The first is from the Rolling Stone. The second seems to originate with a not-very-clever, bigoted and rather boorish blog called Jesusland, which purports (it's meant to be satire, you see) to celebrate the birth of a new "crypto-Fascist" state by that name.
These two cartoons illustrate just how deep is the cultural doo-doo in which the Left finds itself. The point is reinforced by the apparent inability of large segments of the cultural Left to see the problem. Perhaps if they stare at these cartoons long enough, it will dawn on them.
Perhaps, but I doubt it. They are, you see, everything they claim that conservative Christians are: self-righteous True Believers who are, for the most part, simply unable to transcend their own ideological mindset.
Some time before Fr. Richard John Neuhaus left Lutheranism (for what I found to be rather ill-conceived reasons) to become a Catholic priest, I head him speak at Concordia Seminary in St. L…
Alan Dershowitz , who wrote a book a few years ago criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court for intervening to call a halt to the Democratic Party's attempt to steal Florida and the Presidency in 2000 through a crooked recount designed to end only when they had, by hook or by crook (more likely by crook), manufactured a phony majority for Al Gore, has undertaken an even less enviable task. He's written a book seeking to establish a philosophically viable yet purely secular argument for the sanctity of human rights.
I have to read this book, since the proposal seems absurd on its face. If the basis for recognizing the rights of other folks is that we decide, on whatever basis, that we think it's a good idea, what's to stop us from changing our minds? Or from recognizing certain rights for certain people, but not for others? It's hard to make an intellectually coherent post-modern argument for anything, but Derschowitz really has his work cut out for on this one. If Thomas…
Any document that presumes to speak for European civilization but declines to recognize the roots of that civilization in the Christian faith is historically dishonest. In the States, theism- but not necessarily Christianity- is foundational to our history and culture; one might get away with a vague reference to Jefferson's one-size-fits-all "nature and nature's God," and everyone would be happy. In fact, as the general reaction among American Christians to the "Prayer for America" travesty in Yankee Stadium in the aftermath of 9/11 shows all too well, most American Christians don't even see the difference. The bottom line is that while a belief in a deit…
Thing is, though, he still believes the absurd lie about one of the most powerful and dynamic people in American govenment. A liberal might believe such a lie because his ideologically-based biases tell him that it should be true. Many liberals just can't get their minds around the fact that this administration has elevated more minorities to positions of real power and influence than has any other adminstration in history.
But I just don't understand what excuse this guy has. I mean, he's supposed to be a conservative. Or so they tell us, anyway.
This dude shouldn't just apologize to Secretary-Designate Rice for his racist remark. He should …
Saddam could have complied with the UN resolutions only by destroying his WMD's under UN supervision and accounting for the chemical and biological weapons everybody knew he had.
He did neither.
This article is a testimony to the resolute, stubborn ignorance of those who are determined to defend the indefensible position that there could be any rational motivation whatsoever for Saddam Hussein to have gotten rid of his WMD's and not told anybody about it. Only a fool- or a liberal- could, at the time, have treated Saddam's persistent failure to comply with the requirement that he document the destruction of his WMD in the detail required by seventeen seperate United Nations Security Council resolutions, and by the treaty ending the First Gulf War, as anything but a failure to destroy them at all.
There would have been absolutely no point in Saddam destroying them secretly. If that is what he did, it is the crowning act of madness in the c…
The crazy thing is, I really don't think these people understand how absurd their arrogance, coupled with their over-the-top rhetoric, makes them look- or the role which I firmly believe each played in ensuring the outcome they so bathetically denounce.
Today is the 41st anniversary of the assassination of President Kennedy. I heard on the news this morning that is also the occasion of the release of a new video game entitled JFK Reloaded, the object of which is to fire three shots within the allotted time into the President's head and body from the sixth floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository in Dealey Plaza.
A spokesman for Sen. Ted Kennedy describes the game as "despicable." For once, I agree with Teddy. Beyond despicable, though, it's downright sick- and yet another indication of the depths to which this culture of ours has plunged in recent years.
Islam- for all its frequent cultural ugliness and for all the moral perversity of so many of its most ardent supporters- at least stands for something. Europe's culture, on the other hand, stands for even less than that of the American cultural Left.
The Chicago Tribune quite reasonably observes that Kofi Annan has some accounting to do as far as the Oil-for-Food scandal before his stewardship of the UN is regarded as having even the marginal credibility that inpotent and perverse organization deserves at the best of times.
Saddam Hussein wasn't the first to defy the United Nations with impunity. He won't be the last. In fact, the real question is whether, no matter how grave the threat or monstrous the genocide, the UN will ever again actually intervene in a grave international crisis in the manner envisaged by its founders.
Twelve years, seventeen empty resolutions, an expulsion of the inspectors... and when, at last, the United States, Britain, and a handful of other nations acted themselves to give effectual life to the UN's own repeated and long-standing position, it was the Coalition which was villified. Not only that, but both the evil and cynical on one hand and the innocent and naive on the other accused the nations of the Coalition for a "rush to war" in merely enforcing the otherwise empty threats made by seventeen seperate UN Security Council resolutions over a period of twelve years!
Now, as for long years past, the Christians of Sudan are facing persecution and outright …
John Kerry thinks that Osama bin Laden's tape promising not to carry out terrorist attacks in states which voted for him cost him the election.
It certainly didn't help. But Kerry, like a great many of his supporters, is in denial. What cost him the election was the weakness of his own foreign policy, and the insubstantial nature of his critique of President Bush's. That, and his own perceived deficiencies as a leader.
All these people badly need treatment. It needs to at least be established that they are not a threat to themselves or others before they are allowed around sharp objects.
It is not a good thing for a democracy when such a large percentage of a major political party is suffering from blatent paranoid delusions. There is simply no other way to describe this stuff. I mean, this nonsense is right out of DSM IV, or Al Gore.
One of Bill Clinton's less attractive attributes has always been his prodigious capacity for self-pity. The library apparently embodies this characteristic of the former President.The following is reported of the exhibit covering the trivial and unimportant episode touched off by nothing more than Mr. Clinton's decision to lie under oath in a criminal proceeding while serving as the nation's Chief Magistrate: "Parts of the text, such as 'character assassination,' 'politics of persecution' and 'rumors and accusations,' are highlighted in yellow. And it asserts: 'The impeachment battle was not about the Constitution or rule of law, but was instead about a quest for power that the president's opponents could not win at the ballot box.'"
Poor baby! In the spirit of bi-partisanship, a suggestion, Mr. President: Move the impeachment exhibit to the basement, and re-name it "The Whine Cellar."…
David Yepsen is the political editor of the Des Moines Register, which advertises itself as "Iowa's Best Read Newspaper." Its editorial policy is such that many question whether the third word in that slogan might not better be spelled "Red."
Well, OK. That's an old joke, besides being Joe McCarthy/Al Gore-style " over-the-top." But the Register is, by any criterion, one of the most extreme Left-wing major newspapers in America- though it's worth mentioning that by most criteria it's generally also regarded as one of the best, copping more than its share of Pulitzers and other awards on a regular basis.
Nevertheless, when the Register's political editor has this to say about Democrats and their performance in Iowa, the party which once told us that we have nothing to fear but fear itself but now has nothing to offer but fear itself (seasoned with pathetically hysterical rhetoric and routine character assassination) would do well to pay…
A Lutheran scholar, Dr. Gene Veith of Concordia University in Mequon, Wisconsin, has written an interesting book arguing convincingly that the central premise of many of these bloggers- that there is no objective criterion of right and wrong, and that therefore these are matters of mere individual taste- while utterly incompatible with the strongly dogmatic assertions about the kind of universe we live in made by, say, Thomas Jefferson (a rationalist and a Deist!) or James Madison as the basis for their assertions on political philosophy, but in fact form the very foundation of the philosophical framework of Adolph Hitler. Hey, dudes... what if I like racism or sexism or "homophobia?" By your own first principles, you have no moral right to condemn that preference!
The interesting thing about these guys is that they don't realize, in …
There was nothing "muscular" about John Kerry's flaccid desire to sacrifice our national interests in order to let the irresolute, generally naive, viscerally anti-American, and congenitally ineffectual consensus of world opinion dictate American foreign policy. Further, the cheap shot about "fiscal responsibility" is silly; discretionary spending has actually decreased under the Bush administration from where it was under Bill Clinton, every wartime president in our history has run a deficit- and despite his cooked numbers…
Don Imus led a chorus of pundits on the morning of Election Day in discussing the "buzz" that John Kerry was going to win. Karl Rove was "sick" over exit polls that "didn't make any sense-" until the raw vote showed that Rove was right, and the polls wrong. And an election whose outcome was perfectly clear on Election Night was stretched out into the next day by the refusal of Certain Biased Segments of the media to call Ohio even though John Kerry would have had to take virtually every absentee and provisional ballot in the state in order to overcome the Bush lead- a fact to which Kerry sensibly reacted by conceding Wednesday morning.
What happened? Dick Morris's explanation is just about the only one that makes sense: that the exit polls were rigged in an attempt to suppress the Bush vote through the appearance of an overwhelming Kerry victory in the making.
Arguably much of the Religious Right doesn't, either. But at least it sees that abortion, for example, is no more an exclusively "religious" issue than slavery, capital punishment, pacifism, concern for social justice, or any of the other philosophical concerns which have arisen from religious convictions over the years.
"God says so" as an argument for any of these is dumb and self-defeating in the public square, not dangerous. The very pluralism of our society's convictions about God and religious epistemology prevent "for the Bible tells me so" from being an effective argument. But when argued on pragmatic grounds, as public policy rather than as theology, such concerns have always had a place in the American political arena- and rightly so.
Today, the Blogs for Bush (soon to be GOPBloggers) are asking for support for the Republican National Committee.President Bush's re-election is only the first step in the process of setting the agenda for the next decade and more. Please visit here to make your donation!
I've been taking it easy since Tuesday as far as blogging is concerned. Part of it is not wanting to gloat; as obnoxious as the Left has been over the past four years, they're in pain right now, and it seems only Christian charity to take the advice Mom used to give: "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." Then, too, it's nice to be able to sit back and enjoy victory, secure in the knowledge that the Good Guys will be running things for another four years.
My wife will be flying out from Iowa and we'll be attending the inauguration, just like we did the one four years ago. It's funny the way George W. Bush has been such a recurring theme in our marriage.
Lots of speculation continues about the second term. It seems that Rudy Giuliani doesn't want John Ashcroft's job. It'll be interesting seeing who the new Attorney General and Secretary of State turn out to be. Something worth bearing in mind, BTW: with Dick Chene…
The concession speeches and the victory statements have been duly given. John Kerry and John Edwards were gracious in defeat, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney were inspiring in victory, and Campaign 2004 is behind us.
I resisted the temptation to run down to the Reagan Center for POTUS's victory statement, as much as I would have loved to have been there; after all, I have to work tonight. But there's a sense of closure brought by the proper use of that most civilized of American political customs, the concession statement and the victory speech. Both candidates played their roles well.
Let it be remembered of John Kerry that, knowing how traumatic another fiasco like 2000 would have been for America, he loved his country enough to spare it that- and, like defeated presidential candidates of decades past, opted for healing rather than rancor once the verdict of the people had been rendered.
Let us hope that the bitterness passes now. George W. Bush is the first President …
When last heard from, gentle reader, yours truly was departing for work, with President Bush closing in on victory in Florida and things looking good in Ohio. Before departing, I made the comment that if he carried both, it was hard to see how he could not win the election.
Well, guess what? He carried both. And he won the election.
But CBS won't admit it, and the Democrats are carrying on their mantra about "wanting every vote to be counted." You know. The one they used in their attempt to steal Florida by counting votes nobody ever cast four years ago, and then claiming that imaginary voters were being disenfranchised when Republicans insisted that only real votes cast by real voters should count.
Dan Rather and company, having manufactured two- count 'em, two- phony stories in the closing weeks of the campaign in an attempt to avoid this outcome for the election, is clinging to the lame excuse that roughly as the same number of provisional and absentee ballots hav…
Unfortunately, it's time for this blogger to go to work.
Right now- 10:30 PM Eastern Time- President Bush has 193 electoral votes and 52% of the popular vote, compared to 112 electoral votes and 48% for Senator Kerry.
Florida gives the President a 52-48 lead with 85% of the vote in, and Ohio shows the President up 52-47 with 34% of the precincts reporting. Back home in Iowa- which Al Gore narrowly carred in 2000- reports vary, with local stations showing a slight Bush lead with five percent in.
If the President hangs on in Florida and Ohio, I think we're in good shape. In any event, when I next post (some time tomorrow morning), we should know.
It's been fascinating, nonetheless, to hear Don Imus on MSNBC and the poll selection on CNN Headline News spinning the expectation of a Kerry victory- an expectation, as far as I've been able to determine, wholly unsupported by the facts.
The site is getting too many hits right now for me to link to, but theNew York Post is reporting that Osama bin Laden is threatening the residents of any state President Bush carries tomorrow.
You read it here first, people. Tommorrow we will find out whether we are men or Spaniards:
MONSTER'S DEADLY WARNING TO 'RED' STATES
By NILES LATHEM
November 1, 2004 -- WASHINGTON - Osama bin Laden warned in his
October Surprise video that he will be closely monitoring the state-
by-state election returns in tomorrow's presidential race — and will
spare any state that votes against President Bush from being
attacked, according to a new analysis of his statement.
The respected Middle East Media Research Institute, which monitors
and translates Arabic media and Internet sites, said initial
translations of a key portion of bin Laden's video rant to the
American people Friday night missed an ostentatious bid by the Saudi-
born terror master to divide American voters and tilt the…