Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of a Hamas leader turned Israeli spy and Christian, has been granted U.S. asylum Wednesday, AP reports.

The Department of Homeland Security denied Yousef asylum last year because they argued that he was involved in terrorism and was a threat to the country. However Yousef argued that he would killed if sent back to West Bank because he had infiltrated Hamas for Shin Bet, the Israeli intelligence agency, and because he left the Muslim faith for Christianity.

“For 10 years, he fought terrorism in secret, hiding what he was doing and who he was,” his attorney, Steven Seick, wrote in a court filing. “He deserves a safe place away from violence and fear.”

For more information on Yousef, read WORLD articles by Emily Belz and Mindy Belz.

When Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was a domestic policy adviser at the Clinton White House, she wrote a memo in the midst of the debate over Congress issuing a ban on partial-birth abortion. Her 1996 memo cites a statement from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a medical group that eventually opposed a ban on partial-birth abortion, which reads:

“A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which [the partial-birth] procedure…would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.”

In the 1996 memo, Kagan worries the statement will go public – an eventuality which she described as a “disaster.”

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who has had a generally friendly demeanor towards Kagan, said today in her confirmation hearing,

Did you write that memo?

Kagan returned,

I’ve seen the document. The document is certainly in my handwriting.

Kagan explained that she thought the ACOG’s statement would be a “disaster” because she didn’t think the medical group had fully expressed its position. She characterized ACOG’s position as such: that there was never a circumstance where partial-birth was absolutely necessary, but it could be “medically best” and the procedure with the “least risk attached to it in terms of preventing harm to the woman’s health.” The ACOG copied her language in its statement, saying partial-birth abortion

may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.

Hatch wasn’t convinced.

As you know, many in Congress came to the conclusion too that it was a brutal procedure that was really unjustified. That bothers me that you intervened in that particular area in that way.

A year earlier, in her White House notes about a partial-birth abortion ban, Kagan indicated what “health of the woman” could mean:

Key of this analysis – All you need is a dr certifying ‘this procedure is safer’ don’t even need him to certify that woman is choosing to have an abortion for health reasons.

Despite the happy talk coming out of the White House, there is overwhelming and terrifying evidence that we’re heading for an economic cliff next year. It’s going to happen. Make your plans accordingly.

Arthur Laffer, who was on President Reagan’s Economic Policy Advisory Board and is known as the father of supply-side economics, makes a strong argument in his Wall Street Journal piece, “Tax Hikes and the 2011 Economic Collapse.” His extended subtitle reads, “Today’s corporate profits reflect an income shift into 2010. These profits will tumble next year, preceded most likely by the stock market.” The economics is simple. When the cash for clunkers program was paying people significant incentives to buy cars, sales spiked. Lo! Incentives work! But when the program ended, sales plummeted. And why should anyone be surprised? Much of the sales spike was people simply shifting their purchase plans forward in response to the government gift.

The same thing happened with last year’s $8,000 government incentive for people to get out and buy a house. When the incentive ended, sales . . . you guessed it . . . fell sharply. The publicly funded incentive either subsidized people who were buying anyway or concentrated in a shorter period of time sales that would have happened over a longer period. Undoubtedly it brought some people into the market who otherwise would not have entered, but Laffer’s point is that the numbers are far overstated, and that we can see this in the collapse that followed the spike.

Bearing that in mind, consider that the Bush tax cuts are set to expire on January 1, 2011. Given that Congress has no plans to make those cuts permanent, people are doing what you can expect them to do in response to incentives and disincentives. They are using every means possible to move 2011 income into 2010, giving the misleading impression that the economy is recovering. But it’s just a sugar high. Next year will see a tremendous crash as a result of the massive tax hikes that are scheduled to hit the people who have money.

As if that were not enough, the housing crisis is not over. The government, via the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), is fueling its continuation. Stephen Meister explains in the New York Post how:

“In 2006, the FHA insured just 3 percent of home mortgages; today, it insures one of every three. Together with Fannie and Freddie, the FHA is putting the risk for the entire $11 trillion US home-mortgage market on the back of the American taxpayer.”

FHA also insures one-in-five refinances. Whereas private lenders—who are in the business of managing risk—are asking10 to 20 percent down when they lend at all, FHA requires as little as 3.5 percent down. As before, people in risky situations who really shouldn’t be in the housing market are being facilitated into homes for political reasons, not market-based ones. Also, as before, many of them will default. But unlike the last time, the bulk of responsibility for the loss will fall on the public treasury. That’s a huge chunk of $11 trillion. Meister continues:

“Thanks to the FHA, subprime-mortgage lending is alive and well. And thanks to Obama’s latest program, private-mortgage investors will be able to pick the riskiest of their not-yet-defaulted underwater loans, and get them off their books and onto the FHA’s. Bottom line: The Federal Housing Administration is continuing the toxic policies that produced the housing bubble and the subprime crisis, and putting the taxpayers on the hook for it. Expect it to be the next big bailout.”

Feeling down? Now meet the third “Spirit of Crisis Yet to Come.” In Bloomberg Businessweek, Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute examines the Greek debt crisis and sees, if not an inevitable collapse, then at least a terribly brittle and shaky sovereign debt situation stretching from the east end of Europe to this side of the Atlantic:

“During the financial crisis, faith was restored in large financial institutions because toxic assets were essentially exchanged for government bonds. If government bonds become toxic, there will be no effective treatment options remaining. The collapse will have no bottom. And that collapse could happen at any moment.”

And our president is speaking to us from the Oval Office about energy-efficient windows.

Hassett says a 2003 working paper by the International Monetary Fund puts the debts we have been running for the last couple of years in chilling perspective:

“The paper . . . studied historical sovereign-debt crises, exactly the situations that Western nations are hoping to avoid. They found that external debt levels—money owed to foreigners—exceeding 50 percent was a key indicator that debt default may occur. Here is the chilling fact: the average external debt as a percent of GDP among countries in their sample the year before a sovereign debt crisis was 54.7 percent, and 71.4 percent in the crisis year. The U.S. external debt on Dec. 31, 2009, was $13.77 trillion, or almost 100 percent of GDP. For much of Europe, the story is worse.

The lesson in each of these cases is that economics is unforgiving. There’s no free lunch. Debts come due. You can put them off, but not indefinitely (though politicians tell us we can). The bigger you let them get and the longer you put them off, the deeper they bury you when they come back at you.

This just in from Wisconsin:

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has upheld the state’s constitutional ban on gay marriage and civil unions. In a 7-0 ruling, the court on Wednesday ruled that the 2006 constitutional amendment was properly put to voters in a statewide referendum.

Here is the released opinion from the court:

2008AP1868 (2010 WI 57)
William C. McConkey v. J. B. Van Hollen -

The judgment and order of the circuit court are affirmed.
Author: Justice Michael J. Gableman

There is a new generation of articulate conservatives on the rise in America. These new conservatives will not be charged with religious syncretism, the throwing of random Bible verses at political issues, or using the Bible to legislate morality. Instead, they employ clear and simple reflections on the implications of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights for American life and public policy. Robert Wheeler and John Amble have assembled a provocative new generation of thinkers in their new book, Reinventing the Right: Conservative voices for the new millennium, which will introduce to liberals, conservatives and moderates new ways of thinking about the foundations of liberty. The conservatives in this volume seem to want to expand the reader’s imagination of an America that is committed to the rule of law and a robust constitutionalism.

The book’s contributors are among the brightest women and men from multiple disciplines ranging from law and business to education and ecology. The contributors’ academic credentials, including degrees from Harvard, Princeton, Dartmouth, Emory, and Berkeley just to name a few, are sure to impress readers. With political savvy, these women and men apply the Constitution to the hottest political issues facing America’s future, including the roles of the First and Second Amendments, a defense of religious liberty, as well as multiculturalism, abortion, energy conservation, healthcare reform, public education, crime, immigration, American foreign policy, national security, globalization, taxes, and more. Needless to say, if you love WORLD you will enjoy this book immensely.

For example, conservative readers will be encouraged by Wheeler’s chapter on abortion, where he writes that many people forget the damage abortion does to the dignity of women and the innocent in light of liberty and the Constitution:

“We offer a society in which human beings are respected and given the dignity they deserve, particularly women. . . . It is a society where people are treated with enough dignity and respect to expect of them the ability to make decisions and to require that they take responsibility for the results. In such a society, women are truly empowered.

“The right to on-demand abortion does not empower but rather dehumanizes women. It treats them as children, unable to make complex decisions, and gives them as reprieve against poor decisions the ability to infringe upon the rights of others without consequence. Infringing upon the rights of others without consequence is not empowerment. It is enablement. In a better society, women are empowered enough to make decisions about their bodies without violating the rights of the innocent.”

Abortion is a constitutional issue in addition to a religious one. For those familiar with the Constitution Party’s position on the sanctity of life, they will be reminded of a similar defense of the pre-born “whose life begins at fertilization.” The Constitution Party says, “[T]he first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born.” It could be argued that in the past many conservatives have not applied the United States Constitution enough to issues they care about. Wheeler and Amble intend to not let that happen again.

On the whole, for those who consider themselves conservatives, what Wheeler and Amble have put together will be a great encouragement to representatives of an emerging generation who intend to move forward to invite Americans to embrace the implications of the documents that shape and form the liberty given to U.S. citizens.

“I have told the glad news of deliverance in the great congregation; behold, I have not restrained my lips, as you know, O LORD.”

Jesus has previously said, “I desire to do your will, O my God” (verse 8), and now we learn what that will of God is to tell “the glad news of deliverance.” Before we got here we didn’t know what exactly God’s will was, what exactly was the mission of this one whose “ears are opened.” What fearful things did he hear? What message was he entrusted with? Is it Jonah’s message: “Yet forty days, and you shall be overthrown!” (Jonah 3:4)?

No, praise God. The Son of Man appears not with judgment but with glad news. “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him” (John 3:17).

But what is this “deliverance”? What is this thing called being “saved”? I used to think of it in the narrowest terms, that he meant “delivered” and “saved” from hell, and of course that is a wonderful part of it. And it would be merciful enough if we were spared that future we deserve, even if in the meantime we received no hand up and hand out from our present pits.

But God is a God of present and continuous deliverance as well as of deliverance. Delivering is what He does! If Satan’s tireless work is to “steal, kill, and destroy,” then God’s tireless work is to “give, enliven, and restore.” I once heard a pastor say, “You should see the top of Satan’s desk: It’s covered with stacks of paper and overflowing ashtrays and half-drunk cups of coffee.” Well, if the devil is that busy scheming our misery and demise, God is that busy scheming our deliverances.

“When the righteous cry for help, the Lord hears and delivers them out of all their troubles” (Psalm 34:17).

God is not sitting up in his heaven thinking up dirty tricks to play on us. We have had harsh thoughts about Him; we have not trusted Him and not believed that He had our best interest at heart. That’s why we constantly take matters into our own hands. It was the original sin, and the archetypical sin—not trusting God’s motives in our lives.

I must be very careful not to misconstrue this teaching of deliverance as a promise of a trouble-free life. If we didn’t have trouble, there wouldn’t be deliverances! The inevitability of troubles is just as much a part of this verse as the inevitability of deliverance.

“Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the LORD delivers him out of them all” (Psalm 34:19).

Nothing has gone wrong if I find myself in trouble. Nor must I set a time limit on God’s deliverance. He is going to do it in His own way, and remember the way this psalm begins: “I waited patiently for the Lord.”

My experience is that I am in trouble for quite a while before I get delivered. Sometimes I have been baffled about why God lets us stay in trouble so long before He pulls us out. Now I think it is because He is working something in us the whole time we are stuck. He wants to teach us something about ourselves in the middle of the mess that we wouldn’t know otherwise. What kind of “tea” comes out of that “tea bag” when the hot water is applied? Is it the delightful tea of faith? Or is it unbelief?

By now God has a track record in my life, or many deliverances, after short ordeals and long. I hope that next time I’m in trouble I will remember that and not bail out of the story He is weaving.

To read Andrée Seu’s series on Psalm 40, click here.

To hear commentaries by Andrée Seu, click here.

Hello!

Random question of the day: If you couldn’t live in the U.S., what country would be second best?

Remember: This is our daily (except for Sundays) open thread, where you can 1) answer my question, 2) talk about something else, or 3) say something truly encouraging to the commenter before you.

Liberty University has removed its dean after an investigation determined that he made “self-contradictory” statements about the facts of his heritage as a former Muslim. However, the school is keeping Ergun Caner as faculty and letting him stay on as dean until his term expires June 30.

Caner, a celebrity in the evangelical world for his dramatic story of Muslim conversion, came under fire from Christian, Muslim and liberal bloggers as they noticed a pattern of contradictory statements concerning his past. AP reports that he changed his biographical information after receiving increasing scrutiny, and asked organizations to remove “damning videos.”

In a June 25 statement, the college said the following:

After a thorough and exhaustive review of Dr. Ergun Caner’s public statements, a committee consisting of four members of Liberty University’s Board of Trustees has concluded that Dr. Caner has made factual statements that are selfcontradictory. However, the committee found no evidence to suggest that Dr. Caner was not a Muslim who converted to Christianity as a teenager, but, instead, found discrepancies related to matters such as dates, names and places of residence. Dr. Caner has cooperated with the board committee and has apologized for the discrepancies and misstatements that led to this review.

To add some more perspective, Christian blogger Justin Taylor asks Liberty University to explicitly answer the question, “Was Dr. Caner raised in Turkey as a Muslim terrorist trained in jihad?” He writes,

All of the evidence … suggests that this cannot be the case. And yet Dr. Caner has claimed that this is true and has not publicly repented of this fabrication. If the answer to this question is “No,” then is there not some degree of culpability on the part of the Liberty University trustees for limiting Caner’s “discrepancies” to “matters such as dates, names and places of residence”?

Over at Slate, Ruth Graham writes that the wholesome principles in Christian teen-lit are seeping over to secular teen novels as well. She writes that Christian novels’ “explicitly positive—even feminist—messages like positive body image, hard work, and the importance of not settling for just any guy—… present a grounded alternative to the Gossip Girl landscape.”

In these Christian novels, girls are dreaming big dreams (i.e., seeking God’s plan for their lives), dressing modestly (out of “self-respect and practicality”), and looking for “a guy who values the same things I do.” Graham writes,

There’s some evidence that the messages of these uptight, Christian books are bleeding into the mainstream. Critics have pointed out that mainstream teen novels, including Twilight, are already quite conservative, pushing girls toward marrying young and bland wholesomeness. “The novels for teens nowadays, it’s as if they all have a therapist in the back corner pushing them toward a happy and healthy ending,” Lizzie Skurnick, the author of the teen-fiction memoir Shelf Discovery, says. “We are in a very moral era.” Christian novels embrace the current mood without reservation, encouraging teens to groom themselves for a mature, if conventional, life.

Though evangelical books have had a hand in creating this more moral era, the larger takeaway from the Christian books is not that girls should imagine themselves as subservient wives, but that they should prepare themselves for adulthood. Certainly heroine Candace Thompson sees marriage as her ultimate goal when she is choosing a boyfriend. But she also wants someone “who valued what she did, would take her seriously, would help her grow as a person, and would love and respect her.” That’s not a girl preparing for a life as a doormat; it’s a girl learning about the importance of emotional strength. It’s a girl who refuses to settle for a so-so boy who is not on track to be a good man. As far as girlish escapism goes, it’s better than holding out for a Prada purse.

Would you say Graham’s right? It’s been ages since I read a Christian teen novel but most of the heroines I encountered in Christian girl’s literature (in Janette Oke and the Mandie series) were similar to the ones Graham seems to be describing: independent, ambitious and with a feisty edge.

“Why has government been instituted at all?” asked Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 15. His answer: “Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.” The overwhelming majority of the founders of the American republic and the citizens of the new nation recognized and worshipped God as the Creator, Sustainer, and Ruler of the universe. They had the biblical understanding of their role as stewards responsible to the One who owns it all. And they knew enough about human nature to realize the need to restrain themselves from injuring one another by delegating some authority to a very limited government.

Having learned from history that the worst enemy of human freedom is unrestrained government, the authors of the U.S. Constitution left us rules that help prevent the concentration and abuse of political power. The Founding Fathers carefully crafted their language to remind the future members of government that they were nothing more than hired servants and that they had no rights except those lent to them by the people.

In his latest novel, Unseen Academicals, bestselling author Terry Pratchett provides a clever justification for the system of checks and balances that slows down our legislature and executive decisions to the frustration of any temporary majority. The book points out that power can do a lot, but it can’t stop people being stupid. You can try to prevent by forcing someone from growing fat on a diet of doughnuts or from smoking and catching lung cancer. But you will have to go on using more and more power to prevent people from breaking the rules and engaging in other even more dangerous behaviors. The only sensible thing to do is make sure that the process of paternalistic intervention does not begin. Every time the government goes beyond its very limited function of securing our life, liberty, and property, it produces more numerous and more severe problems than the ones it tries to solve.