothers and sisters in Christ by ensuring the business, and by extension the employees, don’t make as much money?  We could be putting other Christians out of work for the sake of two words.

Is it worth it?

It Is A Distraction From Our Real Goal

Just after Jesus was resurrected he appeared to his disciples and gave them these instructions:

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20)

I just cannot square this “Merry Christmas” uproar with the Great Commission.  I cannot see how boycotting retailers for not saying words we like is creating disciples.  Can you?  Can you tell me how this is advancing the Kingdom of God?  Can you tell me how God is pleased with us when we bully non-Christian retailers into “respecting” Christian beliefs to the exclusion of all others?  Can you tell me why Jesus would engage in this type of activity?

If so, I’d love to hear your thoughts.

What do you think?  Is the phrase “Merry Christmas” important enough for us to pick a fight about it?  Why or why not?

 

Sarah Palin declared on Thursday that the legitimacy of President Obama's birth certificate is "rightfully" an issue with the American public, and that it is "fair game" for politicians to question Obama's citizenship.

The comments came during an interview with conservative radio host Rusty Humphries, who asked Palin whether she planned to "make the birth certificate an issue" if she runs for president in 2012.

"I think the public rightfully is still making it an issue," Palin said. "I don't have a problem with that. I don't know if I would have to bother to make it an issue, because I think that members of the electorate still want answers."

Humphries -- who began the interview with a rendition of the song "Sarah, Queen Of The Wild Frontier" -- followed up: "Do you think it's a fair question to be looking at?"

"I think it's a fair question just like I think past associations and past voting records. All of that is fair game," Palin responded, adding that "the McCain-Palin campaign didn't do a good enough job in that area. We didn't call out Obama and some of his associates on their records and what their beliefs were, and perhaps what their future plans were, and I don't think that was fair to voters to not have done our job as candidates and a campaign to bring to light a lot of things that now we're seeing manifest in the administration."

Palin later referenced "that weird conspiracy theory freaky thing that people talk about that Trig isn't my real son, and a lot of people that went 'Well, you need to produce his birth certificate, you need to prove that he's your kid,' which we have done, but yeah, so maybe we can reverse that, and use the same [inaudible] thinking on the other one."

 

FactCheck.org has done the most comprehensive debunking of the various conspiracy theories related to Obama's citizenship. Here is their bottom line:

In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document's authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is "fake."

We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.

(H/T Ben Smith and Jed Lewison)