Jack Phillips, owner of the Masterpiece Cake Shop, is a brave man. Because he refused to decorate a cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony, he was hauled before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. He was fined, and faces financial ruin. But he’s still standing fast. And the Supreme Court has agreed to take up his case.
Perhaps even braver than appearing before the Supreme Court was agreeing to appear before another august panel about his Christian beliefs: I’m speaking of the daytime TV show “The View.”
Paula Faris got the ball rolling. “Did you ever ask yourself what Jesus would do in this particular situation?” she asked, and then added knowingly, “Do you think Jesus would have said, ‘I don’t accept this, but I’m going to love you anyway.’”
Of course, the audience applauded, knowing that nothing says “I love you” like baking a cake.
Phillips’s reply was pretty straight-forward: “I don’t believe He would have because that would have contradicted the rest of the biblical teaching.”
“Oh c’mon,” one hostess interrupted to more applause, “Jesus would have made the cake. Jesus can turn water into wine. He can do whatever He wants.”
And then resident theologian Joy Behar jumped in, “You’re supposed to believe the Bible and everything but … that’s a deal breaker. Jesus is gonna make the cake,” then she tosses her palms up like, “what’s the matta’w’you?”
Charlie Gard’s Death Sentence: The Consequences of Usurping Parental Rights
by John Stonestreet and G. Shane Morris
An incredibly complicated and heartbreaking life-and-death medical case has sparked an international debate: It’s the case of little Charlie Gard.
Charlie suffers from an extremely rare and deadly genetic disorder called Mitochondrial DNA Depletion Syndrome. Mitochondria “are structures within cells that convert the energy from food into a form that cells can use.” Because of his depletion of mitochondrial DNA, Charlie’s muscles and organs are failing. He’s unconscious and cannot breathe on his own. From all reports, he’s in the terminal stages of a disease for which there is no known cure.
Charlie’s parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, have raised a million and a half dollars in private donations to take him to America for an experimental treatment. They appear under no illusion that the treatment will work, but they do want to exhaust every possibility.
But doctors at Britain’s Great Ormond Street Hospital have decided that Charlie’s condition is hopeless, and that he should be left to die. Britain’s High Court agreed, and the European Court of Human rights refused to intervene after Charlie’s parents appealed. The doctors now have the legal go-ahead to take Charlie off life support.
Now world reaction has been decidedly on the side of Charlie’s parents. After some initial confusion within the Vatican, the Vatican’s pediatric hospital offered to take care of Charlie, as has at least one American hospital. Even President Trump tweeted over the weekend, “If we can help little #CharlieGard, … we would be delighted to do so.”
As I record this broadcast, these offers have all fallen on deaf ears. The hospital refuses to let Charlie travel or even die at home with his parents. They’ve kept him on life support to give Charlie and his parents just a little more time together.
Those are the facts as I understand them. But now here’s why this case is so important, both for the sake of Charlie and his family, and for our civilization.
First, the government should have no role in dictating when and where a baby should die, and whether his parents can seek additional treatment options. The decision by the British High Court is an appalling overreach, and it sets a very dangerous precedent. In worldview terms, the government is well beyond its sphere of sovereignty, gobbling up authority that rightfully belongs to the family and to the church.
Second Peter clarifies that the civil authorities are ordained by God to reward good and punish evil. Great Ormond Street Hospital and the British and international courts have determined it’s time for little Charlie to die, regardless of how many people around the world want to help him by paying for transportation and additional treatment. They won’t even allow him to die at home. They’ve effectively asserted ownership over this little boy and his life. This is unambiguously wrong.
And the facts don’t support the European Court of Human Rights’ claim that undergoing experimental treatment would expose Charlie to “continued pain, suffering and distress.” As one official at the hospital where he’s being cared for admitted, doctors “don’t know whether he suffers pain.”
And, we should note, the British government is in this position of superseded authority largely because of the breakdown of the family. Courts and officials there are accustomed to playing mom, dad, even sometimes God. And we’re not that far behind here in the United States.
But that doesn’t mean the government has the right to make the kinds of life-and-death decisions that Charlie’s parents and others are called to make, nor is it best equipped to navigate the unique challenges of such a difficult case. When it comes to this little life, by overstepping, hospital officials and judges have handed down a death sentence that isn’t theirs to render.
John Stonestreet, the host of The Point, a daily national radio program, provides thought-provoking commentaries on current events and life issues from a biblical worldview. John holds degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (IL) and Bryan College (TN), and is the co-author of Making Sense of Your World: A Biblical Worldview.
A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”
“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.
The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments.
Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend.
Basically, “cyclical pattern in the earlier reported data has very nearly been ‘adjusted’ out” of temperature readings taken from weather stations, buoys, ships and other sources.
In fact, almost all the surface temperature warming adjustments cool past temperatures and warm more current records, increasing the warming trend, according to the study’s authors.
“Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”
“You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened,” said D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso.
Opposing the Transgender Craze: How to Become a Scientific Heretic
Galileo Galilei was an advocate of Copernicanism when Copernicanism wasn’t cool. Galileo, the father of experimental physics, was an early advocate for the scientific idea that the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around.
Church authorities, however, at first claimed the theory to be “philosophically [that is, scientifically] foolish and absurd, and is considered official heresy because it explicitly contradicts the meaning of Scripture in many places.”
Now there’s a lot more to the Galileo story, which became a mistold part of the “religion-opposes-science” trope ever since. But today I want to ask, who is opposing science these days?
Take the case of Paul McHugh, the Henry Phipps Professor and Director of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and Psychiatrist-in-Chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital from 1975 to 2001.
Let Us Never Forget: A Memorial Day Reflection
Posted by Karl “KJ” Johnson on May 26, 2017
We will never forget. It’s a maxim in the armed forces that we do not forget our fallen.
I’ll never forget July 22, 2010: The day the AH-1W Super Cobra (manned by my roommate and his co-pilot, call sign “Dealer 54”), was felled by a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG). They were flying a combat mission in support of the US Marines under fire from insurgents. This was a routine mission in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan. Insurgents attacked daily and we regularly directed close air support to protect our ground forces, usually without incident. But as I stood in the combat operations center that day — as I did every day to ensure each mission was on track — I was stunned by a flurry of reports that Dealer 54 was down. Insurgents had fired multiple RPGs and one of them struck Dealer 54, causing the main rotor to separate from the aircraft and resulting in a catastrophic loss of our friends.
Late last year on BreakPoint, I told you about an extraordinary bit of censorship by the French government.
What was censored was an ad featuring a smiling, happy child with Down syndrome. The ad, entitled “Dear Future Mom,” told potential mothers about the joy and love that these children can and will bring into their lives.
So, why was it banned? Because the French government believes that the ad is “likely to disturb the conscience of women” who had aborted their babies after learning that the child had Down syndrome.
Now I’m going to tell you a story about a Frenchman who saw things very differently: Charles de Gaulle.
You probably weren’t expecting to hear that. To most Americans, de Gaulle was, as one writer put it, “an obnoxious, overly ambitious man who, in the grand French manner, strutted sitting down.”
He may have been some or all of these things, but there was a side of Charles de Gaulle that few people know about, and that side revolved around his love for his daughter, Anne.
Anne was born on New Year’s Day, 1928, the third of Charles and Yvonne de Gaulle’s three children. In De Gaulle’s words, Anne was “un enfant pas comme les autres,” a child not like the other children.
Scott Adams has gone full-on climate denialist in his latest Dilbert strip, causing liberal heads to explode.
Some of his old fans just aren’t happy at this betrayal of The Cause:
it’s a shame to see this as I used to think he was very funny. The Way of the Weasel was an awesome book.
it could be dementia – that is a thing that happens to people
On Scott Adams, his comic strip and thought processes have pretty clearly jumped the sharkThe man has become a dangerous idiot.I guess 30-ish years of minor fame and a little bit of pussy took his brain for a ride.
No doubt it is an accident of the pen. But the “climate scientist” in the cartoon bears more than a passing resemblance to Michael Mann, globally renowned inventor of the “Hockey Stick” and winner – or so he used to claim till he got rumbled – of the Nobel Prize.
The New York Post featured a column last week by Lauren Tousignant about a worrying trend for Oreo aficionados. It seems increasing numbers of Americans are finding their favorite sandwich cookies have changed, now tasting “chalky,” “cheap,” or “weird.”
Tousignant’s article is titled “Did Nabisco Ruin America’s Favorite Cookie?” But that headline is a bit misleading. Oreo and Nabisco are now both brands of Mondelez International. Most people have trouble pronouncing Mondelez’ name, let alone keeping track of their many brands. Oreo is a huge business for Mondelez; they made $2 billion dollars in 2016 producing more than 40 billion cookies. Would they really mess with success?
The company says no. In a statement to Breitbart News, Mondelez International said, “Oreo cookies which are made for sale in the US have the same recipe and taste profile, regardless of which manufacturing plant they are made at within our supply chain network. In addition, all of our manufacturing sites are held to the same high standards for safety and quality.”
Writing in the Post, Tousignant did a good job of documenting the problem. She gathered anecdotal evidence from family and friends, and also studied consumer complaint forums, which there is no shortage of on the Internet. She found a “significant increase” in complaints starting in November of 2016.
She also effectively laid out some of the reasons why food products may experience changes in flavor, both intentional and unintentional. These include the recipe change which Mondelez denied to both the Post and Breitbart News. As Tousignant points out in the Post, even a change in equipment used between old and new production plants can play a huge role in the flavor of the food they produce.
Readers that have kept up on the flow of American jobs to Mexico will note the fact that Mondelez moved a portion of their Oreo production from Chicago to Mexico. Oreos were made in Chicago for 60 years, would the move from that old of a production plant to a new Mexican facility be the exact type of equipment change Tousignant describes? Some customers boycotted Oreos over the Mexico move, but that was primarily over the lost jobs. Who knew that a few short years later Mondelez might be in a position to lose customers due to their product quality?
((This “news” article is a great example of liberal news bias))
NEW HAVEN >> The smell of barbecue wasn’t enough to weaken the resolve Friday of eight Yale University graduate student teachers who have not eaten in days.
The students are protesting the university’s unwillingness to negotiate a contract with its recently formed union, Local 33 Unite Here, saying that the school, which is contesting the National Labor Relations Board ruling, is delaying to start the negotiations because they are hoping President Donald Trump will appoint anti-union members to the NLRB.
Friday, just feet away from the tent erected in Beinecke Plaza on Wall Street, where protesters have stayed for the past three days, the Yale College Republicans were serving up a meal of barbecued beef, baked beans and corn to its members and others in the Yale community.
“I’m not really focused on that,” said Local 33 chairman and city Alder Aaron Greenberg, D-8, who is a graduate student teacher and Ph.D. candidate in political science. “I’m focused on making sure we have lots of water, make sure I’m healthy. We have a check-in with our nurse this afternoon. We are focused on that.”
Representatives of the Yale College Republicans would not comment on their presence in Beinecke Plaza Friday afternoon. Immediately after a reporter requested comment, a Yale University police officer arrived to remove the media presence from the plaza.
Only a day before journalists are set to meet at their annual self-congratulatory dinner, a new poll finds that their intended customers, the American people, don’t trust them. Indeed, the poll finds Americans trust the Trump White House to tell the truth more than they do the media.
The poll taken of 2,006 adults between April 23 and 26 is certainly bad news for the political media as 37 percent of respondents said they trust the Trump White House, while only 29 percent said they trust the media.
Worse for the media, the day before their April 29 dinner, the poll found that 51 percent of respondents said the national political media “is out of touch with everyday Americans,” while only 28 percent said the media “understand the issues every day Americans are facing.”
The poll sponsored by Morning Consult unsurprisingly found a partisan outcome with its questions. But what should concern the media is that independents also said they trust the White House more than they trust the media.
Republicans had an extremely lopsided view of the press with 72 percent saying the White House was more apt to tell the truth. Only 10 percent said the media would deliver real news while 18 percent said they did not know.
Of course, Democratic respondents trusted the media more than they do Trump, but at a much closer margin. 54 percent favor the media with only 12 percent saying they trust the White House. Perhaps a bit surprising was the 34 percent who said they were not sure which was more truthful.