Israel The Hated Nation
The end times are coming. Already a beautiful pastel of colors is being splashed across the world canvas to describe in vivid detail that which is appearing with the famed four horsemen. Iran swears on the destruction of Israel; their leader is only waiting for the appearance of the 12th Iman to signal its destruction. Meanwhile the “civilized” (yes, Iran, I do mean the slur) world (yes world I do mean the quotes) is appalled at Israel’s inappropriate response. I even read one commentator (a US birdbrain) who suggested that Israel contrived the whole situation, that they are using the two soldiers who were taken from Israeli soil as an excuse to bomb Lebanon. This birdbrain evidently is incapable of factoring in the thousands of bombs landing on Israel, driving many millions to leave their homes and their businesses to live for weeks in bomb shelters.Why is it that the world does not understand that Moslems are being driven in their hatred not by themselves, but by another? This "other" defies all reasoning and peace proposals; only left are summurizations of destruction. I wish we were better than this, yet we are not.It is precisely this other that has yet to be identified. Is it the 12th Iman? Or is it some future pope- which a Christian I have intermittent contact with suggests, and it has been suggested (by Protestants only obviously) for centuries? Much speculation has gone into the identity of this man, and all I can say is that the Bible promises that he will be revealed in due time.
Currently the US support of Israel is anemic at best. Bush and all of his zealous support for Israel is being derided by nearly half the country. This past week there were even attempts by some to oust Condi Rice by trying to pretend she was not in tune with what the administration. I do not think it worked but it is perhaps only a matter of time.
If there is one place that I do not support Bush it is in the Iraq war. I simply believe that over a long period of time people get the government that they deserve. The Iraqi people have been here for thousands of years; their government has not evolved beyond the basic bestial dictator model. Why? To me the answer is obvious: the people are so factionous that they cannot survive under any other model of government. Bush is attempting to bring democracy to this people and while I laud his attempts to do so, it seems to me that he so obviously is shortchanging our founders, namely Jefferson, Adams, and Monroe (both Christians and non Christians).
It took thousands of years of thinking and reasoning for us to get to the point of responsibly handling democracy, even with this great slate of leaders we had. Even today, the D'Toqueville ascription of the great experiment still exists; we may well self ignite and destroy ourselves- such is the abomination of democracy (for further info ask France, who had everything and voted it away).
May I add one point? I do hope fervently that my analysis is wrong and that Bush is right. He certainly has a great goal- but one I do fear is doomed to failure. It does relate to my twenty year problem with neocons, but there are many other things about Bush that I do admire.
There is a ten nation confederation governing the world; it is not the ten nation confederation of Europe much ballyhooed by Lindsey and others in the seventies. It is instead the ten nation confederacy (the same confederacy I thought in the seventies to be much more likely to hold economic power- boy, did the Late Great Planet Earth miss that one!) holding virtually all the oil pools of the world (the US has much more oil, but it also has wacko environmentalists who have stopped its development these past thirty years).
This is the same ten nation confederacy prophesied about in Daniel. May I point out that this confederacy has already blackmailed both France and Germany to its cause, to the embarrassment of its leaders?All this has been foretold beforehand. It will become apparent as time unfolds. What exciting times to live in! To think that I may live to see the changing of the ages, the coming of our Christ.Nevertheless, it needs to be said plainly that there is a coming time when those in the world will all appear to be against Israel. Iran will march against Israel, the tiny nation the size of greater Sacramento, and will send something towards Judea that should call all to flee. At that time Judea better look out; moreover the world better look for the coming of the Son. I suggest the skeptical do a reading of Jeremiah, particularly the 50th and the 51st chapter (please do read Jeremiah 51: 24).
Finally, it needs to be said that when I became a Christian in 1972, I was warned by a prescient godly man to watch Iraq and Iran. Why is it that 35 years later the world is watching Iraq and Iran?
Great explanation of Isreal by Charles Krauthammer here.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Monday, July 24, 2006
Our present governor
Our present governor has finally got it! I have said for a decade, that either party who was wise enough to make transportation a center issue of his campaign would own the campaign. But in the midst of threatened new rolling blackouts in California it occurs to me that our feckless leaders would be wise to “lead” in a new direction as well. Why not purpose a giant bond to build 10 new megawatt plants? Such a politician would be counted visionary (yawn- this issue has been around for ten years and we are still waiting for “visionary leadership”) I have noticed from my study of history that there are very few leaders who really are; most are clowns jumping out in front of the parade, pretending to go in the parade’s direction.
But as a voter of 53 who has never voted for more than a handful of bond issues, I do plan on voting for better roads. Oh duh!
But as a voter of 53 who has never voted for more than a handful of bond issues, I do plan on voting for better roads. Oh duh!
Friday, June 30, 2006
Hamden Decision
Hamden Decision-
This decision makes it clear that we still have a large liberal problem on the Supreme Court. As a habitatant of Sacramento, I loathe the day that we appointed Kennedy to the Supreme Court- something just felt wrong, I judged his acceptance by the liberal’s silence, as they did not condemn him. Therefore I felt instantly apprehensive. Thankfully, gone forever are the days of the Democratic Congress!
If I may, I would like to intercede at the very core process of our government at this point. The Supremes need forever to be banned from considering international law as a part of their reasoning; it seems self-evident as the Constitution specifically limits the SC to decisions, but evidently Kennedy understands it not. Why did he not declare his allegiance to international law rather than the Constitution when he was confirmed?
What I purpose is an amendment guiding the SC specifically to guarding their decisions based on the Constitution, and forbidding them to cite international law. Let us exclude the law of Syria, Russia, and France from our country’s consideration once and for all.
This decision makes it clear that we still have a large liberal problem on the Supreme Court. As a habitatant of Sacramento, I loathe the day that we appointed Kennedy to the Supreme Court- something just felt wrong, I judged his acceptance by the liberal’s silence, as they did not condemn him. Therefore I felt instantly apprehensive. Thankfully, gone forever are the days of the Democratic Congress!
If I may, I would like to intercede at the very core process of our government at this point. The Supremes need forever to be banned from considering international law as a part of their reasoning; it seems self-evident as the Constitution specifically limits the SC to decisions, but evidently Kennedy understands it not. Why did he not declare his allegiance to international law rather than the Constitution when he was confirmed?
What I purpose is an amendment guiding the SC specifically to guarding their decisions based on the Constitution, and forbidding them to cite international law. Let us exclude the law of Syria, Russia, and France from our country’s consideration once and for all.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
David Keller- A Reply
The New York Times has only two reasons for publishing its latest purported scandal of the Bush administration. Either it must hate the Bush administration, or it must want Al Queda to win in America. The second alternative is so unreasonable as to defy any logic; therefore we must focus on the first alternative.
Can we show from sources that the New York Times does despise the Bush administration and favor a Howard-Dean-Replacement? Yes, it is a slam-dunk pronouncement, and the editor’s reply, trying to protect himself from the sharp outbreak of criticism by denouncing conservative hacks who have taken umbrage with him has exposed his true partisan motives.
As a libertarian, I have no problems with partisan motives; I have every problem with someone who claims to be doing something for other prurient interests, i.e.- he considers the people’s right to know as triumphing American’s right to be protected from terrorists. This postulate is fallacious, coming from an American newspaper; there is only one reason to print it- the hope that it will further damage the Bush administration.
One of the reasons that the editor, Bill Kellor, gives for justifying his article is a parenthetical response saying that conservatives should not reply to his article, as it only magnifies the wrong that he did in publishing it in the first place: “(I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.)” Evidently Mr. Kellor wants to publish and be ignored by his opponents- what a paradise that would be for a journalist!
Someone recently pointed out that the NYT and John Murtha are the best weapons that Republicans have. I agree that Republicans have made a mess, but what alternative are we to choose? The alternative of the Times, which is give the enemy all news of every secret program you are using, or John Murtha’s alternative of fighting the war in Iraq from Okinawa, 5,000 miles away?
Neither is a thinking alternative, and thus I predict Republicans will dominate for the next decade. The shrill voice of the weird opponents cuts through to the sensible voter, and they will not buy into the fantasy. I read in a blog today where one crazy declared that Bush had won neither election- as long as such ideologues are in control of the Democratic Party, (Go Howard Dean!) the nation is probably safe from their influence.
Sergeant Boggs has made a most strong point on his blog. How have we made the world safer for our soldiers because of the Time’s article? Giving the enemy new information about how we are trying to catch them is indeed treasonous. The Times should be sent, entire staff, to Iraq for two years of service so that they may reap the fruits of the seeds they have sown. They might come back with quite a different attitude toward terrorism, once they have to suffer the monies they have exposed being dedicated to their own destruction.
Can we show from sources that the New York Times does despise the Bush administration and favor a Howard-Dean-Replacement? Yes, it is a slam-dunk pronouncement, and the editor’s reply, trying to protect himself from the sharp outbreak of criticism by denouncing conservative hacks who have taken umbrage with him has exposed his true partisan motives.
As a libertarian, I have no problems with partisan motives; I have every problem with someone who claims to be doing something for other prurient interests, i.e.- he considers the people’s right to know as triumphing American’s right to be protected from terrorists. This postulate is fallacious, coming from an American newspaper; there is only one reason to print it- the hope that it will further damage the Bush administration.
One of the reasons that the editor, Bill Kellor, gives for justifying his article is a parenthetical response saying that conservatives should not reply to his article, as it only magnifies the wrong that he did in publishing it in the first place: “(I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.)” Evidently Mr. Kellor wants to publish and be ignored by his opponents- what a paradise that would be for a journalist!
Someone recently pointed out that the NYT and John Murtha are the best weapons that Republicans have. I agree that Republicans have made a mess, but what alternative are we to choose? The alternative of the Times, which is give the enemy all news of every secret program you are using, or John Murtha’s alternative of fighting the war in Iraq from Okinawa, 5,000 miles away?
Neither is a thinking alternative, and thus I predict Republicans will dominate for the next decade. The shrill voice of the weird opponents cuts through to the sensible voter, and they will not buy into the fantasy. I read in a blog today where one crazy declared that Bush had won neither election- as long as such ideologues are in control of the Democratic Party, (Go Howard Dean!) the nation is probably safe from their influence.
Sergeant Boggs has made a most strong point on his blog. How have we made the world safer for our soldiers because of the Time’s article? Giving the enemy new information about how we are trying to catch them is indeed treasonous. The Times should be sent, entire staff, to Iraq for two years of service so that they may reap the fruits of the seeds they have sown. They might come back with quite a different attitude toward terrorism, once they have to suffer the monies they have exposed being dedicated to their own destruction.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Joe Leiberman
Joe Leiberman
Joe is under attack from the liberal media- not from his Democratic base. This is a legitimate conclusion based on the fact that Leiberman has a 15 point edge over his opponent (whom I cannot even name), and article after article is being written about Leiberman going 3rd party should he lose in the primary. Is there another election in history where a 15 point spread is thought to be a close election? Test: when was the last “close” election in a presidential race won by a 15 point margin?
The bias of the liberal media is self-evident. Thank God for those who expose it regularly (Brent Bozell), but it is most interesting to see a party intent on self destruction try to expunge one of their own stalwarts. As I have seen this last month unfold with news stories (and I was dubious over the stories which predicted strong Dem wins this November), I want to predict that Repubs seem to have the upper hand for the next decade. I did read an article, very interesting, which postulated that “political prostitutes” are responsible for the up or down of either party. I do wonder if the political prostitutes are creating most of the mess of the Repubs now? Repubs were very used to being ideologues; now it is the Dems place to be ideologues.
But what do I know? I have always been a libertarian, and wish fervently for government to quit bossing me around. I do appreciate their help, when public interest is clearly delineated, as in freeways and student loans, but otherwise “Don’t tread on me” seems to be a great American ideal.
Joe is under attack from the liberal media- not from his Democratic base. This is a legitimate conclusion based on the fact that Leiberman has a 15 point edge over his opponent (whom I cannot even name), and article after article is being written about Leiberman going 3rd party should he lose in the primary. Is there another election in history where a 15 point spread is thought to be a close election? Test: when was the last “close” election in a presidential race won by a 15 point margin?
The bias of the liberal media is self-evident. Thank God for those who expose it regularly (Brent Bozell), but it is most interesting to see a party intent on self destruction try to expunge one of their own stalwarts. As I have seen this last month unfold with news stories (and I was dubious over the stories which predicted strong Dem wins this November), I want to predict that Repubs seem to have the upper hand for the next decade. I did read an article, very interesting, which postulated that “political prostitutes” are responsible for the up or down of either party. I do wonder if the political prostitutes are creating most of the mess of the Repubs now? Repubs were very used to being ideologues; now it is the Dems place to be ideologues.
But what do I know? I have always been a libertarian, and wish fervently for government to quit bossing me around. I do appreciate their help, when public interest is clearly delineated, as in freeways and student loans, but otherwise “Don’t tread on me” seems to be a great American ideal.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
The New York Times is absolutely idyllic
The New York Times has done it again. Yawn. Has anything ever changed? The NYT supported “Uncle Joe” Stalin, and supported him avidly through the 1930s. The NYT told us that we were defeated in Vietnam, though today we learn that the Tet Offensive in 1968 was wildly successful. This was the battle that Walter Cronkite donned his helmet and declared we had lost the war. Thank God for unbiased reporting in the likes of Dan Rather! North Vietnamese tell us today that it took them over three years to recover from the battle loss, and that it was not until 1971, that they began to take control again. I am very tired of this pathetic un-American newspaper trying to usurp the democratic powers that be. Remember, if NYT had its way, we would all be Communist today.
In line with that, I have created a list of ten suggested bumperstickers for people to put on their cars; they are not too complex, as Americans are not too deep, but they just tend to know a lemon when they see one.
NYT recommends you vote for
Stalin: Ho Chi Minh: Hillary Clinton
NYT: Support Your Local Al Queda
NYT: Security is triumphed by your right to know before you get blown up
NYT: Next time you meet a terrorist, thank the NYT.
NYT: Terror before Security
Bush: Security before Terror
NYT: You liked us supporting Uncle Joe?
You’ll love us supporting terrorists!
NYT: Moslems really want peace;
Pay no attention to the Osama behind the curtain.
NYT: Osama was a misunderstood 40th child.
NYT: Dems can reason with Al Queda
NYT: We will tell you what to think
Pay no attention to other media
Please add your ideas; NYT needs all the help it can get. May I just say again, the NYT has not ever accused the US of wrongful doing; merely they suggest that there may one day be wrongdoing; therefore they give all secrets away to the enemy and have the audacity to call themselves patriotic Americans.
In line with that, I have created a list of ten suggested bumperstickers for people to put on their cars; they are not too complex, as Americans are not too deep, but they just tend to know a lemon when they see one.
NYT recommends you vote for
Stalin: Ho Chi Minh: Hillary Clinton
NYT: Support Your Local Al Queda
NYT: Security is triumphed by your right to know before you get blown up
NYT: Next time you meet a terrorist, thank the NYT.
NYT: Terror before Security
Bush: Security before Terror
NYT: You liked us supporting Uncle Joe?
You’ll love us supporting terrorists!
NYT: Moslems really want peace;
Pay no attention to the Osama behind the curtain.
NYT: Osama was a misunderstood 40th child.
NYT: Dems can reason with Al Queda
NYT: We will tell you what to think
Pay no attention to other media
Please add your ideas; NYT needs all the help it can get. May I just say again, the NYT has not ever accused the US of wrongful doing; merely they suggest that there may one day be wrongdoing; therefore they give all secrets away to the enemy and have the audacity to call themselves patriotic Americans.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
The Difference in Lying
The Difference in Lying
In 1975 the US media proved beyond all doubt that Nixon was lying, and that he was a scoundrel. Most of the Republican party deserted him at that point; some including Billy Graham, did not. May both be blessed because of their beliefs!
In 1992, Bill Clinton got elected, and though he does not yet know in his fifties what the meaning of is is, he molested and denigrated women, albeit all were Democrats. At least he was consistent.
But the question I want answered is why my fellow compatriots declare Bill Clinton the best president ever and why they neglect his obvious self denigration and self gathering? How can they be so blind? In history only Chamberlain was so blind, working furiously for peace seven years after Churchill told him of coming evil. If only Chamberlain had listened- what kind of different world would we have now? I am not dismayed by Democrats opposition (I am not, nor have ever been a Republican, though I sleep next to a converted Republican every night), I am just dismayed by their lack of fidelity. Evidently they still think Stalin and Castro heroes, as in the past, but they cannot realize evil as evil. Of such I will forever shrink from.
In 1975 the US media proved beyond all doubt that Nixon was lying, and that he was a scoundrel. Most of the Republican party deserted him at that point; some including Billy Graham, did not. May both be blessed because of their beliefs!
In 1992, Bill Clinton got elected, and though he does not yet know in his fifties what the meaning of is is, he molested and denigrated women, albeit all were Democrats. At least he was consistent.
But the question I want answered is why my fellow compatriots declare Bill Clinton the best president ever and why they neglect his obvious self denigration and self gathering? How can they be so blind? In history only Chamberlain was so blind, working furiously for peace seven years after Churchill told him of coming evil. If only Chamberlain had listened- what kind of different world would we have now? I am not dismayed by Democrats opposition (I am not, nor have ever been a Republican, though I sleep next to a converted Republican every night), I am just dismayed by their lack of fidelity. Evidently they still think Stalin and Castro heroes, as in the past, but they cannot realize evil as evil. Of such I will forever shrink from.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Chris Thompson Perhaps an Unlikely Hero?
Chris Thompson- Perhaps an Unlikely Hero?
I do need to tell you that I had many misgivings about our war with Iraq chiefly because I have a Biblical view of those that hate the Jews, and figure if a people have 4,000 years to work a government out to their best interest, how can we relatively new democrats tell them different? I just did not think these people had the capability of working out a better government; I hope I was wrong, and there is accumulating evidence that I was.
Chris is my wife’s nephew- long ago (and in a galaxy far away) I remember spinning him around with my arms and carefully setting him back on the ground. When I saw him two weeks ago he was taller than me, returned from the war and going strong in his new job for GM.
Chris definitely impressed me because of one of the last times I saw him before the Iraq war he had the opportunity to early out. He knew that, and I reminded him of it, but he decided to re-up knowing full well that it was very probable he would be sent to Iraq. He spent his year over there, and I confess I wanted very much to debrief him, finding out all that he saw. What he came back with was less than a positive viewpoint, less than I wanted to hear, but we did not have time to go into particulars. I do remember that he threatened to write a book at the time- Chris?
Nevertheless he worked his time responsibly and rebuilt a nation torn to shatters by its evil leader. My hope is that he is able to put this into perspective and see the wonderful work that he did do. He left his wife and daughters for an unseemly time, lost his job in the process, and gave up much income. Heroic? Yes.
But that is just an opinion of an unlikely uncle who used to swing him around. I should have told you, Chris, the last time I saw you what I think of your wonderful work.
I do need to tell you that I had many misgivings about our war with Iraq chiefly because I have a Biblical view of those that hate the Jews, and figure if a people have 4,000 years to work a government out to their best interest, how can we relatively new democrats tell them different? I just did not think these people had the capability of working out a better government; I hope I was wrong, and there is accumulating evidence that I was.
Chris is my wife’s nephew- long ago (and in a galaxy far away) I remember spinning him around with my arms and carefully setting him back on the ground. When I saw him two weeks ago he was taller than me, returned from the war and going strong in his new job for GM.
Chris definitely impressed me because of one of the last times I saw him before the Iraq war he had the opportunity to early out. He knew that, and I reminded him of it, but he decided to re-up knowing full well that it was very probable he would be sent to Iraq. He spent his year over there, and I confess I wanted very much to debrief him, finding out all that he saw. What he came back with was less than a positive viewpoint, less than I wanted to hear, but we did not have time to go into particulars. I do remember that he threatened to write a book at the time- Chris?
Nevertheless he worked his time responsibly and rebuilt a nation torn to shatters by its evil leader. My hope is that he is able to put this into perspective and see the wonderful work that he did do. He left his wife and daughters for an unseemly time, lost his job in the process, and gave up much income. Heroic? Yes.
But that is just an opinion of an unlikely uncle who used to swing him around. I should have told you, Chris, the last time I saw you what I think of your wonderful work.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Dick Morris The Toe
Dick Morris- The Toe Fetish Prognosticator
Dick Morris has today trepeditiously predicted the demise of the Congress to Democrat hands. Let us remember that this is the man who supported Hillary and Bill when the country thought they were really bizarre, only to learn that poor Dick was at least as equally as bizarre. I think, on the whole, this is a welcome prediction, and that the Republicans will stay in power in both houses. But I have been wrong before; most spectacularly when I predicted the last of the “seven dwarves” could not be elected, as he had far too many scandals to overcome. Instead he got elected and proved to all America that there is no limit to the number of scandals that one may create.
Dick Morris has today trepeditiously predicted the demise of the Congress to Democrat hands. Let us remember that this is the man who supported Hillary and Bill when the country thought they were really bizarre, only to learn that poor Dick was at least as equally as bizarre. I think, on the whole, this is a welcome prediction, and that the Republicans will stay in power in both houses. But I have been wrong before; most spectacularly when I predicted the last of the “seven dwarves” could not be elected, as he had far too many scandals to overcome. Instead he got elected and proved to all America that there is no limit to the number of scandals that one may create.
Tolerance in America
Tolerance in America
My wife has had her new SUV keyed twice in 8 months. The first time she had no identifying marks declaring her conservative views; she just had no license plate as yet. (A profound liberal told her how to remove the scratches from the keying.) The second time she declared herself a conservative in that she had a bumpersticker (in the interests of full disclosure, I bought it for her) that declared “Support the Troops”. The bumpersticker was stolen as the car was keyed yet again.
What incenses me is not the damage to the car; I am sure that my wife much more worries about that, but it is not my car. Rather what incenses me is that there are so many people springing up in America who seem to deny tolerance; how ironic it is that they are coming from the party who prides itself on tolerance. Mark my words: there is a party of intolerance, and it is not the Republicans.
My niece lives with her husband in the same town: they fear to express their conservative views with bumperstickers because such cars inevitably have their windows broken. What kind of US are we headed towards which has such intolerance? Give me examples of conservative intolerance (I am sure you can) and I will always condemn it.
In the words of the great and famous Rodney King: “Can’t we all just get along?”
Evidently not, but it is not the fault of conservatives; liberals make a point of slicing and dicing those they disagree with. Can anyone say “Brownshirts”?
My wife has had her new SUV keyed twice in 8 months. The first time she had no identifying marks declaring her conservative views; she just had no license plate as yet. (A profound liberal told her how to remove the scratches from the keying.) The second time she declared herself a conservative in that she had a bumpersticker (in the interests of full disclosure, I bought it for her) that declared “Support the Troops”. The bumpersticker was stolen as the car was keyed yet again.
What incenses me is not the damage to the car; I am sure that my wife much more worries about that, but it is not my car. Rather what incenses me is that there are so many people springing up in America who seem to deny tolerance; how ironic it is that they are coming from the party who prides itself on tolerance. Mark my words: there is a party of intolerance, and it is not the Republicans.
My niece lives with her husband in the same town: they fear to express their conservative views with bumperstickers because such cars inevitably have their windows broken. What kind of US are we headed towards which has such intolerance? Give me examples of conservative intolerance (I am sure you can) and I will always condemn it.
In the words of the great and famous Rodney King: “Can’t we all just get along?”
Evidently not, but it is not the fault of conservatives; liberals make a point of slicing and dicing those they disagree with. Can anyone say “Brownshirts”?
Sunday, June 11, 2006
We can go to the moon but not Yosemite
We can go to the moon but we can’t go to Yosemite
The latest report is that the major thoroughfare to Yosemite is due to be closed for more than a year. There is no report that I have seen as debilitating as this one. JFK wanted us to go to the moon, and within ten years, Democrats got us to the moon, over 800,000 miles away. Yet today, the news is that Democrats cannot clear 600 feet of highway and that a major thoroughfare to Yosemite may have to remain closed for over a year. I just wonder if Democrats are really so inept as they cannot solve 600 feet of problem how are they ever going to fix the nation’s problems? We have really gone a long way down since JFK’s vision.
The latest report is that the major thoroughfare to Yosemite is due to be closed for more than a year. There is no report that I have seen as debilitating as this one. JFK wanted us to go to the moon, and within ten years, Democrats got us to the moon, over 800,000 miles away. Yet today, the news is that Democrats cannot clear 600 feet of highway and that a major thoroughfare to Yosemite may have to remain closed for over a year. I just wonder if Democrats are really so inept as they cannot solve 600 feet of problem how are they ever going to fix the nation’s problems? We have really gone a long way down since JFK’s vision.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter
This lady I absolutely love! Her wit and readiness to argue I have watched for years. She has a deep hit accompanied by a great sense of humor, and even if she hits too hard, she is usually right on. She did go too far when she said the four New Jersey ladies were enjoying their husband’s deaths, but her point that these women are politicizing their grief is well made. I read on Hugh Hewitt yesterday where he issued a blanket proclamation that she went too far on her comments on the 9/11 widows. I disagree with Hugh on account of the particular widows that Ann targeted were obviously giving themselves wholeheartedly to a liberal political agenda. I do think cogently, and cogent thinking here leads one to the conclusion, whether liberal or conservative, if you give yourself to a political agenda, you are open to criticism. So give the lady a break! After all she is fighting the great candidate who has openly supported lesbianism in the past as an editor for her college newspaper. Her response today is very articulate and she is standing by her initial statement. Ann Coulter for president? Not sure I would go that far, but she is a steadfast ally in our time of need.
This lady I absolutely love! Her wit and readiness to argue I have watched for years. She has a deep hit accompanied by a great sense of humor, and even if she hits too hard, she is usually right on. She did go too far when she said the four New Jersey ladies were enjoying their husband’s deaths, but her point that these women are politicizing their grief is well made. I read on Hugh Hewitt yesterday where he issued a blanket proclamation that she went too far on her comments on the 9/11 widows. I disagree with Hugh on account of the particular widows that Ann targeted were obviously giving themselves wholeheartedly to a liberal political agenda. I do think cogently, and cogent thinking here leads one to the conclusion, whether liberal or conservative, if you give yourself to a political agenda, you are open to criticism. So give the lady a break! After all she is fighting the great candidate who has openly supported lesbianism in the past as an editor for her college newspaper. Her response today is very articulate and she is standing by her initial statement. Ann Coulter for president? Not sure I would go that far, but she is a steadfast ally in our time of need.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
I love Thomas Sowell
I love Thomas Sowell! Oh, he is so inspiring because he is a black wonderfully articulate professor of renown who happens to be (OH, THE LIBERAL NIGHTMARE!) a conservative. I am an educator and so the best book I think he has ever written is Inside American Education, but I have followed his newspaper columns for years. Today I read a column about a book that he has reviewed and is recommending for all to read, especially if you would like to debunk liberal myths. I ordered the book and am looking forward to reading it. One of Sowell’s premises is that people, regardless of color, should be made to stand or fall on their own merits. This I do applaud!
The bad news is the book has not yet been released.
The bad news is the book has not yet been released.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
The Gathering Storm
I should think the storm over today’s emphasis on Canada’s arrest of 17 terrorist suspects should jar Americans. Enough fertilizer was purchased to more than double Oklahoma City. Though its major premise I agree with(article) that we are asleep at the wheel again. Yet I doubt that Americans will ever see the danger as plainly as they should until too late. I ask the question: how many countries does it take to perpetuate a war? The answer is as it always has been: One. In 1981 Israel devastated the nuclear program of a new entry, Iraq, into the quagmire. Iraq, and Saddam Hussein, had promised forever to extinguish Israel, as has every one of the Arab states around Israel. I do wonder if the world even knows that, as I think it is one of the most underreported facts in all of history. Every Arab state is utterly dedicated to the demise of Israel, and they have repeatedly openly stated so. It surprised England to no end, those who had soon signed on to the Balfour Declaration, long before the advent of WW2. Churchill himself expressed amazement at the quantity of resistance to the new Jewish influence on the part of the Arabs.
Yet it fulfilled God’s exact prophecy. Israel was to be scattered, judged heavily, and then regathered for the End Time. Today we are told of an egoist in Iran who believes the time has come for a confrontation with Israel. He would develop nuclear weapons deeply underground, and is far enough away from Israel to not worry about a sufficient attack, nevermind the fact that Israel is politically in a position not to attack; the whole world is waiting to condemn them for any wrong action. He prophesies of a coming end time war in which Islam will forever conquer; I would submit that he is absolutely wrong. The war will come, but the Victor is Christ, and no other. Of such is the final conflict.
Yet it fulfilled God’s exact prophecy. Israel was to be scattered, judged heavily, and then regathered for the End Time. Today we are told of an egoist in Iran who believes the time has come for a confrontation with Israel. He would develop nuclear weapons deeply underground, and is far enough away from Israel to not worry about a sufficient attack, nevermind the fact that Israel is politically in a position not to attack; the whole world is waiting to condemn them for any wrong action. He prophesies of a coming end time war in which Islam will forever conquer; I would submit that he is absolutely wrong. The war will come, but the Victor is Christ, and no other. Of such is the final conflict.
Saturday, June 03, 2006
History and the Pull of Losers
History and the Pull of the Losers
I am afraid I have been reading for too much history lately. Today in my reading of Churchill, I learned how Joseph Kennedy supported Hitler until late in his career (at least as late as 1939). One of Joseph’s comments incited Churchill to an answer, in years which he was trying to bite his tongue. Of course there were many others during this period who supported Hitler, including Lindbergh and the “never say enough appeasement” Neville Chamberlain. All of which is to say nothing I suppose. But I have been fascinated with the way history has acted towards losers. May I point out that we elected the son of one, JFK, president?
I just read a great piece from Jimmy Carter, and it reminded me of all the reasons I respect him, as well as the all the reasons why he must remain a loser. You see though I have a great problem with Jimmy Carter, he loves the Lord, the same Lord which I love. I do not doubt that love for an instant, and I commend him for all of his forthright efforts to eradicate disease and help Africa to become better. I look forward to spending eternity with him, where I have no doubt whatsoever that we will stand shoulder to shoulder working in the labors which our Lord will give us.
BUT, as for the present world, he and I must have a very different view. In his article he correctly attributes the beginning of the great movement of Christians to the Republican Party to 1979. He has noticed that that is the year in which conservatives seemingly forever captured the heart and soul of the Southern Baptist Conference. I became a Christian in 1972, and at that time, I saw about an equal number of Democrats and Republicans in the church. He laments; I celebrate. Most Christian organizations have a history of being eaten by the world views that they are supposed to challenge. Consider the Methodists and the Presbyterians, and their early history with the United States. They were at one time considered the radicals, hated by their peer organizations, and yet today are the very staid churches which excite the least comment, let alone change to Jesus Christ. My own viewpoint is that the longer the church exists, the less chance it has to shine for Jesus. I thanked God for the Southern Baptists, although I am not one, that they fought the trend of history, and that they shined brightly for the One that they are called to represent.
The problem, as I see it, is that we are coming upon the time when the Greatest Deceiver of all time will live on the face of the earth. Pericles, Churchill, nor anyone else will convince the world of his evil until it is almost too late. At that moment, if I understand scripture aright, the Lord himself will rescue us from self-destruction. I do think, in large measure, the philosophy of Jimmy Carter will be put forever to rest. There is much enviable in that philosophy, its earnest efforts to help the needy notwithstanding, yet it must remain an ungrown fruit, destined to fall off the branch long before ripening, starved in its infancy, in the face of the Truth. It is based forever in humanitarianism without God.
I am sorry that Jimmy Carter does not see that; yet I pray that he will live to see the coming of our Lord, and the usher of the New Age.
Just so you know, at the age of 18, I registered non-partisan and in the intervening years I have remained forever so. Neither party have I ever endorsed, and I lament for the country that is told there are two answers for every problem, exactly two answers, only two answers, one good and one evil. I think such a system, though I know not a better one, has created much mischief in our pursuit of righteousness.
I am afraid I have been reading for too much history lately. Today in my reading of Churchill, I learned how Joseph Kennedy supported Hitler until late in his career (at least as late as 1939). One of Joseph’s comments incited Churchill to an answer, in years which he was trying to bite his tongue. Of course there were many others during this period who supported Hitler, including Lindbergh and the “never say enough appeasement” Neville Chamberlain. All of which is to say nothing I suppose. But I have been fascinated with the way history has acted towards losers. May I point out that we elected the son of one, JFK, president?
I just read a great piece from Jimmy Carter, and it reminded me of all the reasons I respect him, as well as the all the reasons why he must remain a loser. You see though I have a great problem with Jimmy Carter, he loves the Lord, the same Lord which I love. I do not doubt that love for an instant, and I commend him for all of his forthright efforts to eradicate disease and help Africa to become better. I look forward to spending eternity with him, where I have no doubt whatsoever that we will stand shoulder to shoulder working in the labors which our Lord will give us.
BUT, as for the present world, he and I must have a very different view. In his article he correctly attributes the beginning of the great movement of Christians to the Republican Party to 1979. He has noticed that that is the year in which conservatives seemingly forever captured the heart and soul of the Southern Baptist Conference. I became a Christian in 1972, and at that time, I saw about an equal number of Democrats and Republicans in the church. He laments; I celebrate. Most Christian organizations have a history of being eaten by the world views that they are supposed to challenge. Consider the Methodists and the Presbyterians, and their early history with the United States. They were at one time considered the radicals, hated by their peer organizations, and yet today are the very staid churches which excite the least comment, let alone change to Jesus Christ. My own viewpoint is that the longer the church exists, the less chance it has to shine for Jesus. I thanked God for the Southern Baptists, although I am not one, that they fought the trend of history, and that they shined brightly for the One that they are called to represent.
The problem, as I see it, is that we are coming upon the time when the Greatest Deceiver of all time will live on the face of the earth. Pericles, Churchill, nor anyone else will convince the world of his evil until it is almost too late. At that moment, if I understand scripture aright, the Lord himself will rescue us from self-destruction. I do think, in large measure, the philosophy of Jimmy Carter will be put forever to rest. There is much enviable in that philosophy, its earnest efforts to help the needy notwithstanding, yet it must remain an ungrown fruit, destined to fall off the branch long before ripening, starved in its infancy, in the face of the Truth. It is based forever in humanitarianism without God.
I am sorry that Jimmy Carter does not see that; yet I pray that he will live to see the coming of our Lord, and the usher of the New Age.
Just so you know, at the age of 18, I registered non-partisan and in the intervening years I have remained forever so. Neither party have I ever endorsed, and I lament for the country that is told there are two answers for every problem, exactly two answers, only two answers, one good and one evil. I think such a system, though I know not a better one, has created much mischief in our pursuit of righteousness.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
In defense of intelligence
I hate to write this article; long I have sought to see the demise of the FBI, the CIA, and, in the Clinton years, the DEA. It used to be one of the rare issues that I looked at and agreed with liberals: our country has no business formulating agencies trying to destroy other governments or the freedom of our own citizens. I ask the question: would we be better off not having these agencies at all?
But my article today is not along this plotline at all; instead it is supportive of the intelligence, particularly of the CIA, concerning Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Today it is common truth that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Virtually all commentators say that the intelligence about weapons of mass destruction was wrong.
But let me take the opposing view here and actually support agencies whose history I despise. We know that Saddam refused entry for UN inspectors for years. We know that while the UN inspectors were left at the front gate, trucks lined up and something was loaded on those trucks before the UN inspectors were allowed into the facility. We know that this happened over and over, and we know there were weapons which Saddam was hiding from inspectors.
Israel has satellite pictures which show the truck convoys going from Iraq to Syria, wherever and whatever it was that Saddam was hiding. And that is the million dollar question: what is it that Saddam was hiding? What is left in Syria now? The only mistake in intelligence that I, as an outside observer, can see is that evidently Saddam had to hide it all. We presumed he had not gotten rid of it all yet. In fact his own soldiers assumed WMDs were to be used against coalition forces, and they were surprised when Saddam informed them there were no WMDs to be used. We know this now from recently released papers and testimony from Saddam’s subordinates.
So I think the two questions we should be better focused on are 1) what did he hide, 2) and where did he hide them? It is not as partisan hacks charge with their infamous charge: Clinton lied and nobody died. As an article I recently read so aptly put it: Important assumptions turned out wrong; but mistakenly relying on faulty intelligence is a world apart from lying about it.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
The Last Last Word
The Last Last Word
Excuse me, but William F. Buckley just wrote a marvelous article titled The Last Word, a book review about an author named Meachem. But in it he made a most curious statement. “There are no grounds for believing in the pietistic notion that the will of God had anything whatever to do with the advent of Hitler.” Actually I believe that there are plenty of grounds, Biblically, for so stating. God claimed that those who rejected his Son would be subject to the most severe judgments, but he warned us who were gentiles that we ought not to presume at all, for He who cut out the Jews from salvation was also able to graft them back in again. He warned again and again of what would happen to those who reject His Son. I would submit that, in some awful fashion, that He allowed Hitler to become great that peoples all over the world might be judged- including specifically His own chosen people- the Jews.
I would submit that God knowingly allowed Hitler full sway. Perhaps we might look at Job here and gain a fuller understanding. God allowed the awful circumstances to befall Job- though we who are privy to the book learn the lesson- yet Job is never given that grace. Instead he just must love his Creator as he is, and accept his fate.
But I would also submit that the God who raised up Hitler also raised up Churchill, without whom we might not have a free world left at all. Others tell me that Churchill was in no way Christian; neither was Hitler, though he memorized great chapters of scripture and absolutely idolized Luther. This I do know, God is capable of working through men, with or without their knowledge, to perform His good aims. In the terrible awful event of WW2, which Churchill spent so many years trying to prevent, I would submit that God was even there, making His will to happen.
Gosh, I just wish I could send this to Buckley, who perhaps might elucidate what he meant by his so wrong statement.
Pat
Excuse me, but William F. Buckley just wrote a marvelous article titled The Last Word, a book review about an author named Meachem. But in it he made a most curious statement. “There are no grounds for believing in the pietistic notion that the will of God had anything whatever to do with the advent of Hitler.” Actually I believe that there are plenty of grounds, Biblically, for so stating. God claimed that those who rejected his Son would be subject to the most severe judgments, but he warned us who were gentiles that we ought not to presume at all, for He who cut out the Jews from salvation was also able to graft them back in again. He warned again and again of what would happen to those who reject His Son. I would submit that, in some awful fashion, that He allowed Hitler to become great that peoples all over the world might be judged- including specifically His own chosen people- the Jews.
I would submit that God knowingly allowed Hitler full sway. Perhaps we might look at Job here and gain a fuller understanding. God allowed the awful circumstances to befall Job- though we who are privy to the book learn the lesson- yet Job is never given that grace. Instead he just must love his Creator as he is, and accept his fate.
But I would also submit that the God who raised up Hitler also raised up Churchill, without whom we might not have a free world left at all. Others tell me that Churchill was in no way Christian; neither was Hitler, though he memorized great chapters of scripture and absolutely idolized Luther. This I do know, God is capable of working through men, with or without their knowledge, to perform His good aims. In the terrible awful event of WW2, which Churchill spent so many years trying to prevent, I would submit that God was even there, making His will to happen.
Gosh, I just wish I could send this to Buckley, who perhaps might elucidate what he meant by his so wrong statement.
Pat
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Okay I am tired of this stuff
Okay, I am tired of the blather, so tired that if I were not Christian I would use another term other than blather. We have lived through a crisis of attacking Iraq, and what do we know as fact:
1) We know that President Bill Clinton told us not to disregard the intelligence of Bush with regard to Iraq, that it was good, and that we needed to act upon it. This comment is on national television and not disputable, despite later gainsaying of Mr. Clinton.
2) We know that Dems lie totally when they say that Bush lied and soldiers died; Bush acted responsibly on the available intelligence.
3) We know that we have a very strong economy, compared to the last thirty years it is better, and we know that the MSM is not reporting this as they should.
4) Iraq is disappointing, having been heralded as a democratic future in the vision of Bush. William Buckley says it is never to be, and with that I totally agree, though I do not think they have a condition of civil war as yet; rather I think they suffer from a violent minority which they never may be able to control. It is the chief reason that I had for opposing the original imposition of troops in Iraq. I simply thought that a people who herald from old had the government that they deserve, and that no matter how we tried to improve them they would fall from that improvement. I welcomed Bush’s vision because it was more than mine, and I would rejoice if I found it true.
5) We know that Hussain refused UN admission into his sites even as trucks lined up in the back gates of the inspected sites. We know that Israel has satellite pictures of truck convoys leading into Syria. I always dismissed the reports of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction because I correctly discerned the only weapons that mattered were those that were nuclear. He did have other weapons which evidently he diverted to Syria, and I do allow that they fit the definition of weapons of mass destruction. But he was never a national threat in my opinion except in the singular sense, dismissed by Dems, that he did indeed sponsor terrorism. How is it that a country can decide to assassinate a president and send terrorists to do the diabolical act, and this not be seen as an act of terrorism?
So let me sum it up succinctly. We do know the President Bush has acted responsibly (though I would never have gone into Iraq, thinking it a loss from the beginning). We know that President Clinton praised his intelligence in acting thus. We know that Hussain did have weapons that would destroy masses, and evidently he trucked these out to Syria. Unfortunately I think no one will bother to check these facts: and therefore I fear the next election. I do not trust the electorate. Churchill said that the best argument against democracy was to talk to the average citizen for five minutes. Let us hope that he is not right.
1) We know that President Bill Clinton told us not to disregard the intelligence of Bush with regard to Iraq, that it was good, and that we needed to act upon it. This comment is on national television and not disputable, despite later gainsaying of Mr. Clinton.
2) We know that Dems lie totally when they say that Bush lied and soldiers died; Bush acted responsibly on the available intelligence.
3) We know that we have a very strong economy, compared to the last thirty years it is better, and we know that the MSM is not reporting this as they should.
4) Iraq is disappointing, having been heralded as a democratic future in the vision of Bush. William Buckley says it is never to be, and with that I totally agree, though I do not think they have a condition of civil war as yet; rather I think they suffer from a violent minority which they never may be able to control. It is the chief reason that I had for opposing the original imposition of troops in Iraq. I simply thought that a people who herald from old had the government that they deserve, and that no matter how we tried to improve them they would fall from that improvement. I welcomed Bush’s vision because it was more than mine, and I would rejoice if I found it true.
5) We know that Hussain refused UN admission into his sites even as trucks lined up in the back gates of the inspected sites. We know that Israel has satellite pictures of truck convoys leading into Syria. I always dismissed the reports of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction because I correctly discerned the only weapons that mattered were those that were nuclear. He did have other weapons which evidently he diverted to Syria, and I do allow that they fit the definition of weapons of mass destruction. But he was never a national threat in my opinion except in the singular sense, dismissed by Dems, that he did indeed sponsor terrorism. How is it that a country can decide to assassinate a president and send terrorists to do the diabolical act, and this not be seen as an act of terrorism?
So let me sum it up succinctly. We do know the President Bush has acted responsibly (though I would never have gone into Iraq, thinking it a loss from the beginning). We know that President Clinton praised his intelligence in acting thus. We know that Hussain did have weapons that would destroy masses, and evidently he trucked these out to Syria. Unfortunately I think no one will bother to check these facts: and therefore I fear the next election. I do not trust the electorate. Churchill said that the best argument against democracy was to talk to the average citizen for five minutes. Let us hope that he is not right.
Monday, May 08, 2006
liberal intolerance
The intolerance of the so-called liberal party is wondrous. I cannot fathom why more people are not writing on the topic these days. The liberal party is become wondrously intolerant. The Republican Party, which I always believed in despite its lack of embracing the other, has now become the party which embraces acceptance and tolerance. Gone forever are the days when we will listen to the dronings of a man who drowned his girlfriend and tried to run for president in the name of liberalism.
What is liberalism? Not surely the rantings of a former KKK member of the senate. How can the dems possibly proclaim tolerance? Who do they tolerate? They stand for the fetus aborted at the last moment- for the health of the mother- though none in the US can figure out what that means. Meanwhile the neocons are giving education everything, despite the hatred of the educators. As an educator and an independent I do hate that. I deplore the part of Bush which cries for greater government, but will I ever vote against the party of Ted, Hillary, and John. Not in this lifetime.
What is liberalism? Not surely the rantings of a former KKK member of the senate. How can the dems possibly proclaim tolerance? Who do they tolerate? They stand for the fetus aborted at the last moment- for the health of the mother- though none in the US can figure out what that means. Meanwhile the neocons are giving education everything, despite the hatred of the educators. As an educator and an independent I do hate that. I deplore the part of Bush which cries for greater government, but will I ever vote against the party of Ted, Hillary, and John. Not in this lifetime.
I am an angry independent
I am an angry independent. I do not like our two party system to say the least. It presumes that there are always two answers to every problem, that there are only two answers to every problem, and that every responsible citizen must choose between these two choices, one good and one evil. It is not so!
Yet having said that I always vote conservative, except when the conservative is not- then I have been known to vote libertarian. I do strongly believe that government is at best a necessary evil, and it must be taken in the smallest possible doses. For those Democrats who would turn away let me remind you that your self-proclaimed father, Thomas Jefferson, said that government which governs least governs best. I do believe in freedom, and that means of necessity, governments fading from the picture.
I actually predict that the coming 06 election will be disappointing for Dems, but not only on these grounds. Will the American people really trust themselves to a party which says quit the fight against terrorism? I think not, surely I hope not. If they have modest gains I will be surprised but we do live in alarming times. Their recent rantings about wanting to impeach Bush after the election only confirms my prediction. Let them keep it up; they will become, as Churchill said, the government of the duds, by the duds, and for the duds. I do predict the salesmen will not be able to sell their soap this time.
Yet having said that I always vote conservative, except when the conservative is not- then I have been known to vote libertarian. I do strongly believe that government is at best a necessary evil, and it must be taken in the smallest possible doses. For those Democrats who would turn away let me remind you that your self-proclaimed father, Thomas Jefferson, said that government which governs least governs best. I do believe in freedom, and that means of necessity, governments fading from the picture.
I actually predict that the coming 06 election will be disappointing for Dems, but not only on these grounds. Will the American people really trust themselves to a party which says quit the fight against terrorism? I think not, surely I hope not. If they have modest gains I will be surprised but we do live in alarming times. Their recent rantings about wanting to impeach Bush after the election only confirms my prediction. Let them keep it up; they will become, as Churchill said, the government of the duds, by the duds, and for the duds. I do predict the salesmen will not be able to sell their soap this time.
yesterday, today and tomorrow
Although we can but plan for an uncertain future, we must live with the concreted past, even while we dwell in the flitting present.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Marriage Charter
To our esteemed President, the Supreme Court and the Honorable Congress of the United States:
Be it known to you:
We the people hold marriage to be an unalienable right emanating from our Creator. No state organization or court may define marriage any other way other than that which has been handed down to us from our forefathers through the religions of the Jew, the Moslem, and the Christian. We do not wish to oppress any nor uplift any in our assertion of this unalienable right; rather we wish to succinctly state that which is obvious from the historical record: marriage is an institution rendered by our Creator and is therefore inviolate. It can not be altered from its basic definition of a man and a woman enjoining for the purpose of living their lives before society.
Further,
Since we hold this right to be unalienable, we do not recognize the right of the state to alter or subtract from it in any way. We do advise you therefore of our concern on the part of some to redefine marriage. We consider such altering as tampering with that over which you have no recognized power. Respectfully we ask that you do recognize the sacrament of marriage as such a right. Governments are instituted among men to secure those unalienable rights, and when governments begin to stray, it is the duty and solemn obligation of the governed to revoke their consent of governance. Be it known to you that we will treat any usurpation of the sacrament of marriage with the utmost suspicion and will hold such usurpation in the lowest regard.
Be it known to you:
We the people hold marriage to be an unalienable right emanating from our Creator. No state organization or court may define marriage any other way other than that which has been handed down to us from our forefathers through the religions of the Jew, the Moslem, and the Christian. We do not wish to oppress any nor uplift any in our assertion of this unalienable right; rather we wish to succinctly state that which is obvious from the historical record: marriage is an institution rendered by our Creator and is therefore inviolate. It can not be altered from its basic definition of a man and a woman enjoining for the purpose of living their lives before society.
Further,
Since we hold this right to be unalienable, we do not recognize the right of the state to alter or subtract from it in any way. We do advise you therefore of our concern on the part of some to redefine marriage. We consider such altering as tampering with that over which you have no recognized power. Respectfully we ask that you do recognize the sacrament of marriage as such a right. Governments are instituted among men to secure those unalienable rights, and when governments begin to stray, it is the duty and solemn obligation of the governed to revoke their consent of governance. Be it known to you that we will treat any usurpation of the sacrament of marriage with the utmost suspicion and will hold such usurpation in the lowest regard.
Friday, April 28, 2006
Lunch Today
I raised the subject today at the lunch table, and I need to tell you a little about the audience I raised it with. My audience was all liberals, voting and thinking in remarkably similar fashion. I myself am strongly conservative (one who actually believes what Thomas Jefferson said, "That government which governs best governs least."
I raised the question about the pictures of Mohammed which had been posted recently, and the carefully choreographed rebellion against them some five months later in other countries than where the pictures were even shown. I was interested to think what others thought about it who think quite differently about many matters than I do. I was not surprised to hear them all proclaim that the pictures should not have been drawn, so as not to offend someone else.
I have read many conservative editorials about this matter where conservatives feel the same way. It seems as if the underlying tenet is that if it had not been done, we would have not had so much trouble. I find trouble with believing that we ought to do anything else because of someone else’s belief. I myself am an ardent Christian, and yet I think it is so wrong to force my belief on others. Neither would I abrogate other’s right to speak what they believe. I hope that most Americans would agree with this view of tolerance; it is the only we can exist with each other in such a differentiated world. Why is it that when we come to a third world religion that we no longer believe in this tolerance? Again and again the “Piss on Christ” sculpture funded by the NEA was used as an argument for Christians having put up peaceably with much controversial stuff. I cannot possibly tell you how morally offended I was when that sculpture first appeared. Yet where were the people of the US defending my right to be free of offense? I find it intriguing that some of the same people who would argue for the insult sculpture, but argue against simple Dutch cartoons.
As I was thinking about it I began to wonder what my friends would think if Moslems suddenly demanded that all women be covered with a veil because they believe that it should be so. It is entirely their right to believe and treat their women the way they do; just as it is my right to disagree with it. It, however, is not their right to insist on others who do not believe as they do to act within the confines of their private religion. Moreover almost no civilization would be able to last which chose to give freedom from offense. The very idea of diversity implies that we have to tolerate ideas which we disdain. This lack of tolerance on the part of our neighbors scares me; we must deal with our neighbors, but it is their lack of tolerance which leads to closed societies, one thought, and one banner to march under. It has already been proposed of course under the guise of the final solution. As I look forward to the future I would hope that fellow humans would shudder at any more governments daring to suggest anymore final solutions.
I have been reading much Churchill these last months, and I remember one story which might be pertinent. I wish I could have found the actual piece again, but in going over my 3000 pages of recent reading, I could not find the actual passage again. At any rate, Churchill is traveling somewhere in the Moslem world and has a chance to meet an Arab prince. In negotiating their formal dinner the prince sent notice that his customs prevented any use of alcohol at all, and that alcohol was not allowed to be in his presence. To which Churchill made a famous rejoinder that his customs demanded the use of alcohol before, during, and especially after dinner, and that he expected others to respect his custom. By all accounts they had a successful dinner, with each respecting the customs of the others.
This is the meaning of tolerance; it is one thing for Moslems to ban other Moslems from drawing their religious leader. It is quite another thing for them to expect non-Moslems to respect all their customs. The problem, it seems to me, is that we have one group here who knows not tolerance. But they should be at least aware that the world is somewhat larger than tenets of their own religion.
I raised the question about the pictures of Mohammed which had been posted recently, and the carefully choreographed rebellion against them some five months later in other countries than where the pictures were even shown. I was interested to think what others thought about it who think quite differently about many matters than I do. I was not surprised to hear them all proclaim that the pictures should not have been drawn, so as not to offend someone else.
I have read many conservative editorials about this matter where conservatives feel the same way. It seems as if the underlying tenet is that if it had not been done, we would have not had so much trouble. I find trouble with believing that we ought to do anything else because of someone else’s belief. I myself am an ardent Christian, and yet I think it is so wrong to force my belief on others. Neither would I abrogate other’s right to speak what they believe. I hope that most Americans would agree with this view of tolerance; it is the only we can exist with each other in such a differentiated world. Why is it that when we come to a third world religion that we no longer believe in this tolerance? Again and again the “Piss on Christ” sculpture funded by the NEA was used as an argument for Christians having put up peaceably with much controversial stuff. I cannot possibly tell you how morally offended I was when that sculpture first appeared. Yet where were the people of the US defending my right to be free of offense? I find it intriguing that some of the same people who would argue for the insult sculpture, but argue against simple Dutch cartoons.
As I was thinking about it I began to wonder what my friends would think if Moslems suddenly demanded that all women be covered with a veil because they believe that it should be so. It is entirely their right to believe and treat their women the way they do; just as it is my right to disagree with it. It, however, is not their right to insist on others who do not believe as they do to act within the confines of their private religion. Moreover almost no civilization would be able to last which chose to give freedom from offense. The very idea of diversity implies that we have to tolerate ideas which we disdain. This lack of tolerance on the part of our neighbors scares me; we must deal with our neighbors, but it is their lack of tolerance which leads to closed societies, one thought, and one banner to march under. It has already been proposed of course under the guise of the final solution. As I look forward to the future I would hope that fellow humans would shudder at any more governments daring to suggest anymore final solutions.
I have been reading much Churchill these last months, and I remember one story which might be pertinent. I wish I could have found the actual piece again, but in going over my 3000 pages of recent reading, I could not find the actual passage again. At any rate, Churchill is traveling somewhere in the Moslem world and has a chance to meet an Arab prince. In negotiating their formal dinner the prince sent notice that his customs prevented any use of alcohol at all, and that alcohol was not allowed to be in his presence. To which Churchill made a famous rejoinder that his customs demanded the use of alcohol before, during, and especially after dinner, and that he expected others to respect his custom. By all accounts they had a successful dinner, with each respecting the customs of the others.
This is the meaning of tolerance; it is one thing for Moslems to ban other Moslems from drawing their religious leader. It is quite another thing for them to expect non-Moslems to respect all their customs. The problem, it seems to me, is that we have one group here who knows not tolerance. But they should be at least aware that the world is somewhat larger than tenets of their own religion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)