Michael J. Totten over at Tech Central Station has one of the best analysis I have seen of Islamic terror motivations. Seems to me most folk commenting on this issue start from the "why do they hate us?" point of view and develop their theories from that starting point. Totten has a more balanced view based on what I know about Islam (admittedly not a lot). Give him a read.

Anyone who follows politics in our country knows there is a minority on the far Left whose entire political viewpoint is defined by their hatred of President Bush. Political argument, policy differences, and rational discussion are all trumped by hatred of Bush. A classic example of this was sent to me today by a friend. E.L. Doctorow wrote a piece for the East Hampton Star (East Hampton, NY where millionaires are considered "poor") titled "The Unfeeling President".

Doctorow accuses President Bush without presenting any evidence of "not knowing what death is ... He hasn't the mind for it." Yet is is clear that Doctorow like many morally sick folk in our country does understand what hate is.

He is good at mocking "peering under the table for the WMDs he can't seem to find" about things he evidently knows nothing about. The radical Left in our country does not seem to care if they have facts on their side.

He likes to hurl accusations that are obviously and demonstrably false "He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn."

He plays God and knows what is in the heart "he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the thousand dead
young men and women who wanted to be what they could be."

He glibly lies about things anyone who will take a minor amount of time to study would know is false "his reason for going to war was, as he knew, unsubstantiated by the facts" What is truth next to the ability to beautifully phrase an attack on President Bush?

Doctorow claims "He does not regret that his bungled plan for the war's aftermath has made of his mission-accomplished a disaster." It is such a disaster that free elections were held in Afghanistan and Iraq, Libya gave up their WMD, and Syria pulled out of Lebanon.

He claims "He does not regret that rather than controlling terrorism his war in Iraq has licensed it." when thousands of terrorists are now dead, worshipers in Kuwait mosques are shouting down anti-American preachers, and the USA is now held in as much as 80% positive light in many Islamic countries.

He claims "He had not the mind to perceive" when President Bush had a higher GPA than Senator Kerry.

He obviously feels he is more knowledgeable than the bipartisan majority who voted to authorize the war, and better informed than our President who made the difficult decision after all other possibilities had been exhausted "He did not understand that you do not go to war when it is one of the options, but when it is the only option; you go not because you want to but because you have to."

Doctorow claims "he does not drop to his knees, he is not contrite". I suppose he thinks the President should bow down and worship the almighty Doctorow and beg forgiveness for doing what is right and keeping our country safe.

Hate comes so easy to Doctorow "he does not sit in the church with the grieving parents and wives and children" that all the photos and other evidence to the contrary just does not matter.

Doctorow so loves to hate President Bush "He is the President who does not feel. ... But he will dissemble feeling. ... this litany of lies ... terribly sad ... cry of protest" that his intense hatred blinds him. Fortunately for our country the majority does not agree with Doctorow's opinions. He claims "The president we get is the country we get." to try to twist the fact that the citizens of our country select the President and our other leaders not the other way around. How frustrating it must be for Doctorow when only a minority in our country see how brilliant and right he is, and the majority elect someone like our great President :>)

Doctorow does turn a great phrase "a figure of such moral vacancy" which of course applies best to himself.

Doctorow is to be pitied.

Hugh Hewitt drew my attention to this article on the WNBC (flagship NBC TV station in New York City) website:

"Ridgefield [NJ] police had to call in the National Guard to haul away 100,000 rounds of ammunition after finding nearly 500 guns in an elderly couple's home.

"The weapons range from pistols to machine guns.

"The home belongs to Sherwin and Elizabeth Raymond. Both are 82 years old.

"She suffers from Alzheimer's disease. He was a physician and gun enthusiast who was arrested in 1974 and charged with selling submachine guns, grenades and other weapons to two undercover federal agents.

"He's now charged with creating a hazardous situation and could face other charges.

"Federal officials plan to begin tracing the weapons to determine whether they were legally obtained and ever used in a crime."

From what little is said above there is good reason to suspect this is a gross violation of the civil rights of this couple. There is nothing in this article that indicates why the police invaded their home other than that they knew they owned guns.

There are many well to do firearms collectors with large collections like this. All this tells me is that he had more money to spend on his collection than I do. What possibly is criminal about this?

The fact that they apparently owned machine guns explains the large amounts of ammunition. If you have ever been to a machine gun shoot you would know that some shooters need large trucks to bring their ammo to the shoot. When you are feeding just one gun which shoots 600 rounds per minute, you can go through 100,000 rounds of ammo in less than 3 hours at the range. The machine gun shoots I have attended were 4 day events with hundreds of shooters. Do the math!

Another issue is that in order to own machine guns you need a special Federal permit that is not easy to get. This may explain why there has never been a case of a legally owned civilian machine gun being used in the commission of a crime.

This leads to the issue of Dr. Raymond having been charged with firearms crimes in 1974. Note it does not say he was convicted, only charged. If he was convicted of any such felony he would have lost his rights to own firearms. Therefore the mention of this is merely the anti civil rights police trying to score cheap points with the anti civil rights media in NJ. I lived across the river in NYC much of my life and know first hand the bias against the 2nd Amendment in that part of our country.

This sounds like a typical case of anti civil rights police trying to "make an example" of an elderly man who they clearly must hope no longer has the financial resources to effectively fight them in court. I hope he gets the backing in court from those who value freedom in our country.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.