Archive for May, 2013

Worried Democrats

May 31, 2013

From the e-mails I have received today and yesterday, either the Democrats are worried about their chances in 2014 or there is another FEC fund raising deadline coming up.

Friend — The Republicans are reorganizing, fast.

Mitch McConnell just released another ad attacking President Obama, and Tea Party rallies are popping up all over the country.

The Republicans need only six seats to take over the Senate, own the entire Congress, and repeal President Obama’s agenda. And in this fight to stop the extreme right wing, every single day matters.

The FEC deadline is in just 12 hours, and we need you in the fight again today — can you help with a $3 contribution? The Republicans certainly aren’t stopping. They’re on the attack every day.

This year grassroots supporters like you have helped us raise an incredible $17,400,000 — leaving us only $100,000 to raise with 12 hours to go.

We’re so close! Will you pitch in $3 before the FEC deadline in just 12 hours?

Raised thru 5/30 $17.4 million
Left to raise by midnight $100,000
Your contribution $3 click here

Thanks so much for your urgent support,
Democratic Headquarters

 We can’t have Tea Party rallies popping up everywhere, and imagine the gall of Mitch McConnell attacking Obama. Only Barack Obama has the right to demonize his political enemies.

 

Friend — The cold, hard truth:

Only six Senate seats separate Mitch McConnell and the Republicans from taking the Senate, completely owning Congress, and repealing President Obama’s entire agenda.

That’s why the Republicans are reorganizing, quickly. This is their chance to destroy all of our progress. Mitch McConnell just launched a new ad slamming the President. And the Tea Party just reported a spike in fundraising.

To stop the Republicans, we’ve got to answer every attack they wage against us. Every single day matters.  And tonight’s FEC deadline in just 8 hours is a huge test of our strength — can you pitch in $3?

We’re very close to hitting our goal, but we aren’t there yet. Grassroots supporters like you have helped us raise an incredible $17,450,000 this year alone!

But to hit our goal tonight, we need just $50,000 more in grassroots support.

Will you help us cross the finish line? Pitch in $3 before the FEC deadline in just 8 hours.

Thanks for stepping up,

 

Democratic Victory

 

I wonder why the Tea Party reported a spike in find raising. There haven’t been any stories in the news lately that seem to confirm what the Tea Party has been saying all along, has there?

DEADLINE: FIVE Hours

Friend — It’s been a lightning-quick turnaround:

In a week, we’ve seen the Republicans regroup, gain momentum with a spike in Tea Party fundraising, and attack with a new anti-Obama ad from Mitch McConnell.

They know they can’t waste time. By winning just six Senate seats, they can take over the Senate, own Congress entirely, and completely repeal President Obama’s agenda.

To stop them, we must come together by answering every attack they wage. Can you join in the fight? Every day matters!

The FEC deadline hits in five hours. Please pitch in $3 right away to fight off Republican attacks.

Thanks,
Guy Cecil
Executive Director

Repealing Obama’s entire agenda sounds good to me.

I wonder if they are really worried or just want more money. It is too early to tell what will happen next November, I suppose.

 

Jacob and Esau

May 31, 2013

The Book of Genesis begins, as the name suggests, with the beginning of the universe. The story moves on to the creation of the human race, humanity’s fall from grace, the Flood of Noah, and the nations established by his sons. Starting with chapter twelve, the focus of the book narrows from the whole of humanity to a single family and three patriarchs who are to create the Jewish nation. These patriarchs were Abraham, his son Isaac, and his sons Jacob and Esau.

Jacob was the ancestor of the Jews and his sons were the ancestors of the twelve tribes of Israel. Esau was his twin brother and he was the ancestor of the Edomites, a nation related to Israel and was often an enemy to the Israelites. Jacob was, to be perfectly honest, scum. He was a clever and rather unscrupulous man who cheated his brother out of his birthright and his father’s blessing. Esau, quite understandably wanted to kill Jacob, so he was obliged to flee Canaan and return to their ancestral home in Mesopotamia to work for his uncle Laban. Laban was a bit of a con artist too and when Jacon agreed to work for Laban for seven years to marry his daughter Rachel, Laban had Rachel’s sister Leah take her place on the wedding night and made Jacob work an additional seven years for Rachel. Meanwhile, Jacob engaged in a selective breeding program that ensured that he ended up with the best of Laban’s flocks. The two got along famously.

I want to go back, however, to how Jacob aquired Esau’s birthright.

27 The boys grew up, and Esau became a skillful hunter, a man of the open country, while Jacob was content to stay at home among the tents. 28 Isaac, who had a taste for wild game, loved Esau, but Rebekah loved Jacob.

29 Once when Jacob was cooking some stew, Esau came in from the open country, famished. 30 He said to Jacob, “Quick, let me have some of that red stew! I’m famished!” (That is why he was also called Edom.)

English: Easu sells his birthright to Jacob

English: Easu sells his birthright to Jacob (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

31 Jacob replied, “First sell me your birthright.”

32 “Look, I am about to die,” Esau said. “What good is the birthright to me?”

33 But Jacob said, “Swear to me first.” So he swore an oath to him, selling his birthright to Jacob.

34 Then Jacob gave Esau some bread and some lentil stew. He ate and drank, and then got up and left.

So Esau despised his birthright. (Gen 25:27-34)

That red stew is often referred to as a mess of pottage, even though that particular phrase does not appear in any English translation of the Bible. A mess of pottage is any bargain in which something that gives a short term advantage is exchanged for something that may not mean much in the present, but in the long term is far more valuable.

Jacob cheated his brother Esau, but Esau must bear some part of the blame. Perhaps Esau did not believe that Jacob was really serious in suggesting the bargain, in which case, he was a fool. More likely though, Esau was simply the sort of man who saw only the advantage of something tangible, like a bowl of stew, while dismissing something as abstract as his birthright. Esau valued only what was right in front of him, and gave no thought to the future.

We can’t really condemn Esau, however. We Americans also have a birthright which many of us are all too willingly surrender for a mess of pottage. Our birthright is our tradition of  liberty and the mess of pottage is anything that we are ready to give up that birthright for, Obamacare, Obamaphones, a false sense of security, anything. Let us not make the same foolish choice Esau did.

By the Numbers

May 31, 2013

Raymond Ibraham explains the recent beheading in London is terms of Islam’s “Rule of Numbers”.

It reflects what I call “Islam’s Rule of Numbers,” a rule that expresses itself with remarkable consistency:  The more Muslims grow in numbers, the more Islamic phenomena intrinsic to the Muslim world—in this case, brazen violence against “infidels”—appear.

In the U.S., where Muslims are less than 1% of the population, London-style attacks are uncommon.  Islamic assertiveness is limited to political activism dedicated to portraying Islam as a “religion of peace,” and sporadic, but clandestine, acts of terror.

In Europe, where Muslims make for much larger minorities, open violence is common.  But because they are still a vulnerable minority, Islamic violence is always placed in the context of “grievances,” a word that pacifies Westerners.

With an approximate 10% Muslim population, London’s butcherers acted brazenly, yes, but they still invoked grievances.  Standing with bloodied hands, the murderer declared: “We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone…. The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day.”

Days later in Stockholm, which also has a large Muslim minority, masked rioters  destroyed 100 cars and property.  The grievance for this particular outbreak was that police earlier shot a(nother) machete-wielding “immigrant” in self-defense.

Grievances disappear when Muslims become at least 35-40% of a nation and feel capable of waging an all-out jihad, as in Nigeria, where the Muslim-majority north has been terrorizing Christians—bombing hundreds of churches and beheading hundreds of infidels.

Sudan was an earlier paradigm, when the Khartoum government slaughtered millions to cleanse Sudan of Christians and polytheists.  Historically Christian-majority Lebanon plunged into a deadly civil war as the Muslim population grew.

Once Muslims become the majority, the violence ironically wanes, but that’s because there are fewer infidels to persecute.  And what infidels remain lead paranoid, low-key existences—as dhimmis—always careful to “know their place.”

With an 85% Muslim majority, Egypt is increasingly representative of this paradigm.  Christian Copts are under attack, but not in an all-out jihad.  Rather, under the Muslim Brotherhood their oppression is becoming institutionalized, including through new “blasphemy” laws which have seen many Christians attacked and imprisoned.

Attacks on infidels finally end when Muslims become 100% of the population, as in Saudi Arabia—where all its citizens are Muslim, and churches and other non-Islamic expressions are totally banned.

Islam is, at least in the violent, sumpremacist strain that seems to be in the ascendant, and is never very far under the surface, a thug religion. From the beginning, Muslims have counted on bullying and intimidation to keep non-Muslims from resisting or criticizing their religion. To an alarming extent this has worked in the West, thanks to lots of help from quislings in Western government and media.

The word quisling derives from the Norwegian politician Vidkun Quisling, who betrayed his country to the German invaders and served as the puppet leader under Nazi rule. Quisling has become a byword for traitor mostly because of the sound of the name which somehow sounds villainous. In fact, Quisling did not see himself as a traitor and did not intend to become a German puppet. He sincerely believed that he was doing what was best for his country and believed that Norway ought to be a free, independent ally of Germany. Hitler had other plans for Norway, however.

Our present day quislings cannot possibly believe that turning a blind eye to savage behavior and refusing to make the connection between Islam and violence best serves Western Civilization. Surely, they cannot believe that “Islamophobia” is a worse evil than beheading a British soldier in broad daylight, bombing the Boston Marathon, crashing planes into buildings or any of the more than 20,000 terrorist attacks by Muslims since 9/11. Either our present day quislings are so blinded by ideology and so ignorant of what is going on in the world that they ought not be be allowed to cross the street without an adult to guide them, or they are possessed of such a pathological hatred of their own civilization that they willingly side with barbarians.

 

The Most Precious Right

May 29, 2013

What do you think is the most important right that we have? Is it freedom of speech, worship, press, and assembly? Perhaps the right to bear arms? Maybe our inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I think that there is one right that is more important than any of the ones I have mentioned. In fact, the right that I am thinking of contains and presupposes all of these other rights. I am thinking of the right to be left alone, to live our lives as we see fit without a lot of busy bodies telling us what we should eat, drink, do or think. Once the right to be left alone is granted, all of the others follow. If a nanny-state zealot like Mayor Bloomberg asserts he has the right to keep you from drinking big gulps for your own good, all of your other rights are in danger.

What prompted these reflections is Jonah Goldberg‘s latest Goldberg File. He says what I would like to say better than I can, so I would like to quote a long section in the middle.

Alas, this is where I then segued, more or less, into a long discussion about the us-versus-them mentality of liberalism that liberals routinely project onto conservatives. I tied it in to the IRS scandal as proof that O’Sullivan’s law is alive and well and simply a manifestation of the liberalGleichschaltung. I’m not going to recreate all of that here for the same reason I am not going to eat an entire five-pound brick of government cheese — because I can’t, don’t want to, and even trying will make me sick.

That said, for those of you who don’t know what I mean by the liberal Gleichschaltung, here’s a quick explainer from Liberal Fascism:

The Nazis had a word for this process: Gleichschaltung. A political word borrowed — like so many others — from the realm of engineering, it meant “coordination.” The idea was simple: all institutions needed to work together as if they were part of the same machine. Those that did so willingly were given wide latitude by the state. “Islands of separateness” — be they businesses, churches, or people — were worn down over time. There could be no rocks in the river of progress. In effect, the entire society agreed to the fascist bargain, in which they bought economic, moral, and political security in exchange for absolute loyalty to the ideals of the Reich. Of course, this was a false security; the fascist bargain is a Faustian bargain. But that is what people thought they were getting.

As for O’Sullivan’s Law (named for its author, former NR editor John O’Sullivan) it’s simply this: Any institution that is not explicitly right-wing becomes left-wing over time.

Now let me be clear: I hate O’Sullivan’s law (I am rather fond of John, however). I hate it for the same reason that I hate the argument that I cannot command an army of cape-wearing super-intelligent flying basset hounds with laser vision: because it’s true.

But let’s be honest about why it is true. Because liberals are the aggressors in the culture war. This Lois Lerner woman, it seems increasingly clear, is a perfect example of a midlevel enforcer of O’Sullivan’s Law, a water-carrier for the Gleichschaltung, a junior officer in Matthews’s “war.” But it’s important to recognize that Matthews’s “war” isn’t about freedom qua freedom or rights qua rights, it’s a war over how freedom is defined. And in the minds of progressives you are free to live anyway you want so long as it’s progressive. You have the right to have me pay for things you want, solely because you want them and progressives say you need them.

Any institution that agrees with progressivism is free to stay clear of the State if it wants to (but, being “progressive,” few such institutions want to be free of the State). Any institution that desires to go a different way must be ground down and forced to conform. It is this act of resistance and not any explicit ideological commitment that renders dissident institutions “right wing.” Indeed “right wing” is often just a liberal word for “non-compliant.”

Jonah Angry. Jonah Want Smash

And since I’m already in rant mode, let me add that it really pisses me off. I resent utterly and totally the politicization of everything. I hate it to my core. It is arguably the single most right-wing thing about me. The idea that people can refer to a left-wing clothing line or a right-wing pizza company strikes me as grotesquely ludicrous and ludicrously grotesque. It’s like referring to a “Presbyterian fastball” or a “Fabian cloud.”

The Catholic Church in America is becoming more “right wing” not because it has changed its dogma, but because under Obamacare the imperium of domestic liberalism is expanding once again. An army of Lois Lerners are spilling over the defensive walls of the Church and demanding yet more compliance.

And, yet, when the Church or a craft store or a fast-food chicken joint resists, they are labeled the aggressors in the culture war. It’s like when the Roman legions would invade Germania. The barbarians would fight back and the Romans would respond “we cannot let this assault on Rome stand!”

I am a conservative because I think politics should infect as little of life as possible. And because I am a conservative I resent to the core of my being the fact that everything must either bend to the winds of the Left or be broken by them. The third choice is to become “right wing” which in itself is a kind of surrender because it accedes to the demand that everything become political. But it’s the best choice we’ve got.

In a sane world, the President of Chick-Fil-A should not have to fear boycotts for stating his private opinion about same sex marriage. The Catholic Church should not have to fight a government that wishes it to act against its own teachings. Celebrities wouldn’t feel it was necessary to express their opinions on political matters they are entirely ignorant of, or if they must, take care to make only liberal politically correct statements to safeguard their careers. I shouldn’t have to fear that the businesses I buy from are spending my money to promote policies and values I detest, in order to keep the activists at bay. In other words, this would be a a better and less divisive country if we didn’t politicize nearly everything and turn everything into a culture war to fundamentally transform the country.

Liberals fear the Religious Right is plotting to turn America into a theocracy. What they either ignore or fail to recall is that Conservative Christian Evangelicals were quite content to mind their own business until they became aware that they were the targets of a culture war. They found their values being mocked by the entertainment industry and popular culture. Their children were being indoctrinated in the public schools. Their government was passing laws to promote an agenda hateful to them. Groups like the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition have all been essentially defensive in nature. They were formed by a people under attack. Much the same could be said of the Tea Party movement and the two movements do overlap to some extent. In both cases these are people who feel, with good reason, that they are being made the enemy in their own country.

The most hateful thing about all of this is that no one has the option of minding their own business any more. In the culture war, you are either for everything that is good and progressive or you are a hateful bigot. If you just want to be left alone, you are a hateful bigot. It is not even enough to just passively go with the flow. Consider that infamous “no pressure” video that British environmentalist produced a couple of years ago.

If you can stand to watch it all the way through, notice exactly who gets blown up. The people who are killed are not people who are actively opposing the global warming agenda. They simply don’t want to get involved in the campaign. They want to be left alone.

Well, if is a culture war they want, I guess we have no choice but to fight it. President Obama can declare the War on Terror over, even though he might want to ask the people out there who want to kill us, but unless we want our country to be fundamentally transformed in ways we do not want, we will have to keep fighting for our freedoms.

 

Gaddafi’s Money

May 27, 2013

I have heard of Nigerian 419 scams and have even received an e-mail from someone purporting to be from Burkina Faso with a plan to separate me from my money. The latest one is from former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi‘s attorney with a proposition for me.

Hello,

I am contacting you with good intent geared towards an interest which
I want both of us to participate in and which will be beneficial to us
especially financially.

My name is Bill Rahma, an investment attorney to the ousted
president of Libya, MUAMMAR GADDAFI who was killed in a gun battle in
Libya on the 20th of October 2011. I have been handling all his
financial activities and business interests up to this
date.

I have under my management, some amount of money($4,000,000.00 USD)
which the late Gaddafi had instructed me to code for re-investment for
his grand children in an event he is caught or killed.

Governments in France, Italy, England and Germany seized control of
Late Gaddafi $30 billion, but not these one because it is
coded with a foreign surname.
VIEW THE LINK BELOW TO SEE :

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/81339/gadhafi-stole-200-billion-says-la-times

I had made preparations for this fund to be re-invested and was
preparing a report for him through his special aid who was also
killed, before I heard of his death. His death has now changed the
entire scenario in the sense that all the procedures has to take a
drastic change and which is the reason I am contacting you, because
you bear the same LAST NAME as of the aid, which the money was
deposited in his name. It is therefore necessary
that we work together. Kindly read my proposal below:

1, your involvement shall entail the following:

A, provision of a safe haven for the funds.
B, management of the funds which we shall put directly under your name
or company name and total care
C, preparation of legal back-up documents to support the entire
transaction as an inheritance to you.

Furthermore, it is important to keep this transaction confidential due
to the recent forfeiture of the late Gaddafi’s assets and frozen
accounts. We are lucky because the money I am talking about is not in
his name and will make it much easier for us to handle successfully.
I am seeking for your permission to present you to the bank as a
relation to the deceased since you bear the same surname with him and
I am his attorney. You can easily make this deal with me
since nobody else knows about this deposit except me.

The entire process shall last about 2 weeks or thereabout. Upon your
full acceptance, kindly contact me with the below very important
information:

1.YOUR TELEPHONE/MOBILE/FAX NUMBER
2.OCCUPATION/ AGE
We shall discuss the remuneration you shall receive for your efforts.

Thank you and Best Regards,

Barrister Bill Rahma

What are the odds that one of Gaddafi’s aides had the same last name as me. Hoffman is not even remotely Arabic sounding. I guess I had better respond right away. Hoffman is a common German name, so I am sure Mr. Rahma will be able to find another one without any trouble.

Memorial Day Weekend

May 27, 2013

Today is Memorial Day, the day we honor those who have fallen fighting for their country and for freedom.

Graves_at_Arlington_on_Memorial_Day

Memorial Day first started to be observed after the Civil War. That war was the bloodiest in American history and the casualties of that war were unprecedented. The number of killed and wounded in the three previous declared wars, the War of Independence, the War of 1812, and the Mexican War, were insignificant compared to the slaughter house that the Civil War became. After the war people in both the North and South began to commemorate the soldiers who died for their country. The date of this commemoration varied throughout the country until it settled on May 30.

In 1968, Congress passed the Uniform Holidays Bill. This law moved the dates of four holidays, including Memorial Day, to the nearest Monday in order to create three-day weekends. This, I think, was unfortunate. I believe that converting the day on which we honor our fallen heroes into a long weekend tends to diminish the significance of this day. It becomes no more that day to take off work and for businesses to have sales. There should be more to Memorial Day.

 

Some Are More Equal

May 26, 2013

In the wake of the brutal murder of a British soldier by Islamic fanatics in London, it is good to learn that British law enforcement agencies are cracking down, on “racist”, “anti-religious remark”s made on Facebook and Twitter. As the Daily Mail reports,

A 22-year-old man has been charged on suspicion of making malicious comments on Facebook following the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby.

Benjamin Flatters, from Lincoln, was arrested last night after complaints were made to Lincolnshire Police about comments made on Facebook, which were allegedly of a racist or anti-religious nature.

He was charged with an offence of malicious communications this afternoon in relation to the comments, a Lincolnshire Police spokesman said.

A second man was visited by officers and warned about his activity on social media, the spokesman added.

It comes after 25-year-old Drummer Rigby was brutally murdered on a street in Woolwich, south east London, on Wednesday.

The father-of-one, from Manchester, had fought in Afghanistan with the 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers.

Flatters has been remanded in police custody and will appear before magistrates in Lincoln tomorrow.

The charge comes after two men were earlier released on bail following their arrest for making alleged offensive comments on Twitter about the murder.

Complaints were made to Avon and Somerset Police about remarks that appeared on the social networking website, which were allegedly of a racist or anti-religious nature.

A 23-year-old and a 22-year-old, both from Bristol, were held under the Public Order Act on suspicion of inciting racial or religious hatred.

Detective Inspector Ed Yaxley, of Avon and Somerset Police, said: ‘On Wednesday evening, we were contacted by people concerned about comments made on social media accounts.

‘We began inquiries into the comments and at around 3.20am two men, aged 23 and 22, were detained at two addresses in Bristol.

‘The men were arrested under the Public Order Act on suspicion of inciting racial or religious hatred. Our inquiries into these comments continue.

‘These comments were directed against a section of our community. Comments such as these are completely unacceptable and only cause more harm to our community in Bristol.

‘People should stop and think about what they say on social media before making statements as the consequences could be serious.’

Police confirmed the two men were later released on bail pending further inquiries.

 

If the British authorities are really interested in stopping the inciting of racial or religious hatred, perhaps they should begin monitoring what is being preached in British mosques. I am certain that the men who committed the atrocity against Lee Rigby did not just decide to commit murder for no particular reason, nor did they research Islamic scripture on their own and decide that killing infidels was the right thing to do. Someone with some religious authority taught them. In fact, according to the Telegraph, one of the men, Michael Adebowale was a convert to Islam. His mother feared that he was becoming too radical so she sent him to a mosque for religious instruction in his new faith.

Michael Adebowale, the 22-year-old son of a Christian probation officer and a member of staff at the Nigerian High Commission, was filmed holding a bloodied cleaver in his hand after Drummer Lee Rigby was butchered in a London street.

Friends said he had been a “lovely boy” but became involved in some “serious trouble” as a teenager and then turned to Islam. He started mixing with some “bad people” and became increasingly extreme in his views.

His mother Juliet Obasuyi, a 43-year-old probation officer, went to her friend and neighbour, a 62-year-old security officer, for help about nine months ago after her son dropped out of university.

She told him: “Michael is not listening any more. His older sister is a good Christian with a degree but Michael is rebelling as he has no father figure, dropping out of university and handing out leaflets in Woolwich town centre.

“He is from a strong Christian family but he is turning to Islam and turning against the family. He is preaching in the streets. He needs spiritual guidance before he radicalises himself.”

His mother was advised by a neighbour to take him to the head of the Woolwich mosque for spiritual guidance. He was converted to Islam by the head Imam, and taken for weeks of “further training” at a centre near Cambridge.

When he returned, however, he was even more “radicalised” and his mother could no longer “get through to him”. A spokesman for the mosque said they did not know if he attended or been converted there.

What exactly was Michael Adelbowale taught during those weeks of further training? Will there be any sort of investigation into whether or not imams at British mosques are preaching hatred against the infidel? Will the imams be arrested and the mosques closed if this proves to be the case? Or, do the laws against inciting hatred only apply to dhimmis and not to Muslims? Are all the people in the United Kingdom equal, but Muslims more equal than others?

 

 

 

Doing Their Job

May 25, 2013

I have been wondering how the recent scandals involving the IRS, Benghazi,  and others were going to be spun by the Democrats who send me fund raising e-mails. At first I didn’t think they would mention the scandals at all, but then they sent this one the other day.

David —

Getting in President Obama’s way has been the top priority for Republicans in Congress since day one. But now they’ve gone too far.

They’ve been caught red-handed making up so-called ‘scandals’ out of thin air to stir up false rumors of vast ‘cover-ups’ happening in the White House.

Did they find a single shred of evidence to back up their outrageous claims? No.

But rather than let the truth stand in their way, Republicans actually doctored emails between administration officials about Benghazi. Then, they released them to the press, trying to pass them off as real in order to create their scandal. Fortunately, they got caught in the act when the White House released all of the actual emails.

Tell President Obama you’ve got his back right now, no matter what Republicans come up with next.

While Republican leaders were focused on stirring up controversy, Michele Bachmann was talking about impeaching President Obama for absolutely no reason, and Republicans in the House voted to repeal Obamacare — for the 37th time.

That’s how they think they should be spending their time and your money.

Make sure the President knows that you stand behind him and his agenda right now — and that you won’t let Republican games distract you from advocating for real change that will benefit all Americans.

Stand with President Obama today — and send the message to Republicans that it’s time to stop playing political games and get back to work for the American people:

http://my.democrats.org/Stand-With-The-President

Its time for them to do their damn jobs.

Thanks,

Brad

Brad Woodhouse
Communications Director
Democratic National Committee

They’re starting to use profanity in their appeals. I suppose Brad is trying to show that he is a tough guy rather than a typical liberal beta male wimp. (Science has shown that weaker men tend to be liberals while stronger men are more likely to be conservatives. You don’t want to deny the findings of Science, do you?)

In any event, I thought was the Republicans’ job to obstruct and investigate the president. They are the opposition party, after all. And, Congress, as a whole, is supposed to provide a check on the executive branch. I wonder if Mr. Woodhouse is really familiar with the concepts of opposition parties and checks and balances. Perhaps he, and people like him, would prefer a legislature that simply rubber-stamps the Leader’s policies like the old communist Supreme Soviet or of the Soviet Union, or the Chinese National People’s Congress. For myself, I prefer the government set forth in the constitution.

 

The Life of Brian

May 23, 2013

I think that MontyPython’s The Life of Brian must be one of the funniest movies ever made.

 

Perhaps it is irreverent and even impious to think this, but I wonder if Jesus didn’t have days in which he felt exactly like Brian. In the Gospels, there always seems to be crowds of people following Him everywhere and sometimes He seemed to want to be left alone.

When Jesus came down from the mountainside, large crowds followed him. A man with leprosy[a] came and knelt before him and said, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.”

Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” Immediately he was cleansed of his leprosy. Then Jesus said to him, “See that you don’t tell anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.” (Matt 8:1-4)

13 When Jesus heard what had happened, he withdrew by boat privately to a solitary place. Hearing of this, the crowds followed him on foot from the towns. 14 When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick.

15 As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, “This is a remote place, and it’s already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food.”

16 Jesus replied, “They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.”

17 “We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish,” they answered.

18 “Bring them here to me,” he said. 19 And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. 20 They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 21 The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children.

22 Immediately Jesus made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowd. 23 After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray. Later that night, he was there alone, 24 and the boat was already a considerable distance from land, buffeted by the waves because the wind was against it.

25 Shortly before dawn Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. 26 When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. “It’s a ghost,” they said, and cried out in fear.

27 But Jesus immediately said to them: “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.”

28 “Lord, if it’s you,” Peter replied, “tell me to come to you on the water.”

29 “Come,” he said.

Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, “Lord, save me!”

31 Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?”

32 And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. 33 Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” (Matt 14:13-32)

The crowds weren’t always very friendly. Even His family turned against Him.

20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family[b] heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”

22 And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.”

23 So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27 In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house. 28 Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”

30 He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.”

31 Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”

33 “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.

34 Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” (Mark 3:20-34)

They kept pressing Him to declare whether or not He was the Messiah. When they didn’t like His answer they decided to stone Him.

22 Then came the Festival of Dedication[b] at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23 and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. 24 The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”

25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[c]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp. (John 10:2-39)

Jesus was often exasperated by His disciples’ seeming stupidity.

When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread. “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”

Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (Matt 16:5-12)

14 When they came to the crowd, a man approached Jesus and knelt before him. 15 “Lord, have mercy on my son,” he said. “He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. 16 I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him.”

17 “You unbelieving and perverse generation,” Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me.” 18 Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed at that moment.

19 Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?”

20 He replied, “Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” (Matt 17:14-20)

In the end, when He needed them most, they ran away.

43 Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.

44 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.” 45 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Rabbi!” and kissed him. 46 The men seized Jesus and arrested him. 47 Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

48 “Am I leading a rebellion,” said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? 49 Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.” 50 Then everyone deserted him and fled.

51 A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52 he fled naked, leaving his garment behind. (Mark 14:43-52)

Being the Messiah wasn’t an easy job. I wonder that He bothered. It could only have been due to His great love for us.

Obama is no Nixon

May 23, 2013
President Nixon meets with China's Communist P...

President Nixon meets with China’s Communist Party Leader, Mao Tse-Tung, 02/29/1972 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I ran across this defense of Richard Nixon by William Kristol at the Weekly Standard, via The Virginian, via Instapundit.

The thoughtful Carl Cannon has written a piece, “Richard Milhous Obama,” concluding that our current president has more in common with our 37th than President Obama’s partisans would like to acknowledge. The estimable Victor Davis Hanson has weighed in, defending against liberal dissents the proposition that “Nixon Is a Fair Comparison” with Obama.

I protest. Will no one stand up for Richard Nixon? Richard Nixon was a combat veteran, a staunch and brave anti-Communist, a man who took on the liberal establishment and at times his own party’s as well, a leader who often thought for himself and had the courage of his convictions, a president who assembled a first-rate Cabinet and one who—while flawed both in character and in policy judgment—usually tried to confront the real problems and deal with challenges of his times. Richard Nixon led neither the country nor his own administration from behind.

I worked for Richard Nixon (well, I worked for two months in the Nixon White House in 1970 as a summer intern). I voted for Richard Nixon (in 1972, my first vote, against George McGovern—and one about which I have no regrets). I knew Richard Nixon (very slightly—I met him on a few occasions in groups in the late 1970s and the 1980s, and then a couple of times when I worked for Vice President Quayle). And so I feel obliged to rise to Richard Nixon’s defense, and to say, with all due respect, to our current president: Barack Obama, you’re no Richard Nixon.

If Richard Nixon had had the kind of fawning media coverage that Barack Obama has had, he would be considered one of our greatest presidents. If Barack Obama had had the hostile media coverage that Nixon had, I doubt he would ever have been elected president. Nixon had his faults and even though he was considered a conservative, he was far too big-government oriented for my liking, still I think he deserves a little better legacy than he has gotten. I have to disagree with the Virginian’s comment, though.

Keep in mind that on the international front, Richard Nixon single-handedly pried the Communist alliance between the USSR and China apart. The Nixon IRS never actually went after Nixon’s enemies. And Nixon didn’t plot the Watergate break-in. Barack Obama is not fit to tie Richard Nixon’s shoes.

The first sentence is not quite true. In fact the alliance between the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China was strained from the beginning. Stalin didn’t really want Mao to take over China. He preferred a weak China divided between the Nationalists and the Communists to a united China that might be a threat on the Russian border. After Stalin died, the Soviet Communist Party under Khrushchev became somewhat more pragmatic while the Chinese Communists under Mao still retained their revolutionary ardor. The Russians became alarmed at Mao’s casual attitude on nuclear war with the rest and were dismayed by the insanity of the Great Leap Forward. Mao thought that Khrushchev and the Russians were appeasing the  West. The alliance ended by 1959 and in 1969  there was a brief border war between the two Communist powers.

Nixon deserves credit for opening relations with China but he hardly did it single-handedly and Mao was just as interested in opening relations with the United States for his own reasons.

 


%d bloggers like this: