Thursday, January 22, 2009
7:56 pm
Daniel J. Summers
I know, I still owe you folks the 2008 YIR “The Good”, the MLK/Sanctity of Life column, and Bush Administration epitaph posts. All in good time - this is Pinewood Derby week in our Cub Scout pack!
But, to tide you over, here's a teaser of the latest Ann Coulter column…
It will not be easy for President B. Hussein Obama. More than half the country voted for him, and yet our newspapers are brimming with snippy remarks at every little aspect of his inauguration.
Here's a small sampling of the churlishness in just The New York Times:
- The American public is bemused by the tasteless show-biz extravaganza surrounding Barack Obama's inauguration today.
- There is something to be said for some showiness in an inauguration. But one felt discomfited all the same.
- This is an inauguration, not a coronation.
- Is there a parallel between Mrs. Obama's jewel-toned outfit and somebody else's glass slippers? Why limousines and not shank's mare?
- It is still unclear whether we are supposed to shout “Whoopee!” or “Shame!” about the new elegance the Obamas are bringing to Washington.
Boy, talk about raining on somebody's parade! These were not, of course, comments about the inauguration of the angel Obama; they are (slightly edited) comments about the inauguration of another historic president, Ronald Reagan, in January 1981.
In other news, I'm very disappointed with the tone on the “Additional Issues” page of the White House website. Here's the quote, in case the text is changed - it appears (as of this writing) as the first paragraph under the “Katrina” heading…
President Obama will keep the broken promises made by President Bush to rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. He and Vice President Biden will take steps to ensure that the federal government will never again allow such catastrophic failures in emergency planning and response to occur.
That's just wrong. First off, I and probably over half this nation don't think any promises were broken in the first place. But, even if they feel this way, they could phrase it in a more neutral way. “President Obama will make good on the promise America made to rebuild New Orleans…” is the way an administrative agenda should read. This looks like campaign retreads.
Friday, October 26, 2007
11:46 pm
Daniel J. Summers
There is something that has been bugging me, and thanks to an episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, I'm getting around to addressing it. Here is the transcript which we'll be discussing - a strong language warning is in effect. (Quoted portions here will be sanitized.) I'll state up front that Bill Maher is a comedian, so I understand that some of this is his schtick. I'll also state that I'm not picking on him, just using what he said as an example of an argument I've heard hundreds of time. The argument is this - current practitioners of Christianity have it all wrong. Jesus was accepting and loving, not full of hate like today's Christians.
We'll start with Maher's monologue…
And finally, New Rule: If the choice in '08 is between Rudy and Hillary, “values voters” must do the Christian thing and choose Hillary. Of course, I think all religion is nuts, but at least she practices it the way Jesus suggested: privately. Like a Dick Cheney energy meeting.
I'll certainly grant him one thing - though Hillary's husband is a louse, they are both still married in their first marriage. But, apart from that, the only time Hillary goes to church is when there's a good photo op, whereas Giuliani has not pretended to be religious.
Plus, she's raised an admirable daughter, while Rudy's kids couldn't hate him more if they were New York City firefighters.
And let's not forget, Hillary didn't commit adultery. Her husband did. And afterwards, she did the Christian thing and forgave him. And then she had a GPS unit implanted in his [manhood]. But the important thing is, she forgave him!
I included these just for a chuckle or two. He does make a few good points. Some may speculate about whether her forgiveness was politically calculated or not, but regardless, she did forgive him, even after the one reason given in Scripture as allowing divorce (more on that later).
Now, I bring all this up because this weekend in Washington is the “Values Voters Convention.” Three days of peace, love and hypocrisy. Where the Republican frontrunners will spend the week kissing the [backsides] of 2,000 social conservatives who despise liberals, homosexuals, Muslims, Mexicans and Nobel Prize winners. And who believe the sound of a condom wrapper being opened makes angels die.
Now we start with the elitism and name-calling. I listen to and read conservative commentary, I am friends with many conservatives, and I consider myself to be a conservative as well. I don't despise liberals, though I do despise their viewpoints. I don't despise homosexuals. I'll admit that I'm a little apprehensive of Muslims, but living and working around them for four months while I was deployed certainly helped ease that apprehension. I have no problems with Mexicans at all - however, I believe they should emigrate to this country according to our laws. And the last line isn't even worthy of a comment. :)
It's kind of like a “Star Trek” convention, only the virgins are angry - and they think outer space is just a theory. So, Ann Coulter, if you've got any more “[queer]” jokes, this is the room for you.
On the contrary, most “values voters” are not virgins; they just ascribe to God's version of sexuality. And, they know that outer space isn't just a theory; God created it. And, most conservatives I know can parse words well enough to realize that what Ann Coulter was making fun of the railroading of Isaiah Washington and the lack of manliness of John Edwards - not using the slur against Edwards.
Moving along…
And I know that if you can look at the war in Iraq, the melting environments and the descent of America into “idiocracy,” and still think our biggest problems are boobies during the Super Bowl and the “war on Christmas,” then you don't have values, you have issues.
We disagree on the war in Iraq. Global warming is a religion, not science, and information keeps coming out every week disproving this religion, with it's “indulgences” in the form of carbon credits. Conservatives are also concerned about the lack of knowledge amongst the public, which is why we are in favor of trying other alternatives to the proven failed government school system. Broadcast standards are what they are - whine all you want, that's why your show is on HBO. And the “war on Christmas” is an assault on freedom of religion, one of the bedrock principles of this country. I'll agree, “we” have issues, but by “we” I mean this entire nation.
If you had “values,” you'd draw the line at torture. But a startling number of people who call themselves Christians don't. And I'm pretty sure if you asked, “What would Jesus veto,” it wouldn't be health care for sick kids.
Sure, we'll draw the line at torture - but not your definition of torture, which is “pretty much anything that makes the detainee uncomfortable.” And I'm pretty sure Jesus would have vetoed this latest S-CHIP bill, which isn't health care for sick kids, it's health insurance for middle-class kids.
Let me take this opportunity for a rabbit-trail rant. What is it with liberals and dishonest euphemisms? “Taxes” become “contributions”, health “insurance” becomes health “care”, “religion” becomes “hate” (unless it's Islam, then it's hallowed and is not to be trifled with), and “interrogation” is “torture”. As the Godfather has said, “Words mean things.” If they were honest about their agenda, the public would never buy it. Who here is against “health care for children”? (crickets chirping) Who here is against “taxpayer (that's you and me, by the way)-funded health insurance for children of middle-class families through age 25”? (show of hands) That's what I thought.
But back to Bill - here it is, folks, his grand finale…
Why, it's almost like “values voters” don't really believe Jesus was right about anything. [in mock attack ad voice] “Jesus Christ: wrong on gays, wrong on taxes, wrong on torture, and wrong for America.”
Here's a passage I've heard I don't know how many times, used to prove this exact point. It's from John 8, where the people brought a woman caught in the act of adultery to Jesus. Their law said she should be stoned, but they wanted to see what Jesus would say. We'll look at John 8:3-11 from the Holman Christian Standard Bible (click the link to read them, if you think I'm quoting them incorrectly, or to read it in a different translation).
3 Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, making her stand in the center. 4 “Teacher,” they said to Him, “this woman was caught in the act of committing adultery. 5 In the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do You say?” 6 They asked this to trap Him, in order that they might have evidence to accuse Him.
Jesus stooped down and started writing on the ground with His finger. 7 When they persisted in questioning Him, He stood up and said to them, "The one without sin among you should be the first to throw a stone at her."
Oooh, that's good! That's usually where the argument ends. “You're not sinless, so who are you to “cast stones” at me?” They interpret “casting stones” as “saying what I'm doing is wrong.” Rather than excusing sin, though, this is a prohibition against meting out punishment. Casting stones was executing a death-sentence judgment against someone. But there's more!
8 Then He stooped down again and continued writing on the ground. 9 When they heard this, they left one by one, starting with the older men. Only He was left, with the woman in the center. 10 When Jesus stood up, He said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
11 “No one, Lord,” she answered.
"Neither do I condemn you," said Jesus.
“But look! Jesus SAID ‘I don't condemn you’!!!” Again, calling a sin a sin is not condemnation. But, there's one part of this verse that conveniently gets snipped, and it's the part that we as Christians believe is the most important part.
"Go, and from now on do not sin any more."
The emphasis in the above is, of course, mine. Jesus did not condemn her, but He also did not say that what she was doing was “just the way she was, and we should accept it” or “fine with Him as long as she wasn't hurting anyone else.” He forgave, then gave her the charge of turning away from that sin. That is the truly beautiful part of this story - we don't have to continue sinning, to continue to be a slave to sin, once we have met the saving power of Christ.
In logic, a “straw man” is a fallacious argument of an opponent's position that is misconstrued but argued as fact. That is what people who espouse these arguments are doing. They are setting up a straw man of this religion that Jesus never taught, so they can tear down our practice of it. They're wrong, and we should call them on it. There is a difference between being meek and defending the faith. :)
So, the next time someone tells you what Jesus would do, (as Paul Harvey would say) now you know the rest of the story.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
11:08 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Through this post on a blog called “Grouchy's Liberaltopia” (which I found through a blog-of-a-blog-of-a-blog), we get an insight into the left-wing hate machine. Here's the third paragraph (numbers are mine, for further dissection)…
In just the past few weeks, the true derangement of the Bush Christopublican neocons has shown its raving, wild-eyed, insane flap-jawed moron face with (1) Anal Cyst Draft Reject Rush Limbaugh slapping any member of the military, including combat vets, as “phony soldiers” if they don't agree with his chickenhawk war scat; (2) Der Leader-hosen's Loyal Bunker Honey Ann “Mannish Boy” Coulter flashing her anti-Semitic roots by generously threatening to ‘perfect Jews’ by overhauling them into Godless uber-Christians like herself; (3) Ailes' Fox News Brain Trust Billo discovering them mother-effin' darkies up in Harlem can run a restaurant just as well as drunken Irish O'Fays; (4) Corporate Roach Motel Desk Clerk Laura Ingraham unironically and hilariously titling her new colostomy bag of political bile “Power to the People”; (5) various Rightie Jock-Sniffers trying to make their bones by attacking 12-year-old accident victim Graeme Frost and, not satisfied with that wincing scuminess, even going after a 2-year-old girl with heart problems cured by the S-CHIP funds that Boy Bush just vetoed.
Wow - sounds a like a rough few weeks! Let's see what really happened…
First up is Rush Limbaugh. He used the term “phony soldiers” to refer to the people who claimed they were in the military, but were not. There have been at least two of these folks who have been thoroughly discredited. The Senate even decided to get in on the fun, writing Rush's syndication company a letter asking them to censure him. Rush decided to auction the letter on eBay, with the proceeds going to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, and he promised that he would match the winning bid, and challenged the 41 signers of the letter to make the same pledge. (At this time, none have.) The auction ended this past Friday, with the letter going for $2.1 million, for a total donation to MC-LEF of $4.2 million!
Second is Ann Coulter. I already linked to Dennis Prager's article about Ann. Since when do liberals care about anti-Semitism - aren't they the ones who are constantly demanding that a sovereign nation give up more and more of its territory to a group who has no claim to any of the land anyway? Saying that Jews would be perfected by converting to Christianity is anti-Semitic no more than someone telling me I'd be better if I grew some hair and lost 20 pounds is anti-Daniel.
Third is Bill O'Reilly. A good summary of the whole flap is up over on the ABC News website. I can't help but feel for Bill in all this. The first two we've discussed are a result of statements taken out of context, so I can't help but believe that this is the same thing. In fact, that's what Bill was saying. He has been at the center of racial issues before - people cried racism when his reporting led to Pepsi ditching Ludacris as a spokeman. One defense given of this horrid, offensive rap music is that its purveyors are “keeping it real”. If you're offended, you're a racist, because it's just reality. How was Bill to know that he wouldn't hear that kind of language in a predominantly black restaurant in Harlem?
Fourth is Laura Ingraham. Her new book Power to the People has done pretty well. In fact, after a quick 7-minute interview on Rush's program, the book went from 61st to 2nd on Amazon.com. I think this one is borne out of envy, but let's see what Publisher's Weekly (via Amazon.com) had to say about it.
Taking an approach that makes mutually exclusive groups out of those “working and taking care of their families” and the “protest culture,” Ingraham's message is loud and clear: “they're coming for you.” Specifically, “they” means the Lifetime network (brainwashing women to “swear off men and family”), the growing ranks of “Team Atheist” (including Dan Brown), “family deconstructivists,” illegal immigrants and Islamic jihadists, among others.
Yep - sounds like something a liberal wouldn't like.
Finally, we have Graeme Frost. The Democrats got this 12-year-old boy to read their address about S-CHIP, and held him up as the example of the people the expanded programs was supposed to help. However, his family is not as needy as they would have us believe. Mark Steyn has some details, and Michelle Malkin has a big round-up. This is yet another issue with symbolism over substance (we're not supposed to look at the details, because it would benefit this poor, pitiful kid), but it had the benefit of exposing the problems with the program - the Frost family, it turns out, doesn't need S-CHIP as much as they sounded.
So, we've got a pretty good week for Republicans, and embarrassment and failure for Democrats. I could see why the liberals would be upset with that. Here's to many more weeks like that! I'll tell you what else we're seeing. Republicans have done everything the other side has asked, and all it gets them is a great big bunch of nowhere. They're no longer worried about apologizing, or who they offend. Get used to it…
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
8:34 pm
Daniel J. Summers
There just isn't enough time in the day to do everything I want to do. Sadly, one of the casualties is original content for my blog (although I am working on something that I hope to have ready in a few days). Until then, here's another round-up of interesting things I found scattered around the web.
First up, from the American Thinker, we have Randall Hoven with “Media Dishonesty Matters.” In this tome, he details 101 incidents of plagiarism, failure to disclose conflicts of interest, and instances of journalists creating news out of thin air. This should probably count as three or four links, but we'll keep pressing on.
Next up, LaShawn Barber asks Barack Obama this pointed question - “What Faith Is This?” He has claimed that his faith guides his public life, yet he voted against the ban on partial-birth abortion. That's a good question.
Moving on, Dennis Prager of TownHall.com (among other places) asks another, somewhat rhetorical question - “So What?” In it, he, a devout Jew, explains why he is not offended in the least over Ann Coulter's latest statement that Jews need to be “perfected” by accepting Christ. He also explains why labeling her statements as anti-Semitism does a disservice to the efforts to eliminate anti-Semitism.
Finally, I usually wrap up with some humor - but this one will inspire a different emotion. I may be the last person in the world to find out about this song, but I've got to share it. Tim McGraw's “If You're Reading This” is a tribute to men and women in uniform, and is a tear-jerking classic.
While on vacation last week, I had the opportunity to finish a book I started over Christmas vacation - Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terror by Ann Coulter. In it, she meticulously (and I mean meticulously - there are 877 footnotes throughout 292 printed pages) details how the left, liberals, Democrats (pick your favorite label); these folks have been wrong about almost every foreign policy decision they've made over the last 50 years. (Today, another revelation occurred that, to me, shows that it hasn't stopped yet - but more on that later.)
The book starts with a look at Alger Hiss and Senator Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy is probably one of the most unfairly maligned people in United States history - especially since, within the last decade, declassified Soviet cables (intercepted by the Venona Project) have proved his allegations true. First, she makes the excellent point that Senator Joe McCarthy had nothing to do with the House Unamerican Activities Committee (HUAC). Instead, his modest job was to identify loyalty risks serving in sensitive positions. He was very good at his job, and identified several people that needed to be moved - not fired, not tried for treason and hanged, just moved out of the sensitive positions where they were currently.
Over the past 50+ years, the left has consistently been for containment, appeasement, and has been more than willing to cede portions of our national security to keep us from having to fight wars. I can't recall who said it, but the gist of it was “If these folks were just stupid, the laws of chance would dictate that they'd occasionally be right!” One paragraph (on page 154 of the paperback edition) summarizes just how duped they were in the Cold War, while debunking the claim that Truman's policies actually won the Cold War, it just took until Reagan's administration for them to work.
To review the record, as part of Truman's yeoman work on the Cold War, he cooperated with the Soviets at the Nuremberg Trials, white-washing their joint aggression with Hitler under the Nazi-Soviet Pact. He looked the other way when the Soviet Union murdered three million Russian prisoners of war returned home by the Allies. On his watch, the Soviet army consolidated its control over nine countries, China became a Communist dictatorship, and tens of millions of people were murdered under Communist tyrannies. Truman defended Communist spy Alger Hiss as a patriot who was framed by Republicans, and he tried to indict Whittaker Chambers for perjury. He refused to remove members of his administration identified to him by J. Edgar Hoover and others as Communist agents, including Harry Dexter White, whom Truman appointed to U. S. representative of the IMF. Among the Soviet spies advising Truman on China was Frank Coe, who refused to answer the question: “Are you a Soviet agent, Mr. Coe?” Soon thereafter Coe fled to Communist China, where he became a top policy-maker to Chairman Mao, helping the Chinese murder tens of millions of their own people. Truman was considered such a dupe of the Communists that the Army refused to tell him about the Venona Project. And that's how Truman won the Cold War!
Ann continues in other chapters to discuss the Bay of Pigs invasion, where we went back on our word by not supporting the Communist resistance there when Castro had very little power; Vietnam, where we were starting to make progress until a Democrat-controlled Congress used Watergate as an excuse to leave before winning; Grenada, where we went in and defeated Communism over a weekend; the Cold War, where an arms race did prove to be the way to bankrupt the Soviet economy; Iraq, where the same arguments once used against Vietnam and Grenada were once again being brought up, but yet we prevailed (not by appeasement, or inspections, but through force); and North Korea, where recent administrations have dropped the ball, but the current one is taking a strong stand.
While those who know Ann Coulter know that she simply delights in shredding the left to pieces, the content of this book is much more important that her amusing delivery method. What this book shows is that, using the 20/20 benefits of hindsight, the left's approach to defending our country only makes us weaker. When the decision was made to not prosecute Jane Fonda for her treasonous actions during the Vietnam War, the message was sent that this country wasn't interested in prosecuting anyone for these types of actions. So, Hollywood and the media have been more than willing to participate in this as well - which brings us to today's happenings.
Last week, Newsweek magazine ran a story that claimed that, as an interrogation technique, the Army had flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet. This caused riots in Afghanistan, where 15 people have been killed and over 100 injured. Today, they ran another article where they said that their source for that piece of information is now unsure that that's what happened. (Separately, they have claimed that this is not a retraction of the story.) So, what we've got here is an international news magazine including uncorroborated hearsay from a single source in a story, claiming it as fact. I have several problems with this.
First, didn't Newsweek learn anything from the CBS News / Bush ANG document fiasco? The public deserves better, and our troops on the ground certainly deserve better fact-checking before they have to contain riots for no good reason.
Second, why was Newsweek so eager to run this part of the story? I believe it's the same reason that CBS News ran with the Bush ANG story - they wanted terribly for it to be true. For all their accusations, it's the left in this country that doesn't seem to realize that the “War on Terror” is not a “War on Islam”. They want us to disrespect Islam, so then they can say they were right.
Third, this bad decision has placed our military in harm's way. Iraq is not the only place we've got a military presence, training locals to take over their own security. Afghanistan is farther along than Iraq, but we're still there. With claims like this, even if they are true, publicizing them as some scandalous new revelation gives aid and comfort to our enemies. All they need is one story like this to fire them up for days - and now, not only have they given the opposition the morale boost, 15 people are dead because of it. There's no way that either the reporter or the editors will be tried for either treason or murder - but I believe a case could be made for either of those charges.
Finally, what does it matter if they did do it? I'm not a student of Islam, but as a Christian, I believe the Bible is the holy, inspired Word of God. Any feeble attempt by man to eliminate it is simple futility - others have attempted to destroy God's Word, and have had little success. Flushing paper and ink down a toilet does not come anywhere close to destroying it - only that copy. I would think that Muslims would feel the same way about their holy book - but, I may be wrong. I don't see what it would hurt, though - these terrorists already call us the Great Satan!
If you have the opportunity, pick up Ann's book at the store or library, and read through it. It's a great analysis of conflicting foreign policy over the last 50 years - and, it's fun to read to boot!