The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: What Russia Knows Now: "Like Osama bin Laden's attack on the United States, Mr. Basayev's attack signifies the start here of the Third World War of which the whole of Western civilization is so rightly afraid, which it tries with all its might to postpone, which it even tries to ignore.
"Russia is far from certain that it has any substantial relationship to this newly imperiled civilization. It relapses into a stupor in the face of its enemy's audacity. It looks back, sometimes with nostalgia, on Stalin's cunning imperial maneuvers, at his seizure of half of Europe. Nowadays it is awkward and ungainly.
"But while Russia has been unsuccessfully searching for its own national idea since the collapse of communism, the extremists have listed it as one of their enemies, and have acted accordingly....
"Russians would like to remain hors de combat in the conflict of civilizations, but they won't be able to. On Sept. 11, 2001, we wept in sympathy with America; after Beslan we have to dry our tears and try to build genuine ties with the West."
---------------
At least one Russian gets it. Communism was a monster and killed millions in terms of it unrealistic religio-economic heresies, but Communism was a Christian heresy. As I wrote in one issue of Basket of Figs, God has many angels. Some are very dark and awful angels. If we will not listen to the glorious and pure ones, He will send us others. The judgments of the Book of Revelation are difficult indeed to understand; but one thing is certain: they are all directed by Him who sits upon the glorious throne of Heaven.
Facebook Badge
Saturday, September 11, 2004
Taking Flip-Flops Seriously: "THE JOHN KERRY 'flip-flop' has been a humorous leitmotif of this campaign. But we single out these particular reversals because they are too important to be merely funny or to be chalked up simply to an inability of the Kerry campaign to 'hone' its 'message.' Nor is the real problem simply Kerry's inability to make up his mind. Rather it is that on fundamental matters of war and peace, and on the major strategic and tactical questions that follow from them--such as how many troops to send and how much money to commit to a conflict--John Kerry will not or cannot hold to a position under pressure.
"Kerry voted to authorize war in Iraq in the fall of 2002 because he was afraid a vote against the resolution would ruin his chances to become president. He voted against the $87 billion to support the forces in Iraq and Afghanistan in the fall of 2003--when Howard Dean was riding high-- because he was afraid that he couldn't win over Democratic primary voters if he seemed to be supporting the war. After the capture of Saddam Hussein, Kerry briefly returned to a hawkish stance and criticized Dean when it seemed that distinguishing himself from Dean's excessive dovishness would be politically beneficial. Now, after a dip in the polls against President Bush, Kerry has come out against the war and against the money spent on the war, because he is afraid that he cannot win running as a quasi-hawk. We understand that many people don't like President Bush. But can there be anyone out there, Democrat or Republican, who does not honestly worry: If this is how John Kerry behaves during the campaign, how would he react to the real pressures of being president and commander in chief?"
--------------------
FYI
"Kerry voted to authorize war in Iraq in the fall of 2002 because he was afraid a vote against the resolution would ruin his chances to become president. He voted against the $87 billion to support the forces in Iraq and Afghanistan in the fall of 2003--when Howard Dean was riding high-- because he was afraid that he couldn't win over Democratic primary voters if he seemed to be supporting the war. After the capture of Saddam Hussein, Kerry briefly returned to a hawkish stance and criticized Dean when it seemed that distinguishing himself from Dean's excessive dovishness would be politically beneficial. Now, after a dip in the polls against President Bush, Kerry has come out against the war and against the money spent on the war, because he is afraid that he cannot win running as a quasi-hawk. We understand that many people don't like President Bush. But can there be anyone out there, Democrat or Republican, who does not honestly worry: If this is how John Kerry behaves during the campaign, how would he react to the real pressures of being president and commander in chief?"
--------------------
FYI
Andrew C. McCarthy on the War on Terror & John Kerry on National Review Online: "Now, although we inhabit a post-9/11 world, exactly the same mistakes are being repeated by the same redoubtable axis of denial: the media, academia, and the hard Left of the Democratic party. Yes, if you have the endurance to press them long enough and hard enough, you may actually get them to admit, kicking and screaming, that we are in some sort of war. But beyond that it's the same old song: an ostrich-like refusal to acknowledge the nature of the hostilities and an incorrigible deafness to the very plain words of our enemies."
========
fyi
========
fyi
The Seattle Times: National politics: More challenges about whether Bush documents are authentic: "'This story is true. The questions we raised about then-Lieutenant Bush's National Guard service are serious and legitimate,' he [Dan Rather] said. 'Until and unless someone shows me definitive proof that they are not, I don't see any reason to carry on a conversation with the professional rumor mill.' "
=========
No, you have it backwards, Mr. Rather, on all counts. You have to prove them authentic; until you do you are the professional paid liar, and the professional rumor mill par excellence. But we have been on to you for a long time.
Dan Rather's bias is coming through loud and clear. The questions that have been raised about John Kerry's Viet Nam service are "serious and legitimate." But we do not see Rather airing them over and over again. Why does the one [Bush's] have to be disproved but the other [Kerry's] proved? There is no greater bias than this: the defects of your case have to be proved, but the alleged defects of your opponents case are accepted without verification.
The only bright spot is this: no one takes CBS and Dan Rather seriously anyway. CBS has David Letterman, and he is fun sometimes. Maybe CBS should rename their news the Dan Rather Early Night Show, and include episodes of "Will It Float" to provide real entertainment. At least Dan Rather should be required to register as a lobbyist for the Democratic Party and his partisan ads should include disclaimers as to who has approved his remarks, as they do on all policital ads nowadays.
CBS should fire Rather immediately, if they want to be considered a serious news outlet again. The emperor has no clothes.
=========
No, you have it backwards, Mr. Rather, on all counts. You have to prove them authentic; until you do you are the professional paid liar, and the professional rumor mill par excellence. But we have been on to you for a long time.
Dan Rather's bias is coming through loud and clear. The questions that have been raised about John Kerry's Viet Nam service are "serious and legitimate." But we do not see Rather airing them over and over again. Why does the one [Bush's] have to be disproved but the other [Kerry's] proved? There is no greater bias than this: the defects of your case have to be proved, but the alleged defects of your opponents case are accepted without verification.
The only bright spot is this: no one takes CBS and Dan Rather seriously anyway. CBS has David Letterman, and he is fun sometimes. Maybe CBS should rename their news the Dan Rather Early Night Show, and include episodes of "Will It Float" to provide real entertainment. At least Dan Rather should be required to register as a lobbyist for the Democratic Party and his partisan ads should include disclaimers as to who has approved his remarks, as they do on all policital ads nowadays.
CBS should fire Rather immediately, if they want to be considered a serious news outlet again. The emperor has no clothes.
World Tribune.com--Front Page: "Muslim group takes responsibility for 9-11: 'We are so sorry' "
========
This is good; this is wonderful. But we need to hear from the Mullahs. Their silence is deafening.
========
This is good; this is wonderful. But we need to hear from the Mullahs. Their silence is deafening.
Dennis Prager: This year's Ingrate of the Year Award goes to...: "Ahmed Al-Samarri, Iraq's Olympic Committee president, acknowledged this when he said: 'Women's sports started from ground zero here because of the previous regime, which had abused many, many girls who wish to practice or join sports.'
Yet, the one Iraqi woman athlete at the Athens Olympics, Ala'a Jassim, told American reporters that the American invasion of Iraq 'was a very bad idea.'
Likewise, Ahmad Manajid, a midfielder for the Iraqi soccer team, when asked about a pro-Bush ad that shows the Iraqi soccer team playing as free men, asked reporters, 'How will he (Bush) meet his God having slaughtered so many men and women?' According to Sports Illustrated, he added that he would be killing Americans in Iraq if he were not playing soccer.
'There is so much hate on this team for America,' said Bernd Stange, the German who coached the Iraqi team until he resigned in July.
One great lesson of American history is that one does good in this world because it is right to do good, not because the recipients will be grateful. We Americans must therefore never judge the rightness of our actions on how much gratitude or censure we receive. So long as we remain the most blessed country on earth, it is our duty to do as much good as we can. In fact, if we don't, we will cease to be blessed.
But the ingrates still deserve the contempt of decent people."
------------------
FYI
Yet, the one Iraqi woman athlete at the Athens Olympics, Ala'a Jassim, told American reporters that the American invasion of Iraq 'was a very bad idea.'
Likewise, Ahmad Manajid, a midfielder for the Iraqi soccer team, when asked about a pro-Bush ad that shows the Iraqi soccer team playing as free men, asked reporters, 'How will he (Bush) meet his God having slaughtered so many men and women?' According to Sports Illustrated, he added that he would be killing Americans in Iraq if he were not playing soccer.
'There is so much hate on this team for America,' said Bernd Stange, the German who coached the Iraqi team until he resigned in July.
One great lesson of American history is that one does good in this world because it is right to do good, not because the recipients will be grateful. We Americans must therefore never judge the rightness of our actions on how much gratitude or censure we receive. So long as we remain the most blessed country on earth, it is our duty to do as much good as we can. In fact, if we don't, we will cease to be blessed.
But the ingrates still deserve the contempt of decent people."
------------------
FYI
Neal Boortz: What's the worst that could happen?: "Bush had only two choices on Iraq. Invade and remove Saddam Hussein, or permit Hussein to remain in power by allowing the already-failed United Nations process to proceed. Creating a mental flow chart for the two options leads to the inescapable conclusion that the removal of Saddam Hussein was the only responsible choice."
----------
Exactly. But read the article.
----------
Exactly. But read the article.
Friday, September 10, 2004
New York Post Online Edition: postopinion: "'$200 billion for Iraq, but they tell us we can't afford after-school programs for our children,' he said. '$200 billion for Iraq, but they tell us we can't afford health care for our veterans.'
There is so much wrong with this argument that it's hard to know where to begin. There's the simple matter of Kerry's bald-faced falsity. First of all, the Bush administration's No Child Left Behind Act has increased by 65 percent the amount of federal money spent on schooling. Spending on veterans' health care has grown a whopping 27 percent. "
===========
So now we know the true value system of liberalism. Freedom from tyranny is too expensive. What is important is the welfare state.
What money we wasted in fighting Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini! We were far poorer then, but we should have put the money into school lunches and protection for the Prebble jumping mouse. And, ah, the cost in lives of money to free American slaves in the Civil War!
War is just too expensive, and isn't worth it.
Now we know.
There is so much wrong with this argument that it's hard to know where to begin. There's the simple matter of Kerry's bald-faced falsity. First of all, the Bush administration's No Child Left Behind Act has increased by 65 percent the amount of federal money spent on schooling. Spending on veterans' health care has grown a whopping 27 percent. "
===========
So now we know the true value system of liberalism. Freedom from tyranny is too expensive. What is important is the welfare state.
What money we wasted in fighting Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini! We were far poorer then, but we should have put the money into school lunches and protection for the Prebble jumping mouse. And, ah, the cost in lives of money to free American slaves in the Civil War!
War is just too expensive, and isn't worth it.
Now we know.
New York Post Online Edition: postopinion: "By 3 o'clock, the very careful and honest Jim Geraghty, who produces invaluable material every day on nationalreview.com's Kerry Spot, was saying flatly, 'CBS had better have one heck of a defense for this.'
"Yeah, it had better. I thought on Wednesday that it was scandalous for '60 Minutes' to turn over a good deal of its time on Wednesday night to one Ben Barnes, a one-time Texas political powerhouse who now claims he got George W. Bush into the National Guard.
"The problem is not, as some would have it, that Barnes has raised half a million dollars for Kerry. The problem is that Barnes has already lied about this on videotape, and I use the word 'lied' without difficulty, where he says he pulled strings for Bush when 'I was lieutenant governor of Texas.'
"The thing is that George W. Bush was sworn into the National Guard in May 1968. Ben Barnes didn't become lieutenant governor until 1969.
"From the lies of Ben Barnes to the apparent forgeries of who-knows-who-did-it -- why has '60 Minutes' exposed itself in this way?
"We all know why. Its producers and others in the media think George Bush deserves to be beaten up now because of the beating administered to John Kerry in August. In some weird way, the editors and producers believe this is fairness at work.
"Instead, they have unmasked themselves. Or rather, they have been unmasked by ordinary people who can see what they and their hired experts evidently could not."
--------------
Is there any doubt in anybody's mind now that the left-wing press will do anything, accept anything, and cover any stink in order to defeat Bush and his decent allies?
Read this whole article by Podhoretz in the New York Post. The Kerry crowd is desperate and sinking. When you have no ballast, no inner core of character and conviction, your house comes down when the wind blows.
"Yeah, it had better. I thought on Wednesday that it was scandalous for '60 Minutes' to turn over a good deal of its time on Wednesday night to one Ben Barnes, a one-time Texas political powerhouse who now claims he got George W. Bush into the National Guard.
"The problem is not, as some would have it, that Barnes has raised half a million dollars for Kerry. The problem is that Barnes has already lied about this on videotape, and I use the word 'lied' without difficulty, where he says he pulled strings for Bush when 'I was lieutenant governor of Texas.'
"The thing is that George W. Bush was sworn into the National Guard in May 1968. Ben Barnes didn't become lieutenant governor until 1969.
"From the lies of Ben Barnes to the apparent forgeries of who-knows-who-did-it -- why has '60 Minutes' exposed itself in this way?
"We all know why. Its producers and others in the media think George Bush deserves to be beaten up now because of the beating administered to John Kerry in August. In some weird way, the editors and producers believe this is fairness at work.
"Instead, they have unmasked themselves. Or rather, they have been unmasked by ordinary people who can see what they and their hired experts evidently could not."
--------------
Is there any doubt in anybody's mind now that the left-wing press will do anything, accept anything, and cover any stink in order to defeat Bush and his decent allies?
Read this whole article by Podhoretz in the New York Post. The Kerry crowd is desperate and sinking. When you have no ballast, no inner core of character and conviction, your house comes down when the wind blows.
Thursday, September 09, 2004
Paul Greenberg: Who controls the past? Zell Miller, memory and politics: "Who controls the past, George Orwell wrote in '1984,' controls the future, and who controls the present controls the past."
-------------
Wrong, Mr. Greenberg. This is the reason that totalitarianism cannot succeed. It is not who controls the past, be He who controls the future that counts.
The present proceeds from the future, not the past. What happens today is determined by what will happen in the future. But, you ask, how can you control the future? Exactly.
Only God contols the future and "all things work together for good to them who love God, to them who are called according his purpose," the apostle Paul wrote.
Isaiah was told to proclaim the Word of God: "Say to the righteous, 'It will be well with you." Say to the unrighteous, 'It will not be well with you.'" Such is determined by God. Babylon is fallen, Satan's kingdom is overthrown, and the meek will inherit the earth.
Christians are called to live by faith; this means at least that what we do today is determined by what is promised by God. Walking by faith and not by sight, Christians are not overwhelmed by the guilt of the past, nor by the evils of the present, because they are certain that God has purposed the triumph of good and the overthrow of evil. There is no question about it.
Because of this we do not buy into various conspiracy theories or overwhelming of evil powers which control history. History is controlled by Him who brings all things to pass according to the purpose of His own will. [Ephesians 1] 'Nuff said.
-------------
Wrong, Mr. Greenberg. This is the reason that totalitarianism cannot succeed. It is not who controls the past, be He who controls the future that counts.
The present proceeds from the future, not the past. What happens today is determined by what will happen in the future. But, you ask, how can you control the future? Exactly.
Only God contols the future and "all things work together for good to them who love God, to them who are called according his purpose," the apostle Paul wrote.
Isaiah was told to proclaim the Word of God: "Say to the righteous, 'It will be well with you." Say to the unrighteous, 'It will not be well with you.'" Such is determined by God. Babylon is fallen, Satan's kingdom is overthrown, and the meek will inherit the earth.
Christians are called to live by faith; this means at least that what we do today is determined by what is promised by God. Walking by faith and not by sight, Christians are not overwhelmed by the guilt of the past, nor by the evils of the present, because they are certain that God has purposed the triumph of good and the overthrow of evil. There is no question about it.
Because of this we do not buy into various conspiracy theories or overwhelming of evil powers which control history. History is controlled by Him who brings all things to pass according to the purpose of His own will. [Ephesians 1] 'Nuff said.
Thomas Sowell: Jobs and snow jobs: "Official statistics published last March in the Survey of Current Business showed an increase of 2.8 million jobs outsourced by American-owned multinational corporations during a quarter of a century ending in 2001. Over that same span of time, there was an increase of 4.7 million jobs outsourced to Americans by foreign-owned multinational corporations."
--------------
FYI
--------------
FYI
White House Blasts Paper For Parroting Kerry Attack on Bush Service Record -- GOPUSA: "Bartlett suggested the timing of the latest allegations was suspicious, saying, 'What's questionable is at the same time that these documents are raised is the very same time that Democrats are leading a new ad campaign against President Bush and his service in the Guard, the same time that a partisan Democrat who is aligned with John Kerry makes his public attacks against President Bush and his Guard service. It's not a coincidence.'"
-----------
It's called damage control by the Kerry campaign. It is an insult to the intelligence of the American people, for even if all the charges against Bush are true concerning the National Guard [and they aren't--just tired old "he did it, too, Mommy" kind of old stuff, it would in any way compare with Kerry's treasonable alliance with Hanoi Jane Fonda to defame and slander the U. S. troops in Vietnam and cause a generation of defamation to those honorable veterans. We ain't so dumb, Mr. Kerry.
-----------
It's called damage control by the Kerry campaign. It is an insult to the intelligence of the American people, for even if all the charges against Bush are true concerning the National Guard [and they aren't--just tired old "he did it, too, Mommy" kind of old stuff, it would in any way compare with Kerry's treasonable alliance with Hanoi Jane Fonda to defame and slander the U. S. troops in Vietnam and cause a generation of defamation to those honorable veterans. We ain't so dumb, Mr. Kerry.
Boston.com / News / Boston Globe / Opinion / Op-ed / Where is the Muslim outrage?: "There have been no public demonstrations by Muslims anxious to make it clear how outraged they are that anyone could commit such unspeakable deeds for their version of Islam. There has been no anguished outcry by Islam's leading imams and sheiks. Prominent Muslim organizations in the West have not called press conferences to express their disgust. Once again the world has witnessed a savage episode of Islamist terror, and once again it strains to hear a convincing rejection of the terrorists from those who should care most about Islam's reputation."
=======
Exactly. When will the liberal talking heads get it? Never. But the American people get it.
=======
Exactly. When will the liberal talking heads get it? Never. But the American people get it.
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
The New Yorker: Fact: "Gore's mouth tightened. A Southern Baptist, he, too, had declared himself born again, but he clearly had disdain for Bush's public kind of faith. 'It's a particular kind of religiosity,' he said. 'It's the American version of the same fundamentalist impulse that we see in Saudi Arabia, in Kashmir, in religions around the world: Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Muslim. They all have certain features in common. In a world of disconcerting change, when large and complex forces threaten familiar and comfortable guideposts, the natural impulse is to grab hold of the tree trunk that seems to have the deepest roots and hold on for dear life and never question the possibility that it's not going to be the source of your salvation. And the deepest roots are in philosophical and religious traditions that go way back. You don't hear very much from them about the Sermon on the Mount, you don't hear very much about the teachings of Jesus on giving to the poor, or the beatitudes. It's the vengeance, the brimstone.'"
================
Very well said, Mr Gore. You have expressed in very clear terms the contempt you have for American Christianity. We knew it all the time, but you never said it so well before.
Gore hasn't heard because he hasn't been listening. He speaks from his sense of moral superiority and religious contempt that liberals have for every viewpoint not their own. The philosophical and religious roots of his faith also go 'way back, to the Garden of Eden and to the hiss of the serpent, "ye shall be as gods." There is no love for truth, for there is no truth; truth is whatever it takes to get you elected or to defeat your enemies.
The trouble with not discerning differences in religion [Religion of tolerance], is this: when you refuse to see differences in religion, you don't thereby make them all benign. No, you make them all like Islam Fundamentalism. Gore reveals a reprobate mind, a mind that cannot discern between good and evil. As the image of God, he must think in terms of misery and destruction, but he cannot think in biblical terms of eternal vengeance and fire and brimstone. He rejects the personal responsibility of the biblical Day of Judgment, and instead would terrorize the world in terms of global warming and the appocalypse of George W. Bush. He believes very strongly in hell, and Republicans are it. He sees salvation in different terms that the religions he scorns, but he would be more destructive than they. He reveals his corrupt mind set when he would equate Republicans and George Bush with the Taliban. Is this perverse or what? Abortion is not a holocaust, but a Republican victory is. Sodomite marriage is good and pure, but Focus on the Family is the same as Hamas. Mr. Gore would eliminate sin, but to him sin is not defined by the Ten Commandments, but in terms that make liberals comfortable and in power. Hence, sodomites and babykillers are good; communism and theft are good; religious convictions are evil; faith in Christ is evil. Go figure.
If a man tries to make everything a miracle, he does not thereby make the world wonderful; no, he has eliminated miracle for the world, for he makes the resurrections of Christ the same as the birth of a rattlesnake. In the same way, a man who sees no difference in religions does not thereby make all religions the same; he merely reduces them all to equality, and the message of Christ with its unique claims becomes the same as the message of Mohammed. It is true that some misguided and corrupt men who had the name of Christian killed their enemies, but they did not do so at the command of Christ. The same cannot be said of the followers of Mohammed.
As I have said before, 9/11 was a profound religious event for America. It questioned our fundamental faith in our religion of tolerance. We must reject it, or die, for God cannot be reduced to an idol.
================
Very well said, Mr Gore. You have expressed in very clear terms the contempt you have for American Christianity. We knew it all the time, but you never said it so well before.
Gore hasn't heard because he hasn't been listening. He speaks from his sense of moral superiority and religious contempt that liberals have for every viewpoint not their own. The philosophical and religious roots of his faith also go 'way back, to the Garden of Eden and to the hiss of the serpent, "ye shall be as gods." There is no love for truth, for there is no truth; truth is whatever it takes to get you elected or to defeat your enemies.
The trouble with not discerning differences in religion [Religion of tolerance], is this: when you refuse to see differences in religion, you don't thereby make them all benign. No, you make them all like Islam Fundamentalism. Gore reveals a reprobate mind, a mind that cannot discern between good and evil. As the image of God, he must think in terms of misery and destruction, but he cannot think in biblical terms of eternal vengeance and fire and brimstone. He rejects the personal responsibility of the biblical Day of Judgment, and instead would terrorize the world in terms of global warming and the appocalypse of George W. Bush. He believes very strongly in hell, and Republicans are it. He sees salvation in different terms that the religions he scorns, but he would be more destructive than they. He reveals his corrupt mind set when he would equate Republicans and George Bush with the Taliban. Is this perverse or what? Abortion is not a holocaust, but a Republican victory is. Sodomite marriage is good and pure, but Focus on the Family is the same as Hamas. Mr. Gore would eliminate sin, but to him sin is not defined by the Ten Commandments, but in terms that make liberals comfortable and in power. Hence, sodomites and babykillers are good; communism and theft are good; religious convictions are evil; faith in Christ is evil. Go figure.
If a man tries to make everything a miracle, he does not thereby make the world wonderful; no, he has eliminated miracle for the world, for he makes the resurrections of Christ the same as the birth of a rattlesnake. In the same way, a man who sees no difference in religions does not thereby make all religions the same; he merely reduces them all to equality, and the message of Christ with its unique claims becomes the same as the message of Mohammed. It is true that some misguided and corrupt men who had the name of Christian killed their enemies, but they did not do so at the command of Christ. The same cannot be said of the followers of Mohammed.
As I have said before, 9/11 was a profound religious event for America. It questioned our fundamental faith in our religion of tolerance. We must reject it, or die, for God cannot be reduced to an idol.
They just don't get it. The wounded cries coming out of the liberal big press show that they don't get it.
It's all style with these guys. They just can't abide the idea that the Kerry idea is what is being rejected, not his style. We do get it, Mr. or Ms. Talking Head. We just don't like it. We do not see any reason to elect John Kerry. We don't hate Mr. Bush nearly as much as you do, for we do not see the need to protect abortion rights, the right to fornicate, the right to be a sodomite, the right to tax and spend to maintain power.
You see, we do get it. Renewed attacks on Mr. Bush; more negative ads about the National Guard are silly and will just remind us of a small boy complaining to his mother that his little sister just hit him again.
It isn't Kerry's style; it isn't style at all. It has to do with something called authenticity. It isn't that Mr. Kerry doesn't seem authentic. He isn't authentic. He just wants to be president and will do and say anything to destroy those who are in his way. We got it and we don't like it.
There probably isn't anything that the guys in the mainstream press--no matter how they spout the talking points given them by Democratic National Committee--can do about it. Those who have spent their lives defending fornication rights, abortion rights, and the rights of sodomites will not understand authenticity if it hit them in the face. It did at 9/11 and they still didn't get it.
Things changed in this country at 9/11. Bush's actions on that day and on the days after were not studied exercises in politics, although politics were not ignored. They were authentic reactions, something that you know nothing about.
It's all style with these guys. They just can't abide the idea that the Kerry idea is what is being rejected, not his style. We do get it, Mr. or Ms. Talking Head. We just don't like it. We do not see any reason to elect John Kerry. We don't hate Mr. Bush nearly as much as you do, for we do not see the need to protect abortion rights, the right to fornicate, the right to be a sodomite, the right to tax and spend to maintain power.
You see, we do get it. Renewed attacks on Mr. Bush; more negative ads about the National Guard are silly and will just remind us of a small boy complaining to his mother that his little sister just hit him again.
It isn't Kerry's style; it isn't style at all. It has to do with something called authenticity. It isn't that Mr. Kerry doesn't seem authentic. He isn't authentic. He just wants to be president and will do and say anything to destroy those who are in his way. We got it and we don't like it.
There probably isn't anything that the guys in the mainstream press--no matter how they spout the talking points given them by Democratic National Committee--can do about it. Those who have spent their lives defending fornication rights, abortion rights, and the rights of sodomites will not understand authenticity if it hit them in the face. It did at 9/11 and they still didn't get it.
Things changed in this country at 9/11. Bush's actions on that day and on the days after were not studied exercises in politics, although politics were not ignored. They were authentic reactions, something that you know nothing about.
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Kerry Confronts Pennsylvania's Quiet Struggles, Loud Jeers: "'I'm tired of saying no,' Sheldon said, choking up. 'We say no all the time.'"
===============
Sob! Sob! What a spoiled bunch we are. My mama said, "No, no, no," all the time. We were poor. I didn't know we were poor, as I do now. But we were proud and what we couldn't buy we didn't miss. We knew there were two ways to be rich: have enough money to buy what you want; or only want what you have money for. We knew that the latter was the healthy and godly way.
One thing for certain: we never ever ever expected any government money. I cannot imagine my mother or father being so sorry and sick as to weep to a politician about having to tell us "no." For crying out loud. My parents used to say that FDR did more to corrupt the character of the American people and make them dependent on government than any one in our history. This story linked above is anecdotal evidence that they were right.
===============
Sob! Sob! What a spoiled bunch we are. My mama said, "No, no, no," all the time. We were poor. I didn't know we were poor, as I do now. But we were proud and what we couldn't buy we didn't miss. We knew there were two ways to be rich: have enough money to buy what you want; or only want what you have money for. We knew that the latter was the healthy and godly way.
One thing for certain: we never ever ever expected any government money. I cannot imagine my mother or father being so sorry and sick as to weep to a politician about having to tell us "no." For crying out loud. My parents used to say that FDR did more to corrupt the character of the American people and make them dependent on government than any one in our history. This story linked above is anecdotal evidence that they were right.
Hey, how does Bill Clinton do it? After the Republican convention had Kerry reeling and he was determined to shake up his campaign and run a more forceful and hard-hitting campaign, Bill Clinton comes along, has quadruple bypass surgery, and sucks up all the media oxygen. How can Kerry win if he has to deal with such things!
Dennis Prager: They shoot children, don't they?: "Given this background, it is with the greatest sadness that I feel compelled to ask two questions:
"First, is there anything in Islam or in the way Islam is now taught and practiced that dulls the conscience and thereby enables many religious Muslims to engage in or support atrocities that other groups, religious and secular, find inconceivable?
"Second, the laudable condemnations of Islamic terror made by the Islamic Center notwithstanding, why are there virtually no public demonstrations of Muslims against the unspeakable evils committed by its adherents?
"And while posing questions, here are two for liberals: Why are almost the only people asking these questions aloud conservative and religious? Where are you when it comes to acknowledging evil?
"Yes, some people do shoot children, and good people have a right to ask why. "
=============
Dennis Prager is no bigot, and Dennis Prager is no fool. Yes, he's a Jew [my favorite one], but he is a liberal Jew who is a dynamic spokesman for religious tolerance and for political and economic conservatism and for the Judaic/Christian moral framework. This is a dynamite article, and you should read the whole thing. The truth is, there is a deadening and deadly flaw in Islam that attacks the essence of humanity, and people who subscribe to Islam must make a choice between their faithfulness to their humanity and faithfulness to their religion. They must choose between being a good Muslim or being a good human, to a refuse the very things that make a man a man, in distinction from the animals. Very few religions require that choice.
But Prager misses the point, too. The question could be asked a bit broader. What is there in liberalism that does the same thing. Would the murderer Arafat still be around if he were not propped up by liberals in the West? Why the outcry from liberals in America and Europe over the overthrow of Saddam? Why the bleeding heart support of cold-blooded criminals and the resistance to capital punishment? Why the support of absolute abortion rights by the morally corrupt liberals in the West? What is wrong with liberalism that requires them to choose between their religion of moral and religious tolerance and their basic humanity?
In reality 9/11 was a very religious event and people in America sensed it immediately, even if they couldn't articulate it. But I will articulate it: 9/11 was an act of God that struck at the very core of the American idolatry. It isn't power and it isn't money. It is the idolatry of tolerance, the pretended belief that religion doesn't matter; what matters is sincerity, that we all worship the same God under different names.
Somehow the crashing of airliners into the Twin Towers by devout religious people did not fit our fundamental religious idea. Maybe it does matter what people believe. But that idea is intolerable, because so many of our institutions and ways of looking at things will have to be revised if that is true. We may have to look a religion differently if it matters. If proponents of some religion believe that they have a duty from God to destroy all people who do not accept their faith, then it matters acutely what religion teaches. Can even free speech be given to those who are recruiting others to carry out their religion of murder and ruin? Where is the world that we imagined of peace and joy and lamps romping in the fields? What are these locusts that are ascending from the bottomless pit? [Revelation 9]
"First, is there anything in Islam or in the way Islam is now taught and practiced that dulls the conscience and thereby enables many religious Muslims to engage in or support atrocities that other groups, religious and secular, find inconceivable?
"Second, the laudable condemnations of Islamic terror made by the Islamic Center notwithstanding, why are there virtually no public demonstrations of Muslims against the unspeakable evils committed by its adherents?
"And while posing questions, here are two for liberals: Why are almost the only people asking these questions aloud conservative and religious? Where are you when it comes to acknowledging evil?
"Yes, some people do shoot children, and good people have a right to ask why. "
=============
Dennis Prager is no bigot, and Dennis Prager is no fool. Yes, he's a Jew [my favorite one], but he is a liberal Jew who is a dynamic spokesman for religious tolerance and for political and economic conservatism and for the Judaic/Christian moral framework. This is a dynamite article, and you should read the whole thing. The truth is, there is a deadening and deadly flaw in Islam that attacks the essence of humanity, and people who subscribe to Islam must make a choice between their faithfulness to their humanity and faithfulness to their religion. They must choose between being a good Muslim or being a good human, to a refuse the very things that make a man a man, in distinction from the animals. Very few religions require that choice.
But Prager misses the point, too. The question could be asked a bit broader. What is there in liberalism that does the same thing. Would the murderer Arafat still be around if he were not propped up by liberals in the West? Why the outcry from liberals in America and Europe over the overthrow of Saddam? Why the bleeding heart support of cold-blooded criminals and the resistance to capital punishment? Why the support of absolute abortion rights by the morally corrupt liberals in the West? What is wrong with liberalism that requires them to choose between their religion of moral and religious tolerance and their basic humanity?
In reality 9/11 was a very religious event and people in America sensed it immediately, even if they couldn't articulate it. But I will articulate it: 9/11 was an act of God that struck at the very core of the American idolatry. It isn't power and it isn't money. It is the idolatry of tolerance, the pretended belief that religion doesn't matter; what matters is sincerity, that we all worship the same God under different names.
Somehow the crashing of airliners into the Twin Towers by devout religious people did not fit our fundamental religious idea. Maybe it does matter what people believe. But that idea is intolerable, because so many of our institutions and ways of looking at things will have to be revised if that is true. We may have to look a religion differently if it matters. If proponents of some religion believe that they have a duty from God to destroy all people who do not accept their faith, then it matters acutely what religion teaches. Can even free speech be given to those who are recruiting others to carry out their religion of murder and ruin? Where is the world that we imagined of peace and joy and lamps romping in the fields? What are these locusts that are ascending from the bottomless pit? [Revelation 9]
Monday, September 06, 2004
WorldTribune.com: "'The recent terrorist act in Russia has showed the importance of international cooperation in fight against terrorism,' Turkish Interior Minister Abdulkadir Aksu said. "
=========
Terrorists, and those who harbor them, Mr. Aksu.
=========
Terrorists, and those who harbor them, Mr. Aksu.
Sunday, September 05, 2004
Telegraph | News | Cleric supports targeting children: "Omar Bakri Mohammed, the spiritual leader of the extremist sect al-Muhajiroun, said that holding women and children hostage would be a reasonable course of action for a Muslim who has suffered under British rule."
==========
Will this make the urbane, effete segment of British society begin to take terrorism seriously, and support Tony Blair and those who are trying to do something about it beside pontificate pious platitudes?
Who are those Muslims who suffered under "British rule"? Britain has left them to their own devices for more than fifty years. Are these old, doddering relics who marched with Lawrence of Arabia? Are these old fellows who cannot get over the folly of backing Hitler in WW II. Was that the fault of the Brits? The present sufferings of Muslims are at the hands of the fools they choose to follow. They allow themselves to be led by the nose by their hatred of Israel and their envy of the West. When false religion and hatred get together, they form a mixture of spiritual dynamite that destroys everything in sight.
A people who would hate enough to rear their children to hate and murder and kill cannot be expected to value the children of others.
How long will the West cower before guilt-manipulators who use real or imagined evils of the past to justify present evils? Just as American justice is dealing with those who abused prisoners in Iraq, so British justice dealt with known injustices in the colonial system. Colonialism of the British variety was much milder and tolerable than most of the colonialism in history, including the Muslim variety that subjected, often with unspeakable cruelty, those lands that once were Christian strongholds, and would do so today if they possessed the arms and skill to do so.
Britain but wanted to spread the culture and civilization of England to people in bondage to idiots like Mr. Mohammed. And, oh yes. The Brits wanted to make a pound or two doing it, and what's wrong with that? If you can combine doing good and making money, that's a win, win situation. It's better than doing evil and making money [Yassir Arafat, Jesse Jackson, Oil for Food program; French and German interests who propped up Saddam and carried his water for oil money, and all the paid liars on American major TV news], and it sure beats doing evil and not making money [suicide bombers now that Saddam's payments to their families is gone]. It even beats doing good for the hope of eternal life, for that is phariseeism and hypocrisy, for eternal life does not come by doing good--it is the gift of God by faith. It is no bargain to be good for nothing--gaining neither money nor eternal life!
I do not suppose that Mr. Heinz made all that ketchup because of love for God; nor do I suppose Mrs. Heinz Kerry is spending it for such love. I don't begrudge a man for making a buck by making a great ketchup, or a great car, or a great peanut butter. Nor do I begrudge his widow from spending it.
But where do the politics of envy and revenge end? Modern liberals are actuated by hatred of George Bush and a desire to revenge their loss [yes, they really lost under every counting scheme] in Forida, aided and abetted by spoil-sport Al Gore. Will they some day justify killing babies because of their hatred and thirst for revenge? What happens if Bush whips them again; will they engage in civil war against those they hate so terribly. Will they kill the children of their enemies if they feel that all other recourses are closed to them? When men begin to justify revenge and hatred, the bottomless pit looms before us.
Liberals are willing to support accusations that Bush manipulated the attacks on the Trade Center to gain an opportunity to take our liberties away, that he is worse than Hitler, and is so bloodthirsty and greedy that he was willing to do anything to let Dick Cheney get his hands on Iraq's oil. That should justify attacks by Iraqis on American schools, don't you think?
It is dangerous to trust anything to those who are conceited enough to think they know the motives of anyone's heart, which God has reserved for Himself. [1Ki 8:39 "Then hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place, and forgive, and do, and give to every man according to his ways, whose heart thou knowest; (for thou, even thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men;)"], but foul deeds come from foul hearts.
The only thing better than doing good for profit is doing good for the love of God and the kingdom of God, but there is not many of those chaps around. The political realists will settle for good done with a profit motive, and let the Lord sort it out. The wise ruler will devise ways to reward those who do good [that leaves out false prophets like Mr. Mohammed above], and punish those who do evil [including Mr. Mohammed above].
See 1 Peter 2:13, 14 "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well." For the other side of the coin see Jeremiah 23:14: "I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah." [Boy, was Jeremiah anti-gay! That ought to warrant hot revenge on Christians and Jews!]
Love covers all things, but hatred stirs up strife [Pr 10:12 Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins.]
==========
Will this make the urbane, effete segment of British society begin to take terrorism seriously, and support Tony Blair and those who are trying to do something about it beside pontificate pious platitudes?
Who are those Muslims who suffered under "British rule"? Britain has left them to their own devices for more than fifty years. Are these old, doddering relics who marched with Lawrence of Arabia? Are these old fellows who cannot get over the folly of backing Hitler in WW II. Was that the fault of the Brits? The present sufferings of Muslims are at the hands of the fools they choose to follow. They allow themselves to be led by the nose by their hatred of Israel and their envy of the West. When false religion and hatred get together, they form a mixture of spiritual dynamite that destroys everything in sight.
A people who would hate enough to rear their children to hate and murder and kill cannot be expected to value the children of others.
How long will the West cower before guilt-manipulators who use real or imagined evils of the past to justify present evils? Just as American justice is dealing with those who abused prisoners in Iraq, so British justice dealt with known injustices in the colonial system. Colonialism of the British variety was much milder and tolerable than most of the colonialism in history, including the Muslim variety that subjected, often with unspeakable cruelty, those lands that once were Christian strongholds, and would do so today if they possessed the arms and skill to do so.
Britain but wanted to spread the culture and civilization of England to people in bondage to idiots like Mr. Mohammed. And, oh yes. The Brits wanted to make a pound or two doing it, and what's wrong with that? If you can combine doing good and making money, that's a win, win situation. It's better than doing evil and making money [Yassir Arafat, Jesse Jackson, Oil for Food program; French and German interests who propped up Saddam and carried his water for oil money, and all the paid liars on American major TV news], and it sure beats doing evil and not making money [suicide bombers now that Saddam's payments to their families is gone]. It even beats doing good for the hope of eternal life, for that is phariseeism and hypocrisy, for eternal life does not come by doing good--it is the gift of God by faith. It is no bargain to be good for nothing--gaining neither money nor eternal life!
I do not suppose that Mr. Heinz made all that ketchup because of love for God; nor do I suppose Mrs. Heinz Kerry is spending it for such love. I don't begrudge a man for making a buck by making a great ketchup, or a great car, or a great peanut butter. Nor do I begrudge his widow from spending it.
But where do the politics of envy and revenge end? Modern liberals are actuated by hatred of George Bush and a desire to revenge their loss [yes, they really lost under every counting scheme] in Forida, aided and abetted by spoil-sport Al Gore. Will they some day justify killing babies because of their hatred and thirst for revenge? What happens if Bush whips them again; will they engage in civil war against those they hate so terribly. Will they kill the children of their enemies if they feel that all other recourses are closed to them? When men begin to justify revenge and hatred, the bottomless pit looms before us.
Liberals are willing to support accusations that Bush manipulated the attacks on the Trade Center to gain an opportunity to take our liberties away, that he is worse than Hitler, and is so bloodthirsty and greedy that he was willing to do anything to let Dick Cheney get his hands on Iraq's oil. That should justify attacks by Iraqis on American schools, don't you think?
It is dangerous to trust anything to those who are conceited enough to think they know the motives of anyone's heart, which God has reserved for Himself. [1Ki 8:39 "Then hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place, and forgive, and do, and give to every man according to his ways, whose heart thou knowest; (for thou, even thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men;)"], but foul deeds come from foul hearts.
The only thing better than doing good for profit is doing good for the love of God and the kingdom of God, but there is not many of those chaps around. The political realists will settle for good done with a profit motive, and let the Lord sort it out. The wise ruler will devise ways to reward those who do good [that leaves out false prophets like Mr. Mohammed above], and punish those who do evil [including Mr. Mohammed above].
See 1 Peter 2:13, 14 "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well." For the other side of the coin see Jeremiah 23:14: "I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah." [Boy, was Jeremiah anti-gay! That ought to warrant hot revenge on Christians and Jews!]
Love covers all things, but hatred stirs up strife [Pr 10:12 Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins.]
My Way News: "Putin went on national television to tell Russians they must mobilize against terrorism. He promised wide-ranging reforms to toughen security forces and purge corruption.
'We showed weakness, and weak people are beaten,' he said in a speech aimed at addressing the grief, shock and anger felt by many after a string of attacks that have killed some 450 people in the past two weeks, apparently in connection with the war in Chechnya." [Emphasis ours]
==============
Did you hear that, John Kerry?
'We showed weakness, and weak people are beaten,' he said in a speech aimed at addressing the grief, shock and anger felt by many after a string of attacks that have killed some 450 people in the past two weeks, apparently in connection with the war in Chechnya." [Emphasis ours]
==============
Did you hear that, John Kerry?
The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > Democratic Strategies: Democrats Urge Kerry to Turn Up Intensity of Campaign: "'He's got to become more engaged,'' said Harold Ickes, a former political lieutenant to President Bill Clinton who is now running an independent Democratic organization that has spent millions of dollars on advertisements attacking President Bush. 'Kerry is by nature a cautious politician, but he's got to throw caution to the wind.'"
=========
Hey!! Foul! What happened to the independence of the 570's from the party campaign? How come Ickes gets a pass on advising the Kerry campaign? Do you think that a Swifty could get a way with advice to Bush. The Democratic 570's are a revolving door of former DNC and Clintonistas, and the NYT says nothing, but they moved heaven and earth to try to find the sinister hand of George Bush involved in the Swift Boat ads. Do you still wonder who is carrying water for Kerry?
=========
Hey!! Foul! What happened to the independence of the 570's from the party campaign? How come Ickes gets a pass on advising the Kerry campaign? Do you think that a Swifty could get a way with advice to Bush. The Democratic 570's are a revolving door of former DNC and Clintonistas, and the NYT says nothing, but they moved heaven and earth to try to find the sinister hand of George Bush involved in the Swift Boat ads. Do you still wonder who is carrying water for Kerry?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)