These two topics are unrelated, by the way....
I have ranted against Attorney General Eric Holder many times on this blog. I think he is nothing more than a corrupt, incompetent, race-obsessed political hack, and it is a disgrace that he occupies one of the most powerful governmental positions in this country. Finally, in the wake of Holder's utter failure to seriously address the Fast and Furious scandal and the unprecedented leaks of classified information that are apparently coming from the White House, several prominent Republican in Congress, including Senator John Cornyn from Texas who sits on the Justice Committee, have called for Eric Holder's resignation. Senator Cornyn lays out the reasons why Holder should resign clearly here.
I also want to follow up on the lengthy essay I published on the topic of same-sex marriage last month. One of the issues I discussed with Some Dude in the comments to that essay was the question about how children do growing up in homes with same-sex parents compared with children being raised by both of their biological parents. Some recent studies have claimed that there is no difference, and supporters of same-sex marriage have seized on these studies to argue that since children do not need a father and a mother to thrive there is no reason to give special recognition to traditional heterosexual marriage for the sake of the children.
However, two studies published on June 10 in the Social Science Research journal, which is apparently a well-respected scholarly publication, raise serious questions about these claims. One study, authored by a professor at Louisiana State University, found that previous research studies that claimed children raised by same-sex parents do just as well as children raised by married heterosexual parents were flawed and that the data from those studies was insufficient to support their claims. The other study, authored by a professor from the University of Texas, found that children raised by lesbian parents fared worse on 24 out of 40 key developmental outcomes, and that children raised by gay parents fared worse on 19 out of 40 key developmental outcomes. The children of gay and lesbian parents fared better on no developmental outcomes. This study also compared other types of family structures. The study's conclusion is that "children appear most apt to succeed well as adults—on multiple counts and across a variety of domains—when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day.”
I have found a number of helpful articles online that provide more information and analysis of these studies. They include an article from Fox News by Dr. Keith Ablow and a National Review article by Charles C.W. Cooke. And legal expert Ed Whelan, also of National Review, discusses the implications of these studies on the ongoing gay marriage debate in three very helpful articles here, here, and here. Of course, studies must be taken with a grain of salt and no one study can definitively prove anything. But these studies are important in debunking the claim being advanced by many gay marriage advocates that science definitively proves that it makes no difference to a child whether he is raised by a mother and a father, two fathers, or two mothers. Ultimately, my belief in the importance of fathers and mothers is not based on any study. It is based, first of all, in my belief in God's Word and the creation order and marriage institution God established. It is also based on the fundamental realities of biology and the clear differences between genders and between fathers and mothers. And finally, it is based on the experience of thousands of years of culture and the mountains of evidence that demonstrate that children do best when raised by their married biological parents.
UPDATE: Another great article from National Review analyzing the recent gay parenting study and comparing it to other gay parenting studies published in recent years.
Showing posts with label Justice Department. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Justice Department. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Department of Injustice
This post by Ed Whelan on National Review's Bench Memos blog caught my attention. We all know that Eric Holder's Justice Department is refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court. What is also coming out is that Holder's Justice Department is also refusing to enforce DOMA as existing law. Whelan gives one clear example of this in his post, and also links to a longer article that provides much more detailed evidence and analysis of the Justice Department's actions.
This is par for the course for Holder's Justice Department. A Washington Times editorial from September 2010 explained how the DOJ is refusing to enforce federal laws that require states to purge their voting rolls of ineligible voters. Whistleblower J. Christian Adams recounted how a top official from the DOJ informed her staff that the department had no interest in enforcing those laws (presumably since voter fraud works to the Democrat's political advantage). Then there is this column by Andrew McCarthy on National Review, which recounts the testimony of another whistleblower, Christopher Coates, before the Civil Rights Commission. Coates described how the DOJ's dropping of all charges in the Philadelphia Black Panthers voter intimidation case, shocking as it was, was merely the tip of the iceberg and that at Holder's (and Obama's) direction, the DOJ was consistently enforcing civil rights laws in a racially discriminatory manner. As McCarthy pointed out, it is more than just politicization of the Justice Department - it is the criminalization of the Justice Department.
Clearly, President Obama and his buddy Eric Holder have no interest in enforcing laws they don't like. They will stop at nothing, including ignoring or violating the laws and Constitution of the U.S., in order to achieve their political and ideological goals. Their lawless tyranny must be stopped in November 2012, or our country may never recover.
This is par for the course for Holder's Justice Department. A Washington Times editorial from September 2010 explained how the DOJ is refusing to enforce federal laws that require states to purge their voting rolls of ineligible voters. Whistleblower J. Christian Adams recounted how a top official from the DOJ informed her staff that the department had no interest in enforcing those laws (presumably since voter fraud works to the Democrat's political advantage). Then there is this column by Andrew McCarthy on National Review, which recounts the testimony of another whistleblower, Christopher Coates, before the Civil Rights Commission. Coates described how the DOJ's dropping of all charges in the Philadelphia Black Panthers voter intimidation case, shocking as it was, was merely the tip of the iceberg and that at Holder's (and Obama's) direction, the DOJ was consistently enforcing civil rights laws in a racially discriminatory manner. As McCarthy pointed out, it is more than just politicization of the Justice Department - it is the criminalization of the Justice Department.
Clearly, President Obama and his buddy Eric Holder have no interest in enforcing laws they don't like. They will stop at nothing, including ignoring or violating the laws and Constitution of the U.S., in order to achieve their political and ideological goals. Their lawless tyranny must be stopped in November 2012, or our country may never recover.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Thoughts on WikiLeaks
Once again, WikiLeaks is back in the news. You know, the organization that specializes in leaking stolen classified documents to a eagerly complicit press, endangering the lives of thousands of Americans and American allies.
On the Washington Post website, Marc Thiessen blasts the Obama Justice Department for taking no action to shut down WikiLeaks and prosecute its founder Julian Assange. I guess they're too busy suing Arizona for enforcing federal immigration law to bother with threats to our national security.
Over at National Review, Andrew McCarthy notes the irresponsibility of The New York Times and other media sources and also addresses the constitutional questions of free speech and the "right to know."
Also at National Review, Rich Lowry notes the raw anti-Americanism of WikiLeaks and discusses how Obama's election has done nothing to appease these America-haters, contrary to fashionable liberal opinion.
Peter Wehner from Commentary Magazine's Contentions blog notes that the confidential, private conversations of Arab leaders leaked in these documents demonstrates that most of them recognize the grave threat that Iran poses to the world -- a threat that cannot be defeated through appeasement. It's a sad day when the Arab world is more hawkish against Iran than much of the American left (and the current administration).
And then of course there are the liberals, who simply can't seem to get too upset over these leaks, no matter how many lives are endangered or no matter how much our international relations are damaged, as long as our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are hindered and Bush is made to look bad. Enter Richard Cohen of the Washington Post, who manages to allow that he doesn't "much like" what WikiLeaks has done before spending the rest of the column exulting in how the leaks supposedly embarrass Bush and make the war in Iraq look bad. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that liberals like Cohen are happy to see America embarrassed and defeated for the sake of their ideology.
Assange and the Army private responsible for leaking many of these documents, Bradley Manning, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I don't even think the death penalty is too extreme, given the fact that these treasonous leaks have (and will) doubtless cost American lives. Also, the Justice Department should determine how these leaks were able to happen in the first place. Whoever was responsible for the lax security of such important confidential documents should lose their job, and new measures should be put in place to prevent this from happening in the future. Our government must send a clear message that such leaks will not be tolerated, if we expect other countries to trust us and continue to cooperate with us in the future.
On the Washington Post website, Marc Thiessen blasts the Obama Justice Department for taking no action to shut down WikiLeaks and prosecute its founder Julian Assange. I guess they're too busy suing Arizona for enforcing federal immigration law to bother with threats to our national security.
Over at National Review, Andrew McCarthy notes the irresponsibility of The New York Times and other media sources and also addresses the constitutional questions of free speech and the "right to know."
Also at National Review, Rich Lowry notes the raw anti-Americanism of WikiLeaks and discusses how Obama's election has done nothing to appease these America-haters, contrary to fashionable liberal opinion.
Peter Wehner from Commentary Magazine's Contentions blog notes that the confidential, private conversations of Arab leaders leaked in these documents demonstrates that most of them recognize the grave threat that Iran poses to the world -- a threat that cannot be defeated through appeasement. It's a sad day when the Arab world is more hawkish against Iran than much of the American left (and the current administration).
And then of course there are the liberals, who simply can't seem to get too upset over these leaks, no matter how many lives are endangered or no matter how much our international relations are damaged, as long as our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are hindered and Bush is made to look bad. Enter Richard Cohen of the Washington Post, who manages to allow that he doesn't "much like" what WikiLeaks has done before spending the rest of the column exulting in how the leaks supposedly embarrass Bush and make the war in Iraq look bad. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that liberals like Cohen are happy to see America embarrassed and defeated for the sake of their ideology.
Assange and the Army private responsible for leaking many of these documents, Bradley Manning, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I don't even think the death penalty is too extreme, given the fact that these treasonous leaks have (and will) doubtless cost American lives. Also, the Justice Department should determine how these leaks were able to happen in the first place. Whoever was responsible for the lax security of such important confidential documents should lose their job, and new measures should be put in place to prevent this from happening in the future. Our government must send a clear message that such leaks will not be tolerated, if we expect other countries to trust us and continue to cooperate with us in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)