The issue of the intolerance of the Left was brought to me full-force when I read a friend’s article critical of the judicial decision against Prop 8 in California, that appeared on a mainstream newspaper site. I began to look at the comments section that followed the article, and you would have thought that the friend was giving instructions on how to skin little puppies alive or strangle little kids to death with a garrot. The vitriol was breathtaking. In the end, my friend was pleased, because the negative comments propelled the article to unanticipated heights. I am quite happy for my friend, but still dismayed at the language and vile attitudes of the liberals who responded to the article.

I began to think of other instances of the intolerance of the Left, and have come to a firm conclusion. Liberals are the most intolerant, controlling people around. There are no bounds to which they will not go to destroy whomever they perceive to be an adversary.

Examples abound of this behavior. Whether it be the effort to out Republicans who have had affairs during the Clinton sex scandals, the efforts to “out” closeted gays who wanted to be private or “closeted”, if they supported traditional marriage, to laws that infringe on the rights of speech and religion, it is easy to find the evidence.

Indeed, the seeming love affair for “hate crimes” laws, and “speech codes” is perhaps the greatest illustration to which anyone could possibly point. “Hate crimes” statutes are entirely about protecting certain classes, not in an effort to ensure they are always protected from violence, but to lay the groundwork for silencing anyone who disagrees with the political opinions of said groups. For all of the screaming and bellyaching about the need for such laws to protect black Americans, and other minorities, this is simply not so. Minorities are already aptly protected under both state and federal laws. If there is abuse of the system, then some jurisdiction will take hold of the case and see that justice is done. For that matter, this is also the case with gays, even thought they are not the same “protected class” that women and racial and ethnic minorities are.

So what is the point of passing such laws, then, if all that I say is correct? They are a back door to silencing the speech and religious rights of Americans. By putting homosexuals in the same grouping as minorities and women, the radical Leftists create the precursor to a legal argument that any “discrimination” against them, even that based upon religious preference, is unlawful and should be punished. In a New Mexico case last year, a photographer was fined for refusing to do a shoot for a “commitment ceremony” for a homosexual couple. She had politely declined to perform the job for them, citing her religious beliefs, and was reported to the state human rights commission. She was in turn fined, and the courts upheld the fine, stating her speech and religious rights were not violated. This is absurd, and only one of the sad cases that can be found by doing simple research over the internet. It is not a large number yet, to be sure, but that is not the important part. That we have gone from a point where religious liberty was celebrated and fiercely protected, to this state of affairs where it is scorned, is truly frightening.

What of “speech codes”? This insidious invention on college campuses is the brainchild of the Left, who continue their intention to make all speech illegal if it is not the “right” speech. And of course, who decides which speech is the “right” speech? Why, they do. And boy do they brandish this ability to decide standards against conservatives on campuses with a relish. But how do these speech codes operate, you might wonder. Well, in a standard that would be pleasing to Hitler or Stalin themselves, there is only a small area of the university campus where students may participate in debate over controversial topics. At Texas Tech University, the “free speech zone” was at a gazebo. In the rest of the campus, a student would be punished if anyone even “thought” that he or she were saying something offensive. This was changed due to the threats of free speech groups like FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education).

There are still free speech zones on college campuses, sadly, which is quite disturbing. Oddly enough, religious groups are not often protected by these codes. In fact, religion is routinely mocked. Funny how that works, huh?

So far, we have discussed a desire by the Left to control and silence those they disagree with. Such tactics are truly Fascist. Not the “I don’t like you, you’re a Fascist” insult, but truly Fascist by definition. In his book, Liberal Fascism Jonah Goldberg points out that the difference between socialism and fascism was merely how the state exercised it’s horrible compulsory power over the citizens. In socialism, the state owns everything. The citizenry may use the property of the state, if the state approves. In Fascism, the people keep control of their property, and can exercise their freedoms, so long as they use their property and freedoms to fulfill the goals of the state. If the state thinks “x” should be done, then citizen “y” better do “x”, or “y” will lose their property and rights.

Given this historical fact, how is the Left not Fascist? How are they not hateful? Or vile? Yet they accuse conservatives of being how they truly are. Unbelievable. Just remember these issues next time a liberal curses you out and tells you to do some disgusting (and often anatomically impossible) action. Remember, and stand firm.

In the latest edition in the Christian Perspectives Series from Thomas Nelson Publishers, author Jeremy Lott undertakes a quick topical examination of Buckley’s life through the facets of his religious beliefs. Lott begins the work by making clear that he is not at all attempting to do a complete study of the topic. Indeed, such a study would take up a much longer book, perhaps more than that. His goal is merely to present the argument that Buckley’s deeply felt Catholic piety is the root of his efforts, and even success in life. Lott actually recommends the reader does research of their own, supplying a brief, but helpful, prospective reading list for those wanting to learn about the man.

Buckley was raised as a Catholic, and this stuck with him his whole life. First as a polemicist writing about the lack of fidelity to the Protestant heritage of Yale, to his defense of capitalism and hatred of Communism as an affront to God, to his belief in the supremacy of the individual over the state; all of these various threads linked back to his Catholic roots.

Buckley created the hodge-podge “fusionist” coalition that we know as post-war American conservatism. Up until this time, the various strains of “conservative thought” were at odds with each other. The highly religious felt the market was uncaring, lead to great harm, and caused people to indulge in their base natures. The supporters of the free market (usually libertarians) scoffed at Christians, viewing them as backwards hicks and rubes. Of course, this is still the opinion of many on both sides. Despite all of this, there is a great deal of respect for the ideas of natural law and God-given rights on the part of the Libertarians, and respect for the market on the part of most Christians. Even among Democratic voters, this is the case according to public opinion surveys. This change in course by Buckley affects even self-identifying liberals.

The key to Buckley’s ability to create this movement, and he admitted he was trying to do as much, are the concepts of natural law and natural rights. Natural law and natural rights are concepts that Protestants and Evangelicals have been willing to embrace since C. S. Lewis wrote about the concepts, but they are historically Catholic in nature, with some philosophical supports among the Presbyterians of the Scottish Enlightenment.

Natural law and natural rights can be summed up simplistically as the idea that God has placed a certain law on our hearts. We all know what it is. Sometimes there are different interpretations based on levels of knowledge of agriculture and science, but the general agreement across culture is important. On the other side, natural rights are God-given rights that are also universally known to mankind, and that the sole job of government is that of protecting.

Inherent in this worldview is the idea that we each are accountable to God, and have a right to the fruits of our labors as God sees fit to bless us. If we sin, it is between us and the offended parties, both human and Divine. Government is not part of the equation unless the sin is a crime that will harm another person’s ability to enjoy their natural rights before the Almighty. This conception was able to draw together the Christian conservatives and the libertarians together. The hard stance against Communists drew in hawks and the anti-Communists as well.

There is so much more about how Buckley created this movement. I would have to write a book myself to deal with it all, or even just the rest of the ideas that Lott presents in his work.

A final point. As Lott recounts, though Buckley was never suicidal, he was cognizant of his upcoming death, due to his age and failing health. After the death of his wife Pat in 2007, he publicly talked of his desire to go on a “final voyage” to Heaven. He yearned to see his family and friends long gone. On the morning of February 27, 2008, he got his wish, and joined his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, in a glorious reunion with loved ones.

I write this last tidbit for the purpose of pointing out that his Catholicism was not a ploy to further his career or politics, but something that deeply informed and supported him throughout his life. If you are interested in knowing the deep piety behind William F. Buckley, Jr., I highly recommend this book. Easily the best argued to date of the Christian Encounters series.

—–

I received this biography of William F. Buckley, Jr., for free from Thomas Nelson publishers via their BookSneeze program. I am obligated to read it and give a review on my blog and on a commercial web site such as Amazon.com. Thomas Nelson emphasizes their desire for honest reviews, whether positive or negative, in order to help them create a better product. The opinions above are my honest viewpoint. I want to thank Thomas Nelson for allowing me to review this book, and thank you all for reading this.

—–

I have a separate blog for cultural, entertainment, and such issues. I only post the items on both blogs that I believe would be of interest or benefit to others to read. Please visit my other blog if you are interested.

I know what you are thinking. Oh boy! Another book review on the blog. Well, I like them, and getting and reading books. I am truly excited about this one, though, since it is useful in making a point about the misconceptions about our culture and the state of Christianity in this country. It also presents questions about what type of society is truly best for America and American Christianity.

Dr. Wright introduces the book by giving a summary of what started him on this research path. He kept hearing and reading dire statistics about the state of Christianity in the United States. He wondered at how these statistics come from both Christians and secular sources, and he wondered if the universality of the predictions was because of a true statistic, or a myth that people repeated without examination.

The professor began by looking at various social science surveys, including from the Gallup organization, the Barna group, and out of academia. He looked at the wording of the questions, and the respondents’ answers. He found something unique, that Christians in general are highly respected, and that most denominations that make up “Evangelical Christianity” are also highly respected, as are “Christians” in general, and “Born-Again” Christians. Only “Evangelicals” are not highly respected, as a name-group, and that probably lends itself to the idea that people misunderstand the term, and actually respect Christians.

The professor goes on to show how in research, Christians are not just viewed favorably by the general public, but are also doing well on almost every social and political level. Whether marital fidelity, spousal treatment, religious observances, love for others, prayer, belief in the fundamentals of the faith, and so forth, Christians are doing as well as, or better than, any other time in history other than perhaps the 1950’s.

The only caveat to this is the increased number of “religiously unaffiliated”. Many point to a culture that is less Christian and more secular. The question is whether one wants a culture of large churches with many non-Christians, or churches where the Christians are more likely than in previous eras to be sincere Christians, and not just going to church for fear of social stigma. Which one is better? It’s up to the reader and Christians in general to decide.

The only real problem I had with the book was the way that the areas of race relations and attitudes towards gays were covered, the author gets into his politics. At least, I presume that he does, since he looks hard at every question, except those that relate to these two areas. I am not saying that there is no issue of negative feeling in these areas, but think carefully here. If a person thinks someone is a liberal, as most blacks are, and the respondent is a conservative, then they might not like them for supporting ideas they don’t support. It doesn’t mean it’s an actual lack of love, but an unfavorable feeling. This is NOT racism, but logical, just as many blacks do not view white conservatives favorably.

On the issue of homosexuality, unfavorability is not the same as hate. If you ask Christians if they have favorable opinions about adulterers, those cohabitating outside of marriage, and so forth, they will likely not feel very favorable. This does not mean a lack of love. It can, and in some cases, likely does. In most cases, probably not.

Despite these criticisms, this book is invaluable for its exposing myths and correcting the record on the state of Christianity in America. I recommend it for those wanting to gain a better idea of where we really are in this country as Christians, and how to progress even further.

——————–

I received this book from Bethany House for the purposes of review. I am obligated to post the review on my blog and on a commercial web site such as Amazon.com. I want to emphasize that the opinions above are my honest viewpoint. I want to thank Thomas Nelson for allowing me to review this book, and thank you all for reading this.

—–

I have a separate blog for cultural, entertainment, and such issues. I only post the items on both blogs that I believe would be of interest or benefit to others to read. Please visit my other blog if you are interested.

Many people have talked about the comments of the kooks on the Journolist server, who debated whether Fox News Channel should be shut down or not. The listserv has forever shattered the myth of the so-called “unbiased media”. Arguably, the myth was already shattered, and this merely finished the task for most people, other than confirmed ideologues. Also of note were the words of Shirley Sherrod, fired from the Department of Energy in the Breitbart tape release issue, and CNN anchors discussing whether blogs should have their speech controlled by the government.

Both of these incidents, and many others, including Arianna Huffington’s statement to legally restrict Glenn Beck’s freedom of speech are concerning. They are not, however, the important issue. The important story, which the press will not report, is the seeming love-affair of the Left with authoritarianism.

If this dalliance could be restricted to Marxist regimes overseas, it would be one thing. It cannot. The US and Europe have elements of the Left that have historically been very favorably disposed towards the ideas first promulgated by Marx himself to restrict the freedoms of the press and religion. Nothing is really new about this. The “new” part is that there is an Administration in power in DC who has a sympathy for this incredibly frightening perspective. The examples abound.

Former White House communications director Anita Dunn famously spoke of her admiration of Mao. Though the Fox News Channel, conservative blogs, and talk radio all reported this with incredulity, the so-called mainstream media completely ignored it. The idea that an official in the White House admires one of the worst mass murderers in history seemed of little import to the press.

More recently, the FCC chairman  Julius Genachowski, and Obama “diversity czar” Mark Lloyd have expressed their admiration for Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. The two men argue that by restricting freedom of speech, the government guarantees the downtrodden can be better heard. Of course, it’s the government’s definition of “downtrodden” that controls who can speak or not, but no problem, we can always trust them, right?

This is where the crisis comes into play. The Administration is trying to misuse the regulatory powers granted by Congress to regulate the internet. I am not saying this lightly just because I disagree with them, but because it is true. They are attempting to reclassify the understanding of the definition of the internet and the idea of a utility, as well as stretching the powers of the agency to areas the Congress never envisioned for it to have.

Some will say that I am becoming a conspiracy-driven black helicopter guy. Perhaps. Perhaps not. I do know one thing, however. That is that I fought for my country so NONE of our freedoms would ever be lost. Yet lose them we have in terms of medical care and choice, financial privacy and autonomy and in terms of much of our individuality as people. Despite all of this, I am not ready to throw my hands up in frustration. I still believe that good will win out in the end. If we lose the rights to speech, press, and religion, however; it really will be over. Without these fundamental cornerstones of our Republic, we can no longer control our government and have a say in how it functions.

The Left has a crazy and evil love affair with authoritarianism, and for all of our sakes, we must realize this, and stop them, before it is too late.

If one turns on the popular Fox News Channel show, The O’Reilly Factor, at night, one will invariably at least a couple of times a week hear the host attacking talk radio. Bill O’Reilly takes particular aim at the idea put forth by Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, and others, that the Administration is allowing the tragedies and disasters plaguing our country to continue, if not making them worse, out of a desire to hurt America, and change it. O’Reilly mocks this and insists that the president has only the best for our country in mind. Obama is merely misguided, goes the argument. At first, that idea may have been feasible, but now it is clearly not the case.

Of course, many will be shocked at the idea. “What? How can someone even suggest such a thing? Of course the president has our best interests at heart!” Really? A look at a few areas of great national importance should dispel this notion.

I. The Economy: To argue that the president’s actions and policies on the economy have been wrongheaded is putting it mildly. An utter failure might be a better way of describing things. The massive spending and debt threaten to destroy the economy. Of course, the most oft-cited excuse is that the president is following Keynesian economic theory, but this is an ignorant analysis. Keynes, for all of his nutty statism, was in favor of tax cuts to offset the massive inflationary tendencies of too much government spending and borrowing. To be sure, he favored massive spending, but he also favored tax cuts to spur economic growth. His ideas are wrong-headed, as people have learned in Europe (Greece, anyone?) but they are not what the Administration is advocating. Obama seems intent on pushing policies that are not only unworkable, but that even liberal economists (if they were capable of honesty) would shake their heads at.

In a funny incident that illustrates this point perfectly, one of the president’s own top economic advisors publicly stated that tax cuts are beneficial to helping the economy recover. She promptly was smacked down and changed her story. One can say she’s unprincipled or smart. She changed her public views, but one can hardly fault her for not wanting to join the rest of us in the unemployment line.

II. The BP oil spill: This example is perhaps the most egregious. One could probably write a whole article over the glee that presidential chief of staff Rahm “never let a good crisis go to waste” Emmanuel must be experiencing over this one. Now, to be fair, the president could hardly have stopped the spill from occurring, but he could have done different steps since it started.

We have learned, for instance that the Dutch government offered the US oil skimmers. Other governments offered us help as well. We decided to turn them down. To be sure, American ingenuity is second to none, but it does stand to reason that countries with vast oil deposits and that are lower to sea level such as Middle-Eastern and European countries may know a thing or two more than us about how to handle such problems.

The argument here is the Jones Act, which governs and forbids foreign vessels in US waters. This act can be waived, however, as President Bush did during Katrina, and other presidents have done previously. In other words, this argument doesn’t hold much water. (Excuse the bad joke).

Another huge mistake is the active effort to stop any sand berms, rock barriers, or other protective constructions from being built. The fact that the Administration takes forever to grant the governors in the region permission to take steps to protect their states and people is bad enough, but they actually have stopped these leaders from taking steps to remedy the situation. The Coast Guard, on more than one occasion has actually blocked skimmers from removing oil, and stopped other efforts to halt the flow of oil or remove it from the beaches and water.

Of course, beyond this incomprehensible behavior comes the utterly ridiculous. As the Administration attempts to call in James “Navi” Cameron. That’s right folks, a movie director whose imagination includes oversized smurfs defending nature on another planet from evil veterans, is the great hope called in for advice. In one of its very few smart moves, BP told the gasbag to take a hike.

III. Immigration: Here we have the most absurd situation yet. Border states, especially Arizona, are doing their best to combat a massive inflow of illicit drugs, a surge in kidnappings, and violence against their citizens on the border and police officers. In the midst of all of this, what does our great Anointed One do? He first trashes Arizona by himself, then invites over the Mexican shrimp Calderone to help him, then he files suit yesterday against the law, all without ever having read the bill.

There is much conjecture that the president is trying to win over the Hispanic vote, and that has some merit with his calls of late for a “comprehensive immigration reform bill”. However, it should be noted that even before this call came, the president had a policy of allowing the bleeding to continue. Why? One answer might be that he does not believe in an America with borders. He sees himself as past all of that “American president stuff”. Allowing the bleeding at the border to occur will eventually accomplish his ideas, with or without a bill. Recent signs posted by the federal government warn Americans to not go into “dangerous territory” on the border, due to dangerous cross-border criminal activity. The government has de facto ceded control of this parcel of land to the Mexican drug lords. Look for this to continue.

The question for any person to ask is why the president has made these boneheaded decisions that are so clearly against the national interest. I believe he is a nihilist, wanting to destroy everything we have and hold dear. Others believe he is a closet Muslim. Or a socialist. Or he may have a Grand Canyon-sized chip on his shoulder and want to punish us all. Perhaps he believes that we are evil Imperalists who have pillaged the rightful resources from the rest of the world, as so many Leftists today believe. Honestly, we may never know.

Really, does it matter? The president makes decisions that hurt us. He hurts the country he is supposed to represent. It is a hard truth to accept, but it is the truth, and hiding our heads in the sand will only hurt us all. For whatever reason, the president is out to hurt us. The sooner we accept this painful fact, and put in place elected representatives who will bar his actions and uphold the Constitution, the better off we will all be.

For those of you putting up flags, here are some guidelines about the use and care of flags. These guidelines are not legally enforceable, nor should they be. They are, however, practices that good and honorable Americans will try to follow.

God bless our flag, and God bless America. HOOAH!!!!

Republican candidate for US Senate from Nevada, Sharron Angle

This past week, Sharron Angle won the Republican nomination to oppose Senator Harry Reid in his re-election bid in Nevada. This race has become a huge deal for both parties. Not only is Sen. Reid the Senate Majority Leader, but he also represents a reliably “red” state, where his negatives are about as high as someone of such stature could have.

Reid is clearly worried about re-election, so he decided to interfere, or so the rumor mill goes. The rumors are that the Reid campaign wanted Angle to win, because they see her as the easiest candidate to defeat, or in the words of the Reid campaign, “destroy”. This is a huge mistake on the part of the Reid campaign, as well as a great misunderstanding of the current political dynamic in the country.

To be sure, the senator’s campaign does have some good selling points, and the Republicans would be quite foolish to ignore this fact. The Reid campaign can point to two areas that are historically very persuasive in re-election campaigns for figures as powerful as Reid. They are the length of time in the Senate, and the power of his office. In response to the Tea Party accusations that he is just another Washington hat, the senator can point to the fact that he represents his constituents quite well in Washington. Indeed, he can use the same trick that most liberals campaigning in conservative areas have used, the argument that they have to make an almost-Faustian deal sometimes, to stay in power, and push the people’s real interests and goals. In this argument, the time in office has allowed him to accumulate the power and position to do this.

Despite the overall good poll ratings of Sharron Angle, whom Rasmussen Reports has winning over Reid by eleven points, and the current political climate, Reid could still pull out an upset. The race is clearly Angle’s to lose, because combating Reid’s campaign talking points is easy with the right strategy. Once the talking points are neutralized, the momentum of the Tea Party should pull the Angle campaign easily over the finish line.

The question is how can the Angle campaign convince people to turn in a Senate leader for a new freshman senator? To be honest, without some raw political bargain that might potentially turn away the base, there is no way to make Sharron Angle a better deal in terms of raw ability to gain resources for Nevada. The only way to defeat Reid on this issue is to convince the people of Nevada that this exercise in raw political power is harmful to the state and nation. Indeed, it corrupts the office holder.

The national deficit is astronomically high at over thirteen billion dollars, and is about to get much, much higher. In large part, this is thanks to Harry Reid’s support and ushering through of the health care bill. This is on top of the so-called “Cap and Trade” bill, the support for overall increased spending, the support for amnesty for illegal aliens, and other liberal ideas that the liberal senator is eager to push through. These ideas are not what the people of Nevada tend to favor.

Yet Harry Reid continues to be re-elected even though he supports these ideas. It’s an old game. He claims to support the ideas of his constituents, but then goes to Washington, and does the opposite of what he says. This type of duplicity, or lying, is typical of Washington politicians, especially those Democrats that run in conservative or right-leaning states and districts.

The enormous disconnect between the pleasing rhetoric of Sen. Reid and his actions on Capitol Hill is the first point that the Angle campaign can make. The second point is a bit more complex, but can easily be broken down to two simple questions. What do all the perks matter if you are still unemployed? If the pot is constantly shrinking, how does a continually smaller “return” on tax dollars, help you? Sharron Angle must point out not only the disconnect between Harry Reid and the voters in Nevada, but also point out how the policies that he has pushed over his time in office are actually hurting Nevadans.

This is where the Reid campaign has made its mistake in thinking Angle an easy candidate to defeat. The very arguments that resonate with the Tea Party voters are also the arguments that will sink the Senator in any debate that the two are sure to have. Indeed, the label of “kook” that the Reid campaign plans to give her can be dispelled by simply appealing to the beliefs of Nevadans, and asking what good the Washington programs that Senator Reid favors have done for Nevada. Reid should be careful of his tactics and labels, because he might not like the people of Nevada thinking about the answer to this question.

The old adage about getting what you wish may just apply to Senator Reid. He may end up regretting what he wished for in Sharron Angle.

Official Seal of the Department of the Army

I am an American Soldier.
I am a Warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the United States and live the Army Values.

So begins the “Soldier’s Creed”, which every member of the United States Army must memorize and recite during Basic Combat Training. I think back on this creed today as I think about the 235th birthday of the Army.

The United States Army has fought for 235 years to protect Americans and others around the world from death, persecution, famine, and genocide. Yet the most incredible part about this is not just the heroism of the Army, but the selflessness of soldiers, even when they did not agree with what was happening themselves. Even when most civilians do not support the mission, they fight on.

Historically, the only war that was actually “popular” was World War II. All other wars were either unpopular the entire time, or during parts of that war. Serving in these wars was, and is, a thankless task. Most people might give a show of support, if you are fortunate, but most of the time, they can’t be bothered. They rail against the war, whichever it is, and never take a thought to how this might affect the troops in the combat zone. Will it discourage and demoralize them? This is rarely considered by those who protest and condemn the conflicts.

Nevertheless, the soldiers carry on, fighting to accomplish the mission, and serve the American people. They fight for each other as well. Even though the American people might not honor them, they honor each other. For 235 years, they have done so. Officer and Enlisted, they have done so.

On this one day, let us honor them as well. God bless America, and God bless the United States Army.Happy 235th Birthday! HOOAH!!!!!

The Soldier’s Creed