Bill O’Reilly cries foul over calling Norwegian killer a Christian

Huffington Post:

Bill O’Reilly sternly criticized the media for describing Anders Behring-Breivik, the man who has admitted to committing the mass killings in Norway, as a Christian, saying that such a thing was “impossible.”

O’Reilly singled out the New York Times, which called Breivik a “Christian extremist” in an article. Breivik also referred to himself as a Christian, as did the Norwegian police, and his 1,500 page manifesto has been described as coming from a Christian perspective. In the manifesto, he writes that he does not have a “personal,” religious relationship with Christ, believes in Christianity “as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform,” which he says “makes [me] Christian.”

To O’Reilly, though, it was “impossible” that Breivik is a Christian.

“No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder,” he said. “The man might have called himself a Christian on the net, but he is certainly not of that faith…we can find no evidence, none, that this killer practiced Christianity in any way.”

I sure don’t recall O’Reilly howling over a man named Scott Roeder entering the church of Dr. George Tiller and gunning him down execution style.  Dr. Tiller was an abortion provider. 

Is it because O’Reilly had gone around for years before calling Dr. Tiller, “Tiller the Killer?”  Was Scott Roeder a Christian?   Is he not howling because Dr. Tiller is only one person?

Don’t people get to determine if they are Christian or not?  Isn’t it up to that person and his or her God to determine that?  I think we, as human beings, can certainly address ‘Christian behavior.”   We all have a pretty good idea what constitutes good Christian behavior and I think we are entitled to give our opinion on such behaviors.  However, I don’t think O’Reilly or any other human being gets to stand in judgement of whether someone else is a Christian or not.  That is a self-identifying task that no one else can do for you.

Tea Party candidate appears to be in debt

Tea Party Senate candidate Jamie Radtke apparently isn’t practicing what she preaches.  On Friday she  stated on her website that she was running for office because of the fiscal “ineptitude, mismanagement and irresponsibility” of the nation’s current leaders.  However, it appears her own house isn’t in order.

According to the Washington Post:

The larger problem for Radtke emerges further down in her report. As of June 30, she had $46,000 in the bank and $84,000 in debt. While about $6,000 of that total is money Radtke owes to herself for campaign expenses, roughly $70,000 is money she owes to various consulting firms.

Asked for comment, Radtke’s campaign turned its guns against Allen.

“Here are the facts: When this campaign is over, Jamie’s debt will be paid and gone,” said Radtke spokesman Chuck Hansen. “Meanwhile, the $3.1 trillion in debt George Allen voted for while senator is still on our books.”

It’s not uncommon for campaigns to owe money to vendors, but it’s relatively rare for candidates to have more debts than money in the bank. And given that Radtke isn’t nearly as well-known among Virginia voters as Allen is, it’s widely assumed in state political circles that she will have to improve her fundraising if she hopes to mount a strong challenge in the GOP primary.

I don’t care if the lady is in debt or not.  Campaign financing is obscene to me anyway.  It takes one’s breath away.  But isn’t Ms. Radtke a little on the hypocritical side to be in debt herself all while telling us that the current national leaders are inept, irresponsible and mismanage their financial  responsibilities?

Radtke needs to learn to run with the big dogs or stay on the porch.   She also needs to tell her IT staff to check for code error mistakes on the website.  Ouch.

ACLU asks Gov. McDonnell to drop invasive judicial questions

The ACLU has asked Virginia Governor McDonnell to drop two of the questions on the judicial application.  According to the Washington Post:

The ACLU of Virginia has asked Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) to revise or remove two questions from his questionnaire for judicial applicants regarding mental and physical disabilities that the group says may violate the American with Disabilities Act.

The questions are: “Have you ever been treated for any emotional or mental illness or condition. If so, please give the particulars.”and “Do you suffer from any impairment of eyesight or hearing or any other physical limitation?”

“These questions are unnecessary, inappropriate, invasive and very likely illegal,” said Kent Willis, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia. “Persons with disabilities fought for many years to eliminate employment and other forms of discrimination against them. The governor’s questions are an affront to them and the law, and we hope he will move swiftly to remove them.”

The application is available.  After reading it, it seems far more invasive and inappropriate than just the health questions.  Why does the governor need to know what political candidates an applicant has contributed to?  I guess you don’t want anyone who has ever contributed to a Democratic candidate.  This administration seems to just go by its own set of rules.  The hell with  HIPAA laws and the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

Should judges and other appointment applicants be subjected to questions of this personal of a nature?  Should questions like this be part of the initial vetting or should they be part of a final selection?  Perhaps this type of question should never be asked.  How much do we really get to know about a public servant?