I love all those year-in-review segments on the news channels. Sometimes they are interesting; other times, they are rather humorous. For example, in dissecting why the November elections turned out as they did, you might hear something like this:

The answers are not all that difficult to discern. Yet the media continues to portray political developments in the best light possible for the administration:

There’s also a lot of talk about President Obama veering to the center of the political spectrum. I’m not yet convinced. In fact, I think the following perspective is closer to the truth:

If I’m wrong, and he does attempt to govern from the center, I know it will be for political expediency only, and not because he has changed his views. The next task will then be to enlighten the general public on that point, so that the media won’t be allowed to frame the issue in its own way.

Unfortunately, it’s almost as if we desire to be fooled at times. Maintaining our liberty requires that we pay close attention to what is really happening.

I don’t stun easily anymore. Yet, last Friday, while attending the commencement ceremony at my university, one of my faculty colleagues did stun me with a bit of information. We were talking about the current generation and the influences on their lives. He noted that in his classes, he asks students what they consider their main source for learning about politics and the issues of the day. He reported that the majority answered—Comedy Central.

In other words, this generation looks to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert as its fount of knowledge regarding current affairs.

This means that at my evangelical Christian university, students are getting their information from two individuals who have little or no regard for the faith they [the students] claim is the cornerstone of their lives.

It’s revelations such as this that have the power to keep me from going back to sleep in the middle of the night [which is when I'm writing this].

Is this the new Lost Christian Generation? Is this generation going to help shape the culture, or is it the other way around?

Speaking of generational shifts, on Saturday, the Senate passed the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The House already had done so. It now goes to the president’s desk where he will rejoice at this blow against “discrimination” as he signs it into law. The vote in the Senate was 65-31.

One of the Republican senators who voted in favor of the repeal was Richard Burr of North Carolina. Burr is normally considered a solid conservative vote. When asked why he decided to vote in favor of repeal, his answer was most revealing. He said “this is a policy that generationally is right.” What does that mean? He elaborated:

A majority of Americans have grown up at a time [when] they don’t think exclusion is the right thing for the United States to do. It’s not the accepted practice anywhere else in our society, and it only makes sense.

Look carefully at that explanation. On what basis did Burr make his decision? He voted as he did simply because a new generation now believes differently about homosexuality. He has adopted the new groupthink that those who oppose homosexuality are unjustly excluding a segment of our society from their rightful place at the table, so to speak. He looks around and sees homosexuality becoming increasingly acceptable and determines to go with the flow.

There were 31 Republicans who voted against repeal, but I’m not aware that any of them showed any backbone with respect to the moral issue involved. Their arguments against repeal were primarily tactical/practical. No one apparently wanted to cross that line into a discussion of basic right and wrong. While I still maintain there is a qualitative difference between Republicans and Democrats on philosophy of government and foundational moral values, I do fear that portion of the Republican Party that just wants to go along to get along.

The culture, in general, has made its peace with the sin of homosexuality. Sin? Why do I use such loaded terminology? I do so because I continue to stand by Biblical truth. The book of Romans in the New Testament clearly lays out the case. If you haven’t read it recently, here’s what it says:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them … [and] they are without excuse.

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools …

Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. …

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper … and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

This is the passage that President Obama, while running for the office, demeaned as “obscure.” There’s nothing obscure about it. Will the new generation, particularly those who claim to be Christians, stand up for Biblical principles? The future hangs on that generational decision.

Let me close with another admonition from the book of Romans:

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

I’m always somewhat amused when those of the liberal/progressive persuasion express outrage that the Constitution is not being followed. What is progressivism if not a denial of the original intent of the Constitution and of the rule of law?

The progressive philosophy doesn’t recognize limitations on government power. The Constitution does. Article I, section 8, has a list of powers for the Congress that we call the enumerated powers. They are enumerated for a reason—they spell out specifically what Congress has authority to do, and if Congress passes legislation that is not covered by this enumeration [or any other specific powers mentioned elsewhere], it has acted unconstitutionally.

There is no authority for individual welfare, education, controlling commerce within a state, or hundreds of other things on which we currently spend money. We are so far out of bounds, and have exceeded our authority to such an extent, that it might look like a hopeless task to ever get it back under control.

Yet we must take steps in that direction.

The omnibus bill I mentioned in the previous post is almost entirely unconstitutional. It’s not just that it’s a budget buster or tainted with earmarks, although those are major issues as well, but what it seeks to do is invalid under the Constitution.

And of course there’s Obamacare. One part of it was struck down as unconstitutional earlier this week by a federal judge. Why? The judge apparently understands the constitutional limitations.

So when a progressive complains about infidelity to the Constitution, take that with the largest grain of salt you can find.

Yesterday, I wrote about the federal judge in Virginia who astutely speared the healthcare bill by pointing out in his ruling that the individual mandate forcing people to buy health insurance was manifestly unconstitutional. I used a fairly good number of words to describe that, but one cartoonist illustrated it rather succinctly:

Back up that vehicle; let’s restore the original intent.

In other congressional news, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is at it again. He’s attempting to shove another massive bill through the Congress without anyone getting a chance to read it. What is this penchant for 2,000-page bills, anyway? This is reminiscent of the ploy he used to ram through Obamacare.

Reid obviously is ignoring the results of the November elections and acting as if nothing has changed. The bill’s cost is $1.1 trillion [1 billion of which is for the healthcare boondoggle] and includes more than 20,000 earmarks. This is the dying wish of a lame-duck Congress that knows it won’t have this kind of opportunity again. It’s also without conscience–the voters said no to these shenanigans, and many of those who are pushing it won’t be in office next month.

Stated plainly, it is wrong for a discredited legislative body to try to force its way on the American people after those people have thrown them out of power. Republicans are saying they will filibuster and do anything else they can to kill this. Let’s hope they are true to their promise.

The Obama/Democrat policies have been a disaster because they are based on unsound principles. I think I sense a spirit from the past reasserting itself:

May it be, Lord. May it be.

Virginia was my home for 28 years, and I still have a great fondness for it. So when good news hails from that state, I rejoice. In this case, it’s very good news for the nation.

The Virginia attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, sued in court to overturn the mandate in the healthcare law Congress passed earlier this year that forces people to buy health insurance or be penalized for failing to do so.

Yesterday, a federal judge in Virginia ruled that the individual mandate provision of the Obamacare law is unconstitutional. The law, the judge explained, “exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power” as well as the right of Congress “to compel individuals to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce.”

What this means is that the federal government has no authority to make anyone buy health insurance. As with many lower court decisions, this one will undoubtedly be appealed. Virginia governor Bob McDonnell is asking that the appeals court be left out of this process in order for the United States Supreme Court to settle the matter earlier rather than later.

This is an important first step in overturning an unconstitutional law, but it is just that—a first step. While we can be glad the judge ruled in favor of constitutionality, limited government, and plain old common sense, the battle isn’t over. Other states, such as Florida, are also suing. Hopefully, this precedent will help. We have to wait and see what happens next.

This ruling is a blow to the Obama administration, one of many lately.

Prophetic?

The proposed tax deal is still the talk of the political world. First, there’s the substance, which is good with respect to maintaining the Bush tax cuts, but not so good on unemployment benefits and the estate tax. Second, there’s the politics of it all. That’s where the president fell down on the job completely.

His own party is hopping mad at him, primarily because he didn’t include them in the negotiations. This is not a man who knows how to work well with others; he seems to think he can handle things himself. Now he’s getting some grief over that approach. The threat is real:

Now that’s scary.

To remedy his oversight, he’s brought in Bill Clinton to make the case for him. It was a little surreal last week when he introduced Clinton at a White House press conference and then turned it over to him totally. Some people had nightmares of the return of the Clinton era. Just what can the former president teach the current one?

But of course, he still has his ace in the hole:

Not very original, to be sure. Is this really his only tactic? Stay tuned and we’ll see how prophetic this is.

There’s been a lot of hostage talk this week. It started with President Obama and has become the mantra in Democrat talking points. I don’t get to listen to Rush Limbaugh often, but I did hear this week his revealing litany of audio clips of numerous Democrats saying almost the same thing—and always using the word “hostage” in reference to the Republicans and the continuance of the Bush tax cuts. Supposedly, we’re to believe it’s the Republicans who don’t want those tax cuts to remain in effect. Cartoonists have picked up on this “hostage” theme, but not in the way Obama intended:

I think that illustration explains what’s really been taken hostage through the Obama policies. Remember that ditch analogy he likes to use?

Right.

Of course, as I noted in a previous post, there are reasons to be concerned about the new tax deal, such as the highly expensive extension of unemployment benefits.

Are those rotten apples? Unlimited unemployment benefits are certainly rotten for the economy. When will they ever end? There will always be pressure to extend—maybe permanently.

Perhaps we just don’t understand the Obama strategy.

Why didn’t we think of this earlier?