Last week a small group of British troops were kidnapped in Iraqi waters by the Iranians.
The ship upon which the troops were based would have been more than enough to have taken on the Iranian forces at the scene and won. The amount of British and American support within minutes of the scene would have amounted to overkill.
But nothing was done, and today the Brits languish in Iranian captivity.
Rabbi Aryeh Spero herein meditates on how the spines of Brits (and Americans) have deterriorated since the days of Churchill.
Meanwhile, Victor Davis Hanson of the National Review Online considers the matter here.
Forty-eight per cent of Germans believe that the United States is more dangerous than Iran.
Thirty-one percent believe the opposite.
Are the Germans, as a people, absolutely nuts? Having gone to seminary with some of what was at the time the younger generation of Germans (mostly exchange students from the missionseminar at Neuendettelsau), I've been tempted to suspect as much for some time. Certainly the worldview of my German classmates at Wartburg Seminary tended toward the laughably perverse, especially where the United States was concerned.
But then, so did the worldview of my American classmates.
Here is an article (in English) from the online edition of Der Speigel, which argues what to me has been obvious for some time: that Germans have a grotestquely distorted concept of America and Americans, and especially of our role in the world- and badly need to be re-educated.
The presumptuous arrogance by which certain Protestants of the more peculiarly American mutation claim to look into the hearts of others has been manifested quite scandalously by Dr. James Dobson, who has opined that former Sen. Fred Thompson- baptized a member of the Christian Church (a denomination which denies being a denomination)- is "not a Christian" because he doesn't talk about his faith enough.
Dr. Dobson is bearing false witness, and needs to publicly repent- and be publicly rebuked by every more orthodox believer in order to help him see the error of the false teaching (or outrageously inappropriate and uncharitable word choice) which motivates his outrageous presumption.
The following inane post appeared today on the pro-Romney Article VI Blog- the same one which, by some system of logic hitherto unknown on this planet, the other day accused me of questioning the legitmacy of my own Christian faith, or the sincerity of the faith of the bloggers at Evangelicals for Mitt, or something (the charge was so incoherent that at least one Mormon blogger got the totally false idea that I had a problem with the notion of a Mormon like Romney running for president):
Reflecting on this morning's Reading List, it has become apparent that the Fred Thompson thing is more than a flash in the pan and wishful dreaming on the part of the dissatisfied few. But before we can go any further with it there are some questions about Mr. Thompson that simply must be answered. I hereby challenge every member of the press and blogosphere out there to work tirelessly until these questions are answered thoroughly, completely, and repitiously:
Evangelicals for Mitt- which interestingly has no mechanism for reader comments- has been repeating undocumented rumors that Fred Thompson was not completely pro-life during his campaigns for the Senate, despite his consistent- and in fact perfect- pro-life voting record there. Similar rumors- which proved to be false- were circulated about George W. Bush in 2000.
Here is a report of a conversation between Phillip Klein National Right to Life Executive Director Darla St. Martin about her discussion of the abortion issue with Fred Thompson in 1994, the year FDT first ran for the Senate. She found him "consistently pro-life."
Klein adds that at this point he has failed to find a single quote from Thompson at any point in his career in which he says- Romney-style- that he supports "a woman's right to choose."
One final note: Even were the Romney supporter's charges true, there could be question of Fred having been pro-choice throughout his political career- as …
Though Fred Thompson left the Senate in 2003, Harry Reid still hasn't stopped wetting his pants.
Not only does Fred Thompson cut taxes, he cuts tax collectors.
Fred Thompson reconsidered running for reelection after 9/11 but later decided to handle things on his own. He was soon seen entering the Middle East with a bottle of tequila in one hand an a handgun in the other. They're still counting the dead.
Fred Thompson's gaze can kill small animals.
Webster's Dictionary defines "conservatism" as "how closely one's views resemble those of Fred Thompson."
The actual cause of global warming: Fred Thompson's burning rage.
The budget to Law & Order was dramatically increased when Fred Thompson was added to the cast because he has to be digitally inserted into the scenes since anytime he&…
Makuin Thomas Owens has an interesting NRO article here on the long, sad and sorry history the Democratic Party has of undermining American war efforts, from the Civil War to the present day.
ADDENDUM: A Democratic friend whom I rely on as a fairness monitor- an editor by trade- thinks the above is unclear, and seems to imply that Democrats have generally opposed all wars since the Civil War, and that no Republican has opposed any. In order to clarify any misunderstandings, let me add that:
1) Democrats have indeed supported certain modern American wars with great unanimity; what is to be remarked upon here is only the relative frequency with which they have opposed them- a frequency which does suggest at least something of a pattern.
2) Republicans have also opposed wars. Some Republicans actually referred to World War II as "Roosevelt's war," as zany as that seems. Some- though comparatively few- regarded Korea as "Truman's war." And lest it be forgotten, Ab…
Meanwhile, liberal columnist David Corn- the man who actually "outed" Valarie Plame to the American people as a supposedly "undercover" agent in a column falsely accusing Robert Novak of having done so the previous day (Novak had merely described her as a "CIA operative-" a fact he says he learned by combining Richard Armitage's repetition of common Washington knowledge with the content of Joe Wilson's entry in Who's Who in America)continues to try to salvage the lie that Plame was in fact an undercover agent, and that evil Bushies illegally revealed her identity to get back at Wilson for his slipshod and inaccurate report denying Saddam Hussein's efforts to secure yellow cake uranimum in Niger.
It is not illegal to reveal the identity of a CIA operative who is not a covert operative- and by the legal definition, Valarie Plame was not, even though she had in the past run isolated covert missions.
Only two things wrong with that. First, despite the lie Plame, the Democrats, and their allies in the media keep repeating, Plame had no cover to blow. She was not an undercover operative, but a mere analyst; her job was no secret, was in fact widely known in Washington, and could be readily discovered by anyone with access to a copy of Who's Who.
And second, her husband discredit himself with the report. It has since been conclusively proven that Saddam in fact did precisely what Wilson's report denied that he had done.
Especially check Sen. Thompson's commentaries. They're good examples of why he's been one of the two or three most effective advocates the Good Guys have had over the past seven years- and why he'd be Hillary's (or Obama's or Edwards's) worst nightmare.
If you're as frustrated as I've been over our inability to coherently put utterly convincing arguments to the American people during the course of this current administration, you'll be as excited as I am by the prospect of a candidate in 2008 who won't let the Democrats get away with their customary nonsense.
Here is a YouTube video (courtesy of DMAS President Bryan Butcher) of the location where I spend my Saturday evenings and the strange creatures which inhabit it.
I have no idea what that business with the green lasers is about. But note the two Canadian visitors at the end.
I wasn't there last week, but Denise tells me everybody had a good time at the chili supper and the observing session afterward. Sure would like to know how Jim Holloway got those great colored pictures through his scope! ;)
A few weeks ago, after agonizing long and hard over the field of prospective Republican presidential candidates, I endorsed Mitt Romney. Today, I find myself in the awkward position of having to unendorse him- not because of anything he's done or said, but because something major has changed.
For many years, I've believed that the best man to lead both the Republican party and the nation was somebody unlikely to run: former Tennessee Sen. Fred Dalton Thompson. His abrupt departure from public life in 2002- some believe that personal grief over the death of a daughter was the reason- seemed to make a Thompson candidacy unlikely. Despite how deeply Sen. Thompson impressed me, it seemed to me that we were going to have to look elsewhere for the leadership I've long been convinced he could provide as none of the other candidates could.
Yesterday I learned that Sen. Thompson is actively considering a presidential candidacy. I mean no disrespect to Gov. Romney, whom I continue to …
Scooter Libby was not convicted of "outing" a covert CIA agent. The lie that keeps being repeated by the media to the contrary, Valarie Plame was not a covert agent. She was a former covert agent. At the time of Bob Novak's "revelation," she was a CIA analyst whose status as such was a matter of public record.
It is not against the law to reveal the identity of a CIA analyst. The claim by family friend and liberal columnist David Corn that she was a covert agent (in the process of falsely charging fellow columnist Bob Novak of having revealed her supposed status as such) was simply not true. While technically it would have been illegal for Novak to have revealed her status as a covert agent within five years of her service as such, he didn't. Corn himself did, in his column the next day. Novak merely described her as a CIA "operative."
But as we learned from the continued repetition of the slander about President Bu…
Some time ago I blogged on the move by the pro-Methobapticostals in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod to declare pulpit and altar fellowship (full communion) with a Methobapticostal-leaning group called The Association of American Lutheran Churches.
Tragically, the LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations has unanimously voted to approve this ill-advised move. The take of the Wisconsin Synod on the whole matter- including a summary of the very sound reasons for concern- can be found here.
LCMS President Gerald Kieschnick- the Anti-Walther- is on the verge of a great triumph in what certainly seems to be his ongoing crusade to de-Lutheranize the Missouri Synod and turn it into merely a somewhat high-church version of American "Evangelicalism."
The fellowship recommendation must be approved by the triennial LCMS convention this summer.
The planet may be growing warmer, but the virtual monopoly on media coverage the global warming alarmists have had on the subject has effectively frozen out scientists who suggest explanations for the phenomenon other than human causation- or who suggest that the sky may not, after all, be falling. In fact, it's the lack of an available voice for the minority of scientists who reject the politically correct view that has created the very convenient public impression (convenient at least for the alarmists) that the Al Gore view is pretty much held by all the experts, except perhaps for a few half-crazed eccentrics.
Well, it seems that the eccentrics are striking back. "The Great Global Warming Swindle," a new documentary presenting the minority viewpont, apparently asks the questions Gore and his ilk would like to sigh into silence.