From the piece:

Funny. I have never read an AP piece about how others should cry for Christians who are subjected to-and therefore disenfranchised by-Darwin’s theory of evolution in public school. The piece does not bother to wonder why 1.5 million kids are being home-schooled in the first place. Must not be relevant that many, if not most, of the Christians home-schooling their children are doing so precisely because of the Darwinist slant in public education. Then there is the fact that many public schools just stink like three day old fish.

It ends with a story about a home-schooled kid who is not afraid to embark on a career in marine biology in spite of the field’s evolutionary bent. Mom even gets in an elbow at public school:

Nice shot, mom.

Some interesting articles about HCR:

• Politico explains that BO has not done that many events on health care since August. It just feels like it.
• The most perplexing question in my mind about HCR is why Democrats have this laser focus on a policy Americans clearly do not desire. They really must think the public is stupid. Gary Andres explains why the Dems think they have to pass it no matter the consequences.
• Conservative last hope lies in the hands of Democrats, too. The so-called “Blue Dogs” led by Rep. Bart Stupak are banding together to oppose Obamacare without language banning federal funding of abortion. Let’s hope they hold together. The 11 votes Stupak has counted might just be enough to kill this thing.
• Did Obama try to buy another vote by using the federal bench?

The bottom line: The Leftists don’t really care about medical care. They care about control over your life.

Listen to Reagan’s words… especially you people on the Left!

Listen HERE.

Anyway, this “jobs”bill is the least of our worries. The way this administration throws around trillion dollar bills, I’ll gladly settle for a mere $15 billion.

What should bother us is the fact that Obama is now proposing his own health care bill. Would you be surprised if I told you the bill would raise taxes by over $600 billion? Didn’t think so.

*****

You may have noticed I am not blogging as much the last few weeks. Never fear! There is a great reason for that. I’m working on several posts that will establish a foundation for some of our conversation here about faith and politics. For instance, it’s obvious that some of us hold widely variant views of the world. So, I plan to define some of the perspectives and elaborate on mine especially on some foundational issues like the value and place of Scripture in our lives. So stay tuned. It will be worth waiting for.

In the meantime, check out these articles:

• The New York Times (of all places) has an excellent opinion piece today that wonders “Are There Secular Reasons?” If you have ever wondered why faith and reason seem to be opposites, read this article. When you finish it, you will understand that reason relies on faith in many ways including by “smuggling” in moral concepts. Good read.
• I found this article called “The Progressive Fallacy on Free Speech” in The Week last week. Will Wilkinson does a great job explaining the liberal view of the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court and why they are so outraged by it. If for nothing else, the article is worth the read to get a clear idea of the opposing view. Wilkinson also gives the best explanation I’ve ever read about why that view is just plain wrong.

Happy reading!

Here’s the bottom line: President Obama didn’t call for the abolishment of the Gaming industry. He advised people to not blow their money when they’re saving for their future. This was sound advice on many levels (think of the people who would be empowered if instead of investing in the casinos, they invested in themselves!) but it is particularly prudent advice because the people most likely to blow their money at casinos are precisely those who do so to the detriment of their financial future. And while the former mob-lawyer Mayor wants to act indignant, I say so be it.

So, I’ll give credit where I think credit is due: Good advice to the common man, Mr. President!

Excellent question, Hugh. Click the link to read Hugh Hewitt’s take on Evan Bayh’s decision not to run or rather his disingenous reason not to run. Bayh had many opportunities to work across the aisle but didn’t. Actions speak louder than words.

Rep. King must have the same policy I do regarding critters: Outside my home they are lovely. Inside they are dead.

• Did you see the Audi ad with the environmental police during the Super Bowl? Jonah Goldberg calls it “Gorewellian.” He wonders if it will sell cars. I was disgusted and let the people I was watching the game with know perhaps crossing some social boundaries. What else is new?
• The Weekly Standard has a very interesting if lengthy article called “The New Dating Game” by Charlotte Allen. The article explains the new realities of dating and casual sex and the consequences for society. While I do not agree with some of the sociological explanations for why men and women act the way they do, it is fascinating to explore how traditional marriage is really beneficial for society precisely because it limits individuals.
• New pictures of the Twin Towers collapsing were released recently. The pictures serve as a burr under the saddle of those who would pretend Islam is not a threat to our survival.
• You can’t talk about God in the mall even if you are invited to in California, apparently.
• I used to be a fan of Roger Ebert. His movie reviews are the best around. Apparently he does not want conservative readers. Sad. UPDATE: Ebert later tweeted that he will no longer use the term.
• David Rothkopf thinks the real change Obama needs is in the leader of the Senate, Harry Reid. He might get his wish as Reid is not looking good for November. I, for one, am stoked about the idea of defeating a second straight Democrat majority leader at the polls.

First, anything in the public sphere (i.e. Super Bowl commercial) that is sponsored or supported by Christians and Christian values (in this case life) will be met with severe condemnation and, if possible, censorship. The anything goes, say-what-you-want-to-say crowd only cares about free expression when they are the ones doing the expressing.

Second, the ultra-radical left thinks the opposite of encouraging women to let their babies live to be homosexual kissing. I suppose they are right. It is simply startling that anyone thinks encouraging life is offensive. If anyone can make a good case, I’d like to hear it.

The knee-jerk reaction shows just how far from the truth they really are.