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.

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?

It appears an agreement has been reached between Democrats and Republicans with respect to the Bush tax cuts—they will be extended for two years for all taxpayers [I was going to write "all Americans," but then I realized many Americans pay no income tax---52% of us cover the other 48%].

In announcing this agreement, President Obama was more than a little testy. In fact, he came across as downright petulant. One could be forgiven for calling his demeanor pouty. He obviously hated announcing the tax deal as he continued to pound Republicans as the evildoers who were holding taxpayers “hostage.”

Inadvertently, he displayed his true nature as someone who truly is ideological to the point of anger over having to compromise. What it really comes down to is that he’s not used to not getting his way. This whole “president” thing hasn’t worked out the way he envisioned. He would much rather be a monarch.

He’s not the only one unhappy; the radical Left in his party is having fits as well, and most are angry with him. Democrats may have had to compromise, but they’re visibly upset at what appears to be a Republican victory:

Two years into his presidency, Obama’s star has fallen, not only among independents but also within his own ranks. How bad is it?

Astute observation.

The congressional song and dance on the extension of the Bush tax cuts has been fascinating to watch. The Democrats try to position themselves as the champions of the middle class while excoriating the Republicans as tools of the filthy rich. The Republicans, meanwhile, push for extending the tax cuts to all Americans rather than just the middle class. That puts them in a bad light in the eyes of some, but those who can analyze and think clearly realize the stakes:

Taxing the rich never helps the middle class. Hopefully, a large enough segment of the middle class is beginning to recognize the false posturing for what it is.

Regardless of how this turns out in the lame-duck session, Republicans can revisit in January any horrible decisions made now. I’m disappointed by the results of the Senate race in Alaska, of course. Even though a Republican (of sorts) won there, that winner won’t be of much help righting the ship of state. Lisa Murkowski’s write-in campaign led to some strange vote counting:

In spite of the inertia Murkowski and some others bring to the Republican table, I’m still generally hopeful. There are some principled representatives taking their seats for the first time next month; let’s see what they can accomplish.

Does anyone remember that an election took place about a month ago? If so, please remind the current congressional leadership. This lame-duck Congress is desiring to throw away its crutches.

The election said one thing quite demonstrably: the Democrat leadership is hereby repudiated. Yet that leadership, still clinging to its last gasps of power, is attempting to ram through a series of bills that it knows won’t stand a chance in January when the new members take their seats.

Yesterday, the House voted to raise taxes on anyone making more than $250,000 by letting the Bush tax cuts expire when the new year begins. Now, that’s not the way they framed it, of course. They want us to see them as the champions of the “little guy,” who needs the current tax rates to stay where they are. But those evil rich people don’t deserve such a “break.” They had their vote; they made their political point as they once again tried to create class warfare. Yet it was all for show and isn’t going to be accepted in the Senate, where the Republican minority can stall it.

In fact, Republicans in the Senate have decided they will filibuster any bill that is not dealing with the two most crucial items: extending the tax cuts to everyone and ensuring that a budget is passed. Anything else is peripheral at the moment.

I firmly believe it is wrong, in light of the late elections and what they mean, for this very lame duck to continue to push its agenda. All other matters should be left for the new Congress to debate, a Congress that more fully represents what the American people voted for in November.

The Pelosi-Reid circus needs to come to an inglorious end immediately.

When this new Congress does meet, it can then be held accountable for carrying out the mandate it has received. The president, meanwhile, will have a new tactic he can use:

Be prepared for it. It will come to pass.

So what’s going to happen with the Bush tax cuts? Democrats are in disarray on the subject; Republicans want all cuts extended, noting that one group—the so-called “rich”—should not be penalized. After all, that is the group that creates jobs. Ideological blinders, however, mask that reality. To some, those who create the jobs are the greedy perpetrators of inequality. Those critics are the equivalent of the TSA on the economic front:

The taxpayers, in their view, are the repository from which they can finance all their big-government fantasies:

That repository is not unlimited.

How about cutting spending instead and raising no one’s taxes? What a unique idea. Actually, the idea isn’t really that unique, but its implementation is.

Yesterday, I reviewed what I consider to be the second-tier contenders for the Republican presidential nomination. Those in the top tier deserve a more in-depth look. Today, I focus on Sarah Palin.

There can be little doubt that Palin creates the most excitement overall among the Republican base. A recent poll shows that 79% of Republicans have a positive impression of her, a higher approval number than any of her other competitors for the nomination. Her selection as McCain’s running mate in 2008, and her superb speech at the Republican convention, connected her to many Republican voters in an unprecedented way.

Democrats were frantic at first. What could they do to counter this apparent popularity that threatened to overwhelm the uniqueness of their own presidential candidate? Through a combination of their own machinations, the help of a compliant media, and backbiting within the Republican camp, they crafted a narrative that seemed credible to many voters: Palin was a lightweight, an anti-intellectual outsider from the hinterlands who was out of her depth.

Interestingly, there is an increasing sense two years later that the one we elected to the presidency is the one who is actually out of his depth, but perceptions can be difficult to shake.

Once the campaign ended, Palin found herself inundated by frivolous ethics complaints in her home state, a not-so-concealed attempt to undermine her credibility further. As a result, she resigned from the governorship because she could no longer concentrate on her duties—the bogus charges took most of her time.

The pundits declared her political career over. After all, who could mount a genuine presidential run after only 2 1/2 years as a governor?

Palin has fought back effectively. She began with her autobiography, Going Rogue, which was a runaway bestseller. I read it and spent three days reviewing aspects of it. If you are interested in those posts, go to January 1, 2, and 4 of this year in the calendar on the right sidebar.

Then she set up a Facebook account. Now, normally such accounts are just for keeping in touch with friends and not used for substance. She changed that. Her postings have run the gamut of political commentary and stances on issues. Many have noted that they are substance-heavy quite often. This has been her challenge to critics, to show she is not the lightweight they imagined.

On top of that, she accepted an offer to be a Fox News commentator, so she now appears on the top-rated cable news channel on a regular basis. Again, this allows her a platform to say what she thinks and keep both her name and her face before the voters. Fox even set up a special broadcast booth at her Alaska home, so they can draw upon her commentary while she is there.

In the recent elections, she actively endorsed and campaigned for numerous candidates who matched her criteria for wanting to reverse the Obama agenda. She has been a favorite of the Tea Party movement. A large percentage of the candidates she endorsed won their races, thereby enhancing her image within the party even more.

There are a number of establishment Republicans, though, who are wary of her, just as they are of the Tea Party itself. She’s not one of their number, not part of the “Club.” For me, that’s a plus.

She’s also done something else unique: she’s the star of a new show on The Learning Channel called “Sarah Palin’s Alaska.” The first episode aired this past Sunday. I watched it, and was impressed with the production qualities and the ease with which Palin handled herself on camera. She came across as someone comfortable with who she is, and not at all apologetic about her background and the culture in which she was raised. The debut airing broke all records for TLC with 5 million viewers. Apparently, there is an intense interest out there to learn more about her.

As I watched, I was concerned about one thing in particular: does she really have a handle on raising her children? I don’t mean to be judgmental in the wrong sense, but I was struck by how daughters Piper and Willow seemed to ignore her instructions. Willow, in particular, seemed to be in full teenage mode, acting like she was perpetually bored and wanting to do anything but be with her family. Now, is this something put into the script for dramatic effect or is it the reality? A slight warning here: what does it profit a woman if she gains the world and loses her own family? I’ll be interested in seeing if this attitude continues in the remaining episodes.

By the way, I know how difficult it is to raise children, so I’m not offering this as a censure, but merely as an observation.

There was a political cartoon that appeared shortly after Palin’s convention speech in 2008. I’ve reached back into the archives to show it to you:

Is it prophetic? We’ll have to wait to find out.