Saturday, June 25, 2005

A Shameful Exercise in Slight-of-Mouth

As the recent verbal war in Washington, D.C. unfolds, the ever-duplicitous Left is succeeding in doing just what they had hoped: They're deflecting attention away from the betrayal of America by a leader of the Democratic Party.

Democratic officials and their Media minions are implying a moral equivalence between the following very unequal assertions: First, Richard Durbin equated the American military with Nazis, Soviets, and Pol Pot; and second, Karl Rove pointed out what is demonstrably true: liberals would rather blame the victim for 9-11's butchery than take the fight to our enemies.

In other words, Durbin's clearly treasonous attack against our military is of no greater offense or validity than Rove's factually-correct summary of two very different responses to Jihad in America.

The only thing these two statements share is that people were offended and wanted an apology (though for different reasons)--Democrats were offended because someone dared to tell the truth about their moral cowardice, and Americans were offended because a politician attacked the honor and integrity of American heroes.

[It is telling that when running for President, Democrats run from the label "liberal" like schoolboys from their books, but when liberals' lack of moral clarity and courage is pointed out publicly, Democrats take offense. Who's fooling whom?]

Even Rich Lowry, a token conservative on The News Hour, allowed the false comparison to be made today without protest.

That shouldn't be too surprising--Lowry had recently appeased one of Jihad's cells in America (CAIR), when he retracted his publication's support for the sale of a text telling the truth about Islam.

Perhaps, Lowry has more in common with America's Left than he might want to admit.

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Taxpayer dollars being wasted NOW

When Bill Moyers was the host of NOW, one had to watch only a few minutes to see that a particular story was going to be irrational Leftist hit-piece against the religious and/or politically-conservative.

An example of pervasive and consistent Liberal bias, NOW is one reason many have been calling for greater ideological balance on PBS.

With a new host and an interesting contrast in guests, Craig Hedges and Roy Moore, I gave the show another chance recently.

The host's own biases were obvious in two ways: when Hedges made false and irrational accusations against Christians, they went unchallenged; when Moore stated his beliefs, those were met with inane follow-up questions or a fluttering of the eyelids (the kind when, as a result of either guilt, fear, or disdain, a person can't look someone in the eye).

Hedges equated "the Religious Right" (really any Christians who believe the God of the Bible--which means all Christians, for how can one call themselves a follower of Christ and not follow Him?) with:
-the oppressive Muslim theocracies of the Islamic world (a popular new strategy among the Left),
-intolerance (the Left is so tolerant of those who have a different worldview, especially a Christian one!)
-Fascism (how can following the One Who said, "Love your neighbor as yourself" equal a government trying to control all aspects of the lives of its citizenry? It is the religion of Christ that gave birth to the Ideology of Freedom that is uniquely American)
-anti-Reason (Hedges used the commonly-unchallenged lie of "facts belong to Science")
-Stupidity: Hedges also made the inherently self-contradictory claim that though the Bible erred, it has power and beauty. (What nonsense! How can a lie be powerful and beautiful at the same time to one who knows the truth?)
Hedges also expressed his concern with the Religious Right's preoccupation with violence, saying that Christ didn't avenge (apparently, contrary to his claim, Hedges hasn't really read that little thing called the New Testament).

The second segment of the program was an interview with Alabama Justice Roy Moore, who clearly, succinctly, and articulately defended his position that Freedom of Religion is guaranteed by the Constitution to all Americans, and that the government has no right to abridge that freedom. He also made clear that a posting of the Ten Commandments is a proper acknowledgement of the God of the Bible who founded this nation (and Who is recognized in the Declaration of Independence and every state constitution in the Union).

After a comment by Justice Moore regarding judicial activism (judges usurping the constitutional role of the legislatures by making up law) with regard to homosexual marriage, the host followed-up by asking him, "Is that what you're afraid of?"

Every American should fear tyranny.

Sunday, June 12, 2005

How can this be ...

. . . since Islam is the "Religion of Peace"?

From WND, Mein Kampf bestseller in Turkey:
The infamous manifesto penned in prison during the 1920s by one of history's greatest despots has become a bestseller in Turkey, a troubling sign of increasing anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism.

Since January, Mein Kampf has sold more than 50,000 copies, rising to No. 4 on the bestseller list. The book outlines Hitler's plans for world domination and his intense hatred of the Jewish people.

"A lot of people in the West don't realize this has always been a popular book among radical Muslims," says Steve Hagerman, founder of Turkish World Outreach. "They think it's a tragedy Hitler didn't win the war. This is symptomatic of growing anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism in the country."

Hagerman is concerned about a resurgence of conservative Islam in Turkey, which he believes is promoted and funded by Iran and Saudi Arabia.

"Turkey is a different place right now," Hagerman observes. "The military, the radical Muslims and the secularists are becoming more and more anti-American," he says. "Literalist Islam is teaching the Muslims to hate the Jews and to hate democracy. Their belief in Muslim eschatology is that the world is destined to be conquered by Islam."
Let's do the math: "radical Muslims" = "conservative Islam" = "Literalist Islam" = hatred of Jews = hatred of democracy = the world will be conquered by Islam.

This is because the Qur'an is the most vile piece of hate literature ever devised by man. Islam has caused vastly more death, pain, and destruction than has Nazism, Communism and any other "-ism" you can name.

At least Hitler never claimed to be speaking for a (malevolent and perverse) god.

Thursday, June 09, 2005

They ought to do something about the disease of Political Correctness

From Hospital board backtracks on Bible ban:
"According to the BBC, the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust said it wanted to look at how to accommodate all religious texts in its hospitals and said it was concerned about Bibles spreading diseases like the superbug MRSA."
Originally, the Bibles were considered a health hazard because of an (alleged) inability to sanitize them. It seems they've fixed that.

If the removal of Bibles was to reduce the risk of spreading disease, wouldn't providing more literature increase the risk?

Apparently, they only "dis-ease" with which they are concerned is that which is caused by the word of God.

Monday, June 06, 2005

"Fundamentalist" implies an adherence to principles fundamental to an ideology

An article that appears to be worth exploring begs the question: Do the words of the Qur'an align more closely with the claims of groups like CAIR, or with the Islamic "fundamentalists"?

Booker T. Washington suggested that if you give people the facts in an interesting manner, they will draw the proper conclusion.

Draw your own after reading Jihad: The Teachings of Islam from its primary sources - the Qur'an and Hadith.

Saturday, June 04, 2005

The great inconsistency of moral relativism

In a thoughtful piece, William F. Buckley reflects on the court-ordered execution of Terri Schiavo:
"What caused the political commotion was the sense that we were presiding over an execution. Terri Schiavo remained 'alive' until we stopped feeding her. Then she began a fall through a trapdoor descending toward death. She was being committed to a death of an agonizing kind, surely? One that began with the removal of the tubes, and would continue until starvation and dehydration brought on the end of the heartbeat.

"Some years ago, in a forum on euthanasia, my guest was the Rev. Robert L. Barry, who had studied the subject extensively. Father Barry argued that the deprivation of food and water brings on physical pain whatever else the human condition. Was the court system in Florida, then, acquiescing in death by pain for Mrs. Schiavo?

A doctor consulted by one television analyst brushed aside the question, in language not readily transcribed by a layman. He seemed to be saying that Mrs. Schiavo would not suffer pain as the term is commonly understood. But that question was not directly accosted by the judge, who said only that Terri's rights had not been abrogated."
Americans believe that God gives each of us the rights to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" and that these are not to be taken unjustly.

Where is the justice in killing an innocent and helpless woman?

Would those who advocated Ms. Schiavo's death by deprivation support the same punishment for convicted rapists, child molestors, terrorists, or other murderers?

If not, why not? Surely those atrocities are infinitely more deserving of such a end.

Where's a clue when you really need one?

In what has become characteristic of the Left, Bill Press rambles incoherently (or duplicitously, it's hard to tell anymore) about the need for someone who knows the dirt on our current administration to come forward in "Where's Deep Throat when we really need him?" He writes:
"And that's the big story of Mark Felt's confession. Not: Why did he dare tell the truth about Nixon, way back then? But: Why doesn't somebody tell the truth about George W. Bush today? Where's Deep Throat when we need him, now more than ever?"
To have someone reveal an administration's crimes, an administration needs to commit some.

Where was the Left's zeal for truth-telling and justice when Clinton was in office? When Kerry was running?
"As bad as they were, Nixon's crimes weren't the worst committed by an American president. Indeed, former White House Counsel John Dean another hero for warning Nixon about a 'cancer growing on the presidency' argues that George W. Bush is very much like Nixon in his penchant for secrecy, only worse. In his book, 'Worse Than Watergate,' Dean wrote:

'George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have created the most secretive presidency of my lifetime. Their secrecy is far worse than during Watergate, and it bodes even more serious consequences ... I must say this administration is truly scary and, given the times we live in, frighteningly dangerous.'
Every administration must keep some information private. Such secrecy does not necessarily indicate corruption.

We live in frightening times, but what's really scary is that an ancient evil, Jihad, is on the rise; we have a President who is fighting back (much more vigorously than an appeasement-first Left would have); and whom does the Left attack? Not the Muslims who would with a smile and a shout of "Allahu akbar!" slit their throats in obedience to Allah's command, but the one defending them!
"But the only way to blow the lid off the misdeeds of the Bush administration is to come up with our own Deep Throat. Somewhere in the Bush White House, for example, there is someone who knows the list of special-interest lobbyists who met secretly with Cheney to develop the administration's energy policy."
It wouldn't hurt to have some actual misdeeds. (Not defending our borders and spending taxpayer dollars like a drunken liberal are misdeeds, but not to the Left.)
"Somewhere in the White House, CIA or Pentagon, there's someone who was present when Bush and Cheney decided to lean on a pack of lies about nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction, chemical-laden drones, mobile weapons labs, long-range missiles and Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaida in order to sell the American people on the war in Iraq."
And who created the "pack of lies" on which Bush and Cheney leaned? Clinton, Gore, Kerry, England, France.... Everyone believed Saddam still had WMD (apparently even he did).

The only evidence you need for W's innocence is the fact that the Left have had to resort to all sorts of distortions, fabrications, and out-right lies to try to hurt the President--the avalanche of "tell-all" books before the 2004 Election, CBS's Rather fraudulent document scandal, and the MSM's most recent Qur'an "desecration" fantasy.

Friday, June 03, 2005

Death throes, but not for Islam

Death throes . . . - The Washington Times: Commentary - June 03, 2005:
"Fascism has long vacated its birthplace in Europe. The fragments of the former Soviet autocracy are democratizing. The caudillos are gone from Latin America. The last enclave of dictators is the Middle East. Yet after Saddam's capture in a cesspool, their hold is slipping, too.

There will probably not be an Assad III or a second Mubarak.

The real suspense is whether the Gulf royals can make good on their promises of reform and elections. Will they end up like pampered Windsors or go the ignominious way of Iran's former shah? In desperation, the apparatchik journalists in the state-controlled Arab press damn the United States, the avatar of change. Syria breaks all relations with America, even as it leaves Lebanon, and is terrified of the Iraqi experiment.

Then there is bankrupt Islamic fundamentalism. The zealots can always tape a beheading or turn out a few thousand to burn an American flag. But the Taliban are gone from power. Iran faces popular disgust at home, while its desperate nuclear plots are awakening even a comatose Europe. And the promise of a return to the eighth century has always had an appeal limited to a few thousand pampered elites, like Osama bin Laden, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri or Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. These losers figured they might become Saladins if they convinced an Arab populace the Jews and America, not their own corrupt regimes, kept them poor. Now they are reduced to ranting about the evils of freedom and democracy.

Oil, terror, anti-Semitism and hating America gave the fundamentalists some resonance, but there were never any ideas. The Islamicists offered nothing to galvanize the Arab masses other than nihilism. That doctrine feeds and employs no one. Instead, we witness the creepy threats and the pyrotechnics of a lunatic ideology going the way of bushido and the kamikazes."
As much as I respect and admire Mr. Hanson's knowledge and expertise, on the issue of Islam he appears to be unaware of what makes it tick--the "lunatic ideology" to which he refers (what I call "Qur'anic Islam") is going nowhere. It has thrived for the last fourteen centuries and it will continue indefinitely (barring something approaching a miracle) because it is founded upon and fed by the words of Allah (the Qur'an) and the sayings and doings of its "prophet" Mohammed.

Unless and until the Qur'an ceases to be considered the actual word of a god, its faithful will continue to obey it.

Jihad only smiles while it's recovering, regrouping, and regaining its strength--then it smiles as it cuts off your head.