The “Free Enterprise Friday” roundtable on CNBC’s The Kudlow Report means the always gracious but relentless Larry Kudlow focuses his panel of three guests on very specific subjects.
Larry’s table Friday included Richard Socarides, Democratic strategist and former Clinton White House official, New York City radio talker Mark Simone, and me. After Larry led us through a dissection of the brutal opening of the 2014 edition of the Obamacare follies, we all turned our collective attention to the Senate races of 2014.
BY ETHAN EPSTEIN / weeklystandard.com
When you first meet Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, leading climate “skeptic,” and all-around scourge of James Hansen, Bill McKibben, Al Gore, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and sundry other climate “alarmists,” as Lindzen calls them, you may find yourself a bit surprised. If you know Lindzen only from the way his opponents characterize him—variously, a liar, a lunatic, a charlatan, a denier, a shyster, a crazy person, corrupt—you might expect a spittle-flecked, wild-eyed loon. But in person, Lindzen cuts a rather different figure. With his gray beard, thick glasses, gentle laugh, and disarmingly soft voice, he comes across as nothing short of grandfatherly.
A nation founded by pilgrims who came here to worship the God of the Bible freely without interference and persecution from ruling elites and those opposed to Christianity's influence on the culture, has now come to the proverbial fork in the road. After years of attempting to balance traditional Americana with political correctness, those pushing the new "my way or the highway" definition of "tolerance" have decided accommodating our differences of opinion is defeat.
By Craig Parshall
When the Supreme Court issued its two major decisions on same-sex unions, it meted out two defeats to proponents of biblical marriage, one substantive and one procedural. Make no mistake, however, that the one ruling (U.S. v. Windsor) that struck down a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which had defined marriage for federal law purposes as one man and one woman, has given us a two-fold warning: first, that the Court may be preparing soon, if given the right case, to grant homosexuals the highest constitutional protection available; and, second, that objectors like those Christians who take a responsible view of Scripture and who expound on it will likely find themselves disenfranchised on this issue and sadly mislabeled as persons who, in the words of the Court's decision, harbor a "desire to harm" the rights of homosexuals; as perpetrators of "discrimination of an unusual character;" and as persons whose actions impose a "stigma" on gay persons.