The Front Page Cover
~ Featuring ~
Deliver us from Scripture-citers
by Jeff Jacoby
.
. The GOP's Odd Move on Internet Privacy
While much attention was focused on the GOP's health care failure, the Republican majority in Congress did something else that deserves scrutiny. ArsTechnica reports, "The US House of Representatives voted Tuesday to eliminate [Internet Service Provider] ISP privacy rules, following the Senate vote to take the same action last week." What privacy rules? "The rules issued by the FCC last year would have required home Internet and mobile broadband providers to get consumers' opt-in consent before selling or sharing Web browsing history, app usage history, and other private information with advertisers and other companies. But lawmakers used their authority under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to pass a joint resolution ensuring that the rules 'shall have no force or effect' and that the FCC cannot issue similar regulations in the future."
Proponents argue that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), not the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), is the proper regulatory vehicle. But there is no indication of any forthcoming protections from the FTC.
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) pushed the bill, saying the FCC rulemaking was "just another example of big government overreach."
But is that true? Various websites, including giants like Facebook and Google, can already see a lot about users depending on what people do on those websites. People can choose not to use those websites. Now, ISPs have free reign over all the data coming through a user's browser. It's much harder to avoid particular ISPs, especially when most people live in areas with only one or two providers. And ISPs can sell data to the highest bidder without users' permission. That's browsing history, mobile app usage, content posted in emails, financial and medical information, etc. Can a hospital sell your medical information? No, but ISPs now can. It's also reasonable to assume this just made it easier for the government to use ISPs as data collection proxies. An ISP can't say they don't have data when they're actively selling it.
We normally argue against regulation, and we don't want to overstate this case, but the GOP's move to deregulate here is baffling. Then again, it's not the first time Republicans have been wrong about the Internet. Exit question: Besides Big Business, who benefits? ~The Patriot Post
.
.
Include liar-Clinton/Podesta/liar-nObama
Russia Connection In 3 or 4 Investigations
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Newt Gingrich is asked if the criminality of what was happening at the liar-nObama White House in relation to the spying and revealing that was engaged in by the former regime is being overlooked... in all of the discussions of the process of the investigation. He raises the issue of the changes to executive order 13222 by liar-nObama and Lynch, which “would allow gossip and things that were not proven to be distributed very widely in the intelligence community, knowing that they were likely to leak.” Gingrich asks, “Where are the decision memos, why was that decided, who made the decision.” Pointing to how bizarre all of this is, beyond something he’d put into a novel, Gingrich suggests three or four parallel investigations are probably needed. He says, “There’s one into what happened in the White House, there’s one into the whole process of relationships with Russia. But if you’re going to start going into relationships with Russia, you also should be looking at the liar-Clintons and all of the different things that involve money, with people who happen to be Democrats. And it’s going to turn out to be, the more we learn the bigger the mess this is going to turn out to be.”... http://rickwells.us/gingrich-include-clinton-podesta-obama-russia-connection-in-3-or-4-investigations/
Europe: Combating Fake News
by Fjordman
{gatestoneinstitute.org} ~ In January 2015 The New York Times denied that there are "no-go-zones" -- areas that are not under the control of the state and are ruled according to sharia law... dominated by certain immigrant groups in some urban areas in Western Europe. The American newspaper mentioned this author, alongside writers such as Steven Emerson and Daniel Pipes, for spreading this alleged falsehood. The article was published shortly after Islamic terrorists had massacred the staff of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris on January 7, 2015. Other established media outlets such as the magazine The Atlantic also dismissed claims of no-go-zones. Fox News issued an unusual on-air apology for allowing its anchors and guests to repeat the suggestion that there are Muslim "no-go zones" in European countries such as Britain and France. Regarding the subject of "no-go-zones," this is largely a question of semantics. If you say that there are some areas where even the police are afraid to go, where the country's normal, secular laws barely apply, then it is indisputable that such areas now exist in several Western European countries. France is one of the hardest hit: it has a large population of Arab and African immigrants, including millions of Muslims... https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10037/no-go-zones-Europe
.Russia Charade To Distract, Cover
liar-Clinton/liar-nObama Espionage Tracks
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Lt General Thomas McInerney closes out his comments with a declaration of what is going on with the Democrat’s politically motivated obsessions over Russia... “This whole thing has been a charade,” says Lt Gen McInerney, “it is tactical deception. They do not want the Trump administration to start looking in at the violations of the espionage act by liar-Hillary Clinton with her rogue server and by the ‘president,’ who used a pseudonym on her rogue server and they both are in violation of the espionage act. They do not want this to come out, so they have brought up all of these other ‘facts’ about Russia and why they lost the election. They began the segment by reviewing the comments of Devin Nunes from the previous week in which he laid out the initial information about the liar-nObama spying that he had obtained and after his initial briefing of the President. McInerney says he’s not surprised by anything other than it took so long for the questions to be asked. He says he was tipped off “once Director Comey mentioned it, that there had been an investigation since last July, I automatically knew that they were using electronic means, if you will, to get further information... http://rickwells.us/gen-mcinerney-russia-charade-distract-clinton-obama-espionage/
.Republicans still have work to
do to fix liar-nObamacare
by Michael R. Strain
{washingtonpost.com} ~ It would be an error to conclude that the Affordable Care Act is working well because House Republicans failed to pass a bill to repeal and replace it... Although talk of a “death spiral” is overblown — we are not witnessing a situation in which coverage rates will drop precipitously — it is the case that insurers are pulling out of the exchanges. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 21 percent of exchange enrollees have access to only one insurer in 2017, compared with 2 percent in 2016 — a huge and very concerning increase. And the share of enrollees with access to only two providers nearly doubled between 2016 and 2017, from 12 to 22 percent. At the same time, premiums on the ACA exchanges have increased significantly — 22 percent in 2017 alone, and more than double during the past four years...Oh, and there were still 29 million Americans without health insurance in 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/28/republicans-still-have-work-to-do-to-fix-obamacare/?utm_term=.5358b2e19ea4
{washingtonpost.com} ~ It would be an error to conclude that the Affordable Care Act is working well because House Republicans failed to pass a bill to repeal and replace it... Although talk of a “death spiral” is overblown — we are not witnessing a situation in which coverage rates will drop precipitously — it is the case that insurers are pulling out of the exchanges. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 21 percent of exchange enrollees have access to only one insurer in 2017, compared with 2 percent in 2016 — a huge and very concerning increase. And the share of enrollees with access to only two providers nearly doubled between 2016 and 2017, from 12 to 22 percent. At the same time, premiums on the ACA exchanges have increased significantly — 22 percent in 2017 alone, and more than double during the past four years...Oh, and there were still 29 million Americans without health insurance in 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/28/republicans-still-have-work-to-do-to-fix-obamacare/?utm_term=.5358b2e19ea4
.
Trump Admin Appeal Hawaii “So-Called”
Judge Executive Order Ruling To 9th Circuit
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ President Trump’s administration has filed an appeal of the decision of liar-nObama’s Yale classmate, “so-called” Judge Derrick Watson of Honolulu... Watson has ruled, in a completely political decision that didn’t even include a legal basis for the decision, that he, not the President, determines how United States immigration policies are implemented and enforced and what type of national security protections we are entitled to as Americans. The Sessions DOJ is challenging his insane ruling that the commercial interests of his native state of Hawaii, the “rights” of a random Middle Eastern student who is not an American, and the “rights” of a terrorist supporting Imam to have his Syrian mother visit him from the terrorist nation took priority over the rights of innocent Americans not to be blasted to smithereens or shot dead by a foreign terrorist. On Thursday the Sessions Department of Justice filed an appeal to the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the President was within his rights, authority and the responsibilities of his office when he issued the second terrorist travel ban executive order... http://rickwells.us/trump-admin-appeal-hawaii-judge-executive-order-ruling-9th-circuit/
{rickwells.us} ~ President Trump’s administration has filed an appeal of the decision of liar-nObama’s Yale classmate, “so-called” Judge Derrick Watson of Honolulu... Watson has ruled, in a completely political decision that didn’t even include a legal basis for the decision, that he, not the President, determines how United States immigration policies are implemented and enforced and what type of national security protections we are entitled to as Americans. The Sessions DOJ is challenging his insane ruling that the commercial interests of his native state of Hawaii, the “rights” of a random Middle Eastern student who is not an American, and the “rights” of a terrorist supporting Imam to have his Syrian mother visit him from the terrorist nation took priority over the rights of innocent Americans not to be blasted to smithereens or shot dead by a foreign terrorist. On Thursday the Sessions Department of Justice filed an appeal to the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the President was within his rights, authority and the responsibilities of his office when he issued the second terrorist travel ban executive order... http://rickwells.us/trump-admin-appeal-hawaii-judge-executive-order-ruling-9th-circuit/
.
.
Nicholas Kristof used his New York Times column to craft a pastiche about Jesus and "Paul of Ryan," with the former speaking familiar lines from the New Testament - "Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of God," "From everyone who has been given much, much will be required" - while the latter disdainfully swats those teachings away. "Oh, come on, Jesus," the Ryan character sneers, "don't go socialist on me again."
On Monday, a story from the Religious News Service was headlined: "Trump's Budget Slashes Aid To The Poor. Would Jesus Have A Problem With That?" The piece recounted the "scriptural smackdown" pitting conservative blogger Erick Erickson against liberals condemning Trump's budget scheme as religiously "immoral" and downright "evil."
On a different tack, liberal activist Jay Michaelson weighed in with a bizarre biblical defense of the National Endowment for the Arts - G0D's appeal to the Israelites in Exodus 35 to donate precious metals, jewels, fabrics, and spices for the construction of the Tabernacle and its vessels. "Public art projects like the Tabernacle of the Israelites," writes Michaelson, demonstrate "what our civilization stands for" and why taxes should fund it.
Debating government spending is standard fare in Washington. Sanctimony is, too. But the posturing grows a little too pious when pundits and politicos, brandishing a line from the Bible, declare that Jesus would never reduce spending on X or that God must be in favor of budget hikes for Y - and imagine that that settles the debate.
Some of these Biblical invocations are just silly. The Tabernacle described in Exodus was not a "public art project," it was religious infrastructure used for priestly sacrifices and to house the Ark of the Covenant.
More importantly, the Bible is a sacred text, not a Cliffs Notes for federal budgeteers. No one can deny that Scripture is replete with exhortations to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and be compassionate to the downtrodden. But those injunctions are personal, not political. If they constitute a moral mandate, it is for the action of private individuals guided by conscience, not for government programs created by the state and collectively imposed through the pains and penalties of law.
I would never argue that American politics should be devoid of religious influence. This has always been a nation of Bible-readers and churchgoers. "In G0D We Trust" is the nation's motto. G0D appears four times in the Declaration of Independence. His blessing is entreated in every state constitution, and in countless presidential proclamations. It is altogether fitting and proper that religion has played so prominent a role in America's great social movements, from independence to abolition to equal rights.
But the nation's deep current of religious influence does not mean that public policy can be made by pointing to Bible verses. It is reasonable to read for example)Jesus' words in Matthew 25 - "Whatever you do to the least of these, you do unto me" - as a reminder that the ethical test of any society is how it treats its most vulnerable members, and a call to each of us to extend a hand to those in need. It is not reasonable to claim that every faithful Christian must therefore endorse Meals on Wheels or defend public housing vouchers from budget cuts.
The temptation to quote the Bible for political purposes is bipartisan: Republicans and Democrats do it; conservatives and liberals do it. The impulse may be sincere. But flaunting a verse from Scripture to promote a political purpose ends up tarnishing the one without elevating the other.
By all means, study the Bible. Take its lessons to heart. Let those lessons guide how you live your life. Just don't confuse the word of G0D with a partisan political agenda.
Now I really ought to buckle down to read "The Merchant of Venice."
Deliver us from Scripture-citers
by Jeff Jacoby
{jewishworldreview.com} ~ "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose," says the wealthy Antonio to his young friend Bassanio in Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice."
So can the politician, he might have added. And the party activist.
Full disclosure: I've never actually read "The Merchant of Venice." Though I'm familiar with the story, I have yet to actually study the text or even view a performance of the play. But that line about the devil citing Scripture suits the point I want to make, so I plucked it out of context to use in this column.
When the Trump administration released an outline recently of its forthcoming budget proposals, many on the left expressed dismay. The White House wants to reduce spending on the State Department, environmental programs, arts and broadcast subsidies, and housing initiatives, while significantly increasing outlays on defense, homeland security, and veterans' health care.
Cue the Scripture-citers.
Rachel Held Evans, a liberal Christian author, took to Twitter to decry proposed cuts to the Meals on Wheels program. "There are few things the Bible is unambiguously clear about," she tweeted, "but from Hebrew Scripture to Matt. 25, care for the poor & needy is one of them."
So can the politician, he might have added. And the party activist.
Full disclosure: I've never actually read "The Merchant of Venice." Though I'm familiar with the story, I have yet to actually study the text or even view a performance of the play. But that line about the devil citing Scripture suits the point I want to make, so I plucked it out of context to use in this column.
When the Trump administration released an outline recently of its forthcoming budget proposals, many on the left expressed dismay. The White House wants to reduce spending on the State Department, environmental programs, arts and broadcast subsidies, and housing initiatives, while significantly increasing outlays on defense, homeland security, and veterans' health care.
Cue the Scripture-citers.
Rachel Held Evans, a liberal Christian author, took to Twitter to decry proposed cuts to the Meals on Wheels program. "There are few things the Bible is unambiguously clear about," she tweeted, "but from Hebrew Scripture to Matt. 25, care for the poor & needy is one of them."
Nicholas Kristof used his New York Times column to craft a pastiche about Jesus and "Paul of Ryan," with the former speaking familiar lines from the New Testament - "Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of God," "From everyone who has been given much, much will be required" - while the latter disdainfully swats those teachings away. "Oh, come on, Jesus," the Ryan character sneers, "don't go socialist on me again."
On Monday, a story from the Religious News Service was headlined: "Trump's Budget Slashes Aid To The Poor. Would Jesus Have A Problem With That?" The piece recounted the "scriptural smackdown" pitting conservative blogger Erick Erickson against liberals condemning Trump's budget scheme as religiously "immoral" and downright "evil."
On a different tack, liberal activist Jay Michaelson weighed in with a bizarre biblical defense of the National Endowment for the Arts - G0D's appeal to the Israelites in Exodus 35 to donate precious metals, jewels, fabrics, and spices for the construction of the Tabernacle and its vessels. "Public art projects like the Tabernacle of the Israelites," writes Michaelson, demonstrate "what our civilization stands for" and why taxes should fund it.
Debating government spending is standard fare in Washington. Sanctimony is, too. But the posturing grows a little too pious when pundits and politicos, brandishing a line from the Bible, declare that Jesus would never reduce spending on X or that God must be in favor of budget hikes for Y - and imagine that that settles the debate.
Some of these Biblical invocations are just silly. The Tabernacle described in Exodus was not a "public art project," it was religious infrastructure used for priestly sacrifices and to house the Ark of the Covenant.
More importantly, the Bible is a sacred text, not a Cliffs Notes for federal budgeteers. No one can deny that Scripture is replete with exhortations to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and be compassionate to the downtrodden. But those injunctions are personal, not political. If they constitute a moral mandate, it is for the action of private individuals guided by conscience, not for government programs created by the state and collectively imposed through the pains and penalties of law.
I would never argue that American politics should be devoid of religious influence. This has always been a nation of Bible-readers and churchgoers. "In G0D We Trust" is the nation's motto. G0D appears four times in the Declaration of Independence. His blessing is entreated in every state constitution, and in countless presidential proclamations. It is altogether fitting and proper that religion has played so prominent a role in America's great social movements, from independence to abolition to equal rights.
But the nation's deep current of religious influence does not mean that public policy can be made by pointing to Bible verses. It is reasonable to read for example)Jesus' words in Matthew 25 - "Whatever you do to the least of these, you do unto me" - as a reminder that the ethical test of any society is how it treats its most vulnerable members, and a call to each of us to extend a hand to those in need. It is not reasonable to claim that every faithful Christian must therefore endorse Meals on Wheels or defend public housing vouchers from budget cuts.
The temptation to quote the Bible for political purposes is bipartisan: Republicans and Democrats do it; conservatives and liberals do it. The impulse may be sincere. But flaunting a verse from Scripture to promote a political purpose ends up tarnishing the one without elevating the other.
By all means, study the Bible. Take its lessons to heart. Let those lessons guide how you live your life. Just don't confuse the word of G0D with a partisan political agenda.
Now I really ought to buckle down to read "The Merchant of Venice."
Comments