Monday, May 23, 2005

As we prepare for Memorial Day, please remember not to expect any favorable coverage of the military, our servicemen, or veterans on TV or in our newspapers and magazines. If there is any that will be great, but such stories will be the exceptions against the background of anti-military slander that is the assumed truth by the vast majority of those working in the media today.

In a remarkable live interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt, ABC's White House reporter Terry Moran said "There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it's very dangerous."

John Leo expands on this theme "In all my years in journalism, I don't think I have met more than one or two reporters who have ever served in the military or who even had a friend in the armed forces. Most media hiring today is from universities where a military career is regarded as bizarre and almost any exercise of American power is considered wrongheaded or evil."

Why do Servicemen and Veterans get so little respect in our society? It just may be due to the average citizen being fed a continuous diet of stories in the news based on "the premise that the military must be lying". How can we expect people to respect members of an organization that is presented as always lying?

My church is helping to honor our Servicemen and Veterans next Sunday and is taking pains to say "This event is not intended to be political in nature or an endorsement of war." This is true, but if you start from the assumption that "American projection of power around the world must be wrong" it is impossible to honor those who wield that power in the military.

Of course this is merely a manifestation of the thinking of those in the "Peace Movement" who regard any American use of force as evil. This explains why their enemies are the US military, American law enforcement, private firearms owners, and conservative Christians who support any of the above. Note that their outrage is selective, and directed at American use of force, as opposed to the use of force by dictators around the world.

John Leo also commented "The disdain that so many reporters have for the military (or for police, the FBI, conservative Christians, or right-to-lifers) frames the way that errors and bogus stories tend to occur. The antimilitary mentality makes atrocity stories easier to publish, even when they are untrue. The classic example is CNN's false 1998 story that the U.S. military knowingly dropped nerve gas on Americans during the Vietnam War. On the other hand, brutal treatment of dissenters by Fidel Castro tends to be softened or omitted in the American press because so many journalists still see him as the romanticized figure from their youth in the 1960s. Another example: It's possible to read newspapers and newsmagazines carefully and never see anything about the liberal indoctrination now taking place at major universities. This has something to do with the fact that the universities are mostly institutions of the left and that newsrooms tend to hire from the left and from the universities in question."

This cultural background makes honoring our veterans next weekend even more important. It also underscores the importance of reforming our culture starting with the moral sickness in our universities today.

Monday, May 23, 2005 1:37:00 PM (Mountain Daylight Time, UTC-06:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [3]  |  Trackback
 Saturday, May 21, 2005

Back in February we noted the attack on James Watt and Christians in general by Bill Moyers based on fictionalized versions of Watt's statements and Christian's beliefs. After Power Line drew attention to Moyer's remarks and James Watt's response to them, Moyers called Watt and apologized and promised to print an apology.

What was printed fell far sort of an apology, however. At the time I wrote "After launching a vicious attack on Christians and claiming that Christians did not care about the environment, and then using James Watt as the poster child for all that is wrong with Christian beliefs, he now switches and tries to claim that he, Bill Moyers, and those that think like him are the true Christians, and James Watt is merely the poser who falsely claims to be Christian."

Scott W. Johnson wrote on Power Line "In other words, Moyers says the quote was fake but accurate, and in any event, Watt is a lousy Christian. Moyers is a disgrace. He not only misquoted Watt, he completely misrepresented his environmental policies. And virtually every other "fact" in Moyers' hate-filled tirade against conservative Christians was a lie, as was its central thesis."

Today the Washington Post published a column by James Watt about the attempts by the Religious Left to use the issue of the environment to divide the "coalition of Jews, Catholics and evangelicals" that had such a significant impact on the last election.

Watt quotes Barbara R. Rossing of the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago where she fabricated a lie by among other things selectively quoting half of a sentence spoken by Watt in a way that made it sound as if he had said the opposite of what he actually said. This brings to mind the great "Screwtape Proposes a Toast" from 1962 in which C.S. Lewis pointed out the demonic trends in American education. "We now have an intelligentsia which, though very small, is very useful to the cause of Hell." Unfortunately things have only gotten worse in our "education system" since Lewis wrote this as evidenced by this sort of thing coming from a school devoted to training ministers of the Gospel.

Watt also quotes a statement from the National Council of Churches about a straw man anti-environment "false gospel" promoted by "proud preachers". However when asked by Watt, they could not name a single person who actually believed this "false gospel" nor name a single "proud preacher" who taught this.

John Hinderaker of Power Line writes:

"This would be shocking, if we were not so thoroughly accustomed to the mendacity of the left. A Lutheran theologian offers, as the key support for her attack on a former government official, a single sentence--from which she has removed the second half, thereby reversing its meaning. Is this really what they teach in the seminary? As a Lutheran, I hope not. Then, the National Council of Churches issues a press release attacking a purported body of theological opinion which is said to be associated with "emboldened political leaders and policymakers"--Republicans all, of course. Yet, when challenged to name a single person who holds these supposedly widespread views, the person who headed up the task force for the NCC is stumped. He can't name a single human being who holds the views he has so vigorously denounced. This is, apparently, the quality of scholarship we should expect from the National Council of Churches. Pathetic.

"Thanks to Jim Watt for pointing out today's article to us. Mr. Watt is a kindly gentleman who was enjoying a well-deserved retirement from public life, when he was dragged back into the political fray, against his will, by virtue of being relentlessly libelled by Bill Moyers and other liberals. It's good to see that, having been forced to participate once more in public debate, he is defending himself with the skill and determination that, decades ago, he brought to his years of public service."



A big thank you too to Power Line for calling attention to the attacks on Mr. Watt and other Christians.

Sunday, May 22, 2005 3:36:00 AM (Mountain Daylight Time, UTC-06:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Today a reader asked if I thought it was "morally wrong for a Christian to be a democrat"? In reply I said:

God is not a Republican or a Democrat :>)

The bible teaches us some moral principles that are routinely broken by people who are members of every political party. Note, however, that people make moral decisions as individuals, not as parties. There is no Christian political party just as there is no Christian company, just individuals who follow Christ however imperfectly.

Just to look at just one issue, I disagree with the position on abortion taken by the Democrat party in their platform, but so do many Democrats. While I like many things the Libertarian party supports, I also disagree with them on abortion, as do some Libertarians. The Libertarians are more extreme than the Democrats on this issue. However I am convinced there are true Christians who are members of both parties.

Humans are not perfect, so it would be unreasonable to expect any group of humans to be perfect. I and many other Christians have chosen to work within the Republican party as we feel that on balance it offends less against what we see as the teachings of scripture than the Democrat party. Others disagree.

To be effective within the political arena in the USA you must work within either the Republican or the Democrat party. On the national and state levels third parties have zero power, so working within them is the same as disengaging from the political process. We have to work within one of the two major parties if we are to change anything in our country.

I would love nothing more than to have two good candidates to choose from for each office in September. Therefore I hope that those within the Democrat party manage to improve it. Meanwhile I will work for issues and candidates I believe in. At this point in time most of those candidates are Republicans.

I hope this clarifies where I am coming from.

Wednesday, May 18, 2005 5:07:00 AM (Mountain Daylight Time, UTC-06:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Wednesday, May 11, 2005



The Church I attend, Vinelife Community Church, is helping to sponsor a Serviceman's and Veteran's Day of Appreciation to be held at the Boulder Country Fairgrounds on Sunday May 29, 2005 from 10:30 AM to 2 PM. If you are in the area I hope you will join us in saying a big "THANK YOU" to all who are serving or have served our country in the armed forces.

More information is available here, here, and here.

Thursday, May 12, 2005 2:07:00 AM (Mountain Daylight Time, UTC-06:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback

The invaluable Power Line today linked to a story about election fraud this last election in Milwaukee Wisconsin. A joint Federal / State investigation found that the number of ballots exceeded the number of voters by 4,609. As John Hinderaker of Power Line put it "There is no evident explanation for this other than ballot box stuffing."

Why should we care? Because John Kerry won Wisconsin by a mere 11,000 votes and the fraud investigation has yet to look at the suburbs of Milwaukee or other parts of the state. Further the investigators found over 200 felons voted illegally in Milwaukee, and over 100 voted twice or used fake names, addresses, or used the ID of a dead person. Investigators have focused on the over 70,000 people who registered to vote on election day in Milwaukee since the registration paperwork still existed and not on the over 200,000 other voters since Milwaukee's election records are in such bad shape they would not hold up in court! In other words the fraud could be far worse, but we will never know because of poor record keeping in this overwhelmingly Democrat city.

"U.S. Rep. Mark Green, a Green Bay Republican who has introduced a national photo ID requirement, said: 'People are having their faith in the election system shaken. This news will make it much, much worse.'" I hope that everyone who believes in honest government no matter what your political beliefs will realize our election system in this country is seriously broken. Requiring photo ID to vote is just one of many steps that need to be taken if we are to be confident in the election results. Minimum requirements for voter records would seem to be another.

As John Hinderaker wrote "it is only a matter of time until voter fraud determines the outcome of a Presidential election. (Indeed, this may well have happened in 1960.) It could have happened last fall; that it didn't was entirely a matter of luck." I would say this has been the grace of God.

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 1:40:00 PM (Mountain Daylight Time, UTC-06:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Monday, May 02, 2005

Captain Ed of Captain's Quarters drew my attention today to an article in the New York Daily News about remarks by Pat Robertson on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" that are not helpful to the cause of trying to get good judges through the US Senate, even though Pat Robertson evidently was trying to support them.

At first I was cautious wondering if his remarks were taken out of context, particularly since the longest quote in the New York Daily News article was one which I could largely agree with.

"Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings"

Some might feel that statement is wrong, but it can at least be debated by reasonable people.

The 9/11 terrorists did a lot of damage to this country, but they united us in a way not seen in a long time. Obvious external enemies tend to do that.

On the other hand "the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together" has resulted in what Dennis Prager calls a civil war in our country. This is not to say our current culture war is anything less than an all out (cold) civil war, but thank God it is not a shooting war. I pray it never becomes a shooting war!

After I questioned the context of Pat Robertson's statements both Captain Ed and Derek Rose the author of the New York Daily News article provided the remarks in context:

" STEPHANOPOULOS: But sir, you have described this (inaudible) battle in pretty apocalyptic terms. You said: The liberals are engaging in an all-out assault on Christianity. The Democrats will appoint judges who don't share our Christian values and will dismantle Christian culture. And the out-of-control judiciary -- this was in your last book -- is the most serious threat America has faced in nearly 400 years of history: more serious than Al Qaida, more serious than Nazi Germany and Japan, more serious than the Civil War.

"ROBERTSON: Yes, I really believe that."

There is more which tends to moderate what he just said, but few will get past the above without dismissing Pat as a kook, and by inference all Christians and Republicans with him. The fact that Pat Robertson no longer has very large followings in either Christian or Republican circles will not matter.

Captain Ed wrote "Gee, Thanks, Pat" to which I can only add "with friends like these ..."

Tuesday, May 03, 2005 3:24:00 AM (Mountain Daylight Time, UTC-06:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Thursday, April 14, 2005

One of the main reasons I and so many other Christians supported President Bush and the Republican Senatorial candidates this last November was that we knew that one of the most important issues that will determine what sort of country our Children and Grandchildren will grow up in, is who will be our judges. The recent Terri Schiavo drama helped drive home this point.

Filibustering in the US Senate is a means a minority in the Senate can use to prevent the majority from passing a law, and it requires a supermajority of 60 out of the 100 Senators to break a filibuster. When it comes to blocking the creation of new laws the filibuster has in general been a good thing for the country. The filibuster is not in the Constitution, but has been part of the rules of the US Senate since the early days of our country.

The US Constitution gives the US Senate the duty to approve or reject the President's nominations for Federal Judgeships. It does not say this should require a supermajority.

Before President G. W. Bush entered office, never in the history of our country was a President's nominations for the Circuit Court or the Supreme Court filibustered. Exactly once there was a filibuster of a nomination of a sitting Supreme Court justice to become Chief Justice, and that was an unusual case of a nomination submitted at the end of the year when the Congress was about to go home, and the justice in question had serious ethical questions. That's it!

Our Constitution has a number of supermajority requirements in it including for doing things such as amending the Constitution, but the approval or rejection of a president's judicial nominations by the US Senate was not one of them. The Democrats are lying through their teeth and trying to tell the American public that all they are doing is upholding the traditions of the Senate, when really they are trying to ram though an Amendment of the Constitution without following the Constitutional provisions for such an Amendment.

Unfortunately there are Republicans who are siding with the Democrats in this unconstitutional Amendment attempt. Hugh Hewitt just reported on his radio program and his website that "Republican" Senator John McCain has declared he is going to support the Democrats in their unconstitutional filibuster of President Bush's judicial nominations.

There are also Republican Senators Alexander, Chafee, Collins, Hagel, Snowe, Sununu and Warner who are said to be thinking of joining Senator McCain in betraying the trust of the American people and of those who worked so hard to get them elected, by supporting the Democrats in this back door attempt to Amend the US Constitution.

Please call the Congressional Switchboard at 202-225-3121 and ask to speak with each of the above Senator's offices. Be polite, but ask them to please support the Constitution by voting against the use of the filibuster against the President's judicial nominations. If you are a past donor to Senatorial campaigns let them know that if they vote against the Constitution you will donate to their primary opponents next time around.

After you have left messages for the 7 waffling Senators above, call back and leave messages for Senators Frist and Specter urging them to take prompt action on the President's nominees. All of the President's judicial nominees currently before the US Senate would be approved, if they could only get a vote.

Senator's emails and direct phone numbers can be found here.

To learn more about the use of the filibuster against judicial nominations click here. To learn more about the history of judicial nominations click here.

Ed at Captain's Quarters has some choice words about Senator McCain and his history in the US Senate.



UPDATE: It was pointed out to me by Jarrad Shiver that my original wording "The US Constitution gives the US Senate the duty to approve the President's nominations for Federal Judgeships" could easily be read to imply that the Senate was under an obligation to approve the President's nominations, which is of course incorrect. Therefore I changed it to read "The US Constitution gives the US Senate the duty to approve or reject the President's nominations for Federal Judgeships" which I hope clarifies what I meant to say.
Friday, April 15, 2005 1:06:00 AM (Mountain Daylight Time, UTC-06:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [5]  |  Trackback
 Wednesday, April 06, 2005

John H. Hinderaker of Power Line writes "We have expressed our disappointment, in several respects, with this year's Pulitzer awards." "Cartoonist Nick Anderson of the Louisville, Kentucky Courier-Journal was awarded the top prize in print journalism "for his unusual graphic style that produced extraordinarily thoughtful and powerful messages," according to the Pulitzer Web site.

"You can see Anderson's prize-winning cartoons here. Virtually every one is a vicious, hateful attack on President Bush, the United States, or Christianity."

Here is one example:



"Yup, that's right. The central symbol of the Christian faith, with its two billion adherents, is just a tool to ride herd on those poor Democrats. That's what happens to them, I guess, when they aren't being run over by construction equipment or set aflame by Vietnam veterans." [as depicted in his other prize winning cartoons]

"Am I missing something, or is this a pathetic body of work, as whiny, self-pitying and incompetent as it is hateful? It's of a piece, though, with the journalism that the Pulitzer committee found worthy of reward this year. Loyalty to the Democratic party and antipathy toward America are the only qualities that count."

Read the whole article.

Wednesday, April 06, 2005 12:48:00 PM (Mountain Daylight Time, UTC-06:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [5]  |  Trackback
 Tuesday, April 05, 2005

I have known of and supported Spirit of America for about a year. They have done outstanding work helping the cause of freedom in Iraq and elsewhere. Jim Hake the founder writes:

"I'm in Beirut, Lebanon to kick off a project to support the pro-democracy demonstrators at the "tent city" in Martyrs' Square. Their goals are independence (i.e., Syria out of Lebanon) and free and fair elections. The tent city demonstrators are the center of gravity for Lebanon's pro-democracy movement. They are leading the charge. They put together the massive demonstrations 3 weeks ago. As they go, so goes Lebanon's independence. And so goes a great opportunity for democratic transformation of the Middle East and Arab world.

"They need our help to sustain their struggle. Our project is raising support for them (food, shelter, water, etc.) While I'm here we're looking into other things to help (e.g., Internet access at tent city)

"People can go here to help. 100% of all donations go directly to the things that will help the pro-democracy demonstrators.

"Syria is publicly acting like it is playing nice and withdrawing. Behind the scenes they are destabilizing the country, delaying the elections and intimidating the opposition. The good guys in Lebanon need our support.

"Please blog and help get the word out. This message is posted on our blog here."



Lots of people ask "but what can I do?" Well here is something you can do to help. Any donation large or small will help the cause of freedom.

Wednesday, April 06, 2005 1:58:00 AM (Mountain Daylight Time, UTC-06:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [3]  |  Trackback