Jewish Radio Host Defends Coulter

Dennis Prager is a radio talk show host and a syndicated columnist. He is also Jewish. Below is an excerpt paraphrasing comments Prager had about the Ann Coulter controversy on his show yesterday.

From the Modern Conservative:

He stated that there was nothing anti-Semitic about wishing that Jews would become Christians. We all wish that people would come around to our points of view on most everything. This is human nature. We all hold our beliefs and values to be ideal and want others to agree and validate our positions. Dennis pointed out that much of the secular Left wants everyone to abandon religion and become part of the secular Left and that no one in the media or on the Left seems to have a problem with this. The secular Left even goes to the level of demeaning and deriding religious people as intellectually inferior and less worldly. Prager mentioned as another example that, although Jews don't proselytize, most Jews want everyone to be ethical monotheists or adhere to a belief in one G-d under a common set of ethical precepts. Basically, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with feeling your views are superior and wanting other people to believe as you do as long as you aren't using violence or being coercive in some way. (Exactly what the Islamists are trying to do).

Also, Prager pointedly remarked that the Left is focusing on this as a 'virulently anti-Semitic' remark while it ignores real anti-Semitism a la Carter, Mearsheimer and Walt, Ahmadinejad, etc. and how dangerous this is for Jews. To focus on an innocuous comment, which is essentially a wish, at the current level of hysteria, minimizes and obfuscates genuine expressions of Jew hatred.

I concur.

HT to Free Republic.

Jewish Editor Backs Coulter

David Horowitz, a Jew and a former liberal, has a take similar to mine on the phony controversy over Ann Coulter's recent remarks.

From WorldNetDaily:

David Horowitz, editor of Front Page Magazine, says in his blog today he's received "a surprising number of e-mails from friends basically asking 'What are you going to do about Coulter?'"

"My response is this," Horowitz writes, "What else would a Christian hope for? That's the message of the New Testament: Jesus came to fulfill, complete, perfect the Law. If you're a Christian, that's what you believe."

The controversy began when Media Matters, a pro-Democrat lobby headed by David Brock, noted Coulter's appearance on CNBC's "The Big Idea" with host Donny Deutsch. Presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton recently claimed credit for helping to launch Media Matters.

So is this Jewish man a genocidal Jew-hater as the Left claims of Coulter?

I guess you have to give Media Matters an A for effort, if not accuracy. They're getting pretty regular with these phony attacks which seek to discredit any conservative who doesn't have a noodle-spine. Sadly for them, their claims don't hold any water when you look at them intelligently. But for those who don't stop to examine facts, or don't want to know the facts, these drive-by tactics can prove effective in the public square.

Horowitz continues:

"If you don't accompany this belief by burning Jews who refuse to become perfected at the stake why would any Jew have a problem?" he writes. "Why do some Jews think that Christians should not really believe what they believe while it's okay for Jews to really believe they are God's Chosen People? I don't get it. Whatever happened to the pluralism of ideas?"

See, this kind of overreaching the Left has been up to lately really shows their hand. For years, they've claimed the title of Apostles of Tolerance, when in reality, the only tolerance they want is for their viewpoint. When it comes to a Christian or otherwise traditional view, their attitude is, "Not only is your view wrong, it should be erased from public view." It's only a matter of time before the general public realizes the depths of their hypocrisy.

Meanwhile, truth, facts and accuracy takes it on the chin. Hard.

The Lessons of Media Matters

Leftists are as predictable as the sunset; you know it's coming sooner or later, and it'll be dark.

So it is with SouthDakotaMac (who can't seem to spell my name right--or is that just a juvenile cheap shot?). Once again proof that the Left isn't interested in intellectual honesty, logic, or truth. "Don't bother me with the facts--I have an agenda to promote."

SouthDakotaMac takes issue with my defense of the latest phony Media Matters controversy surrounding comments made by Ann Coulter. Predictably, those comments are being taken out of context by the Left in order to smear a conservative and thus hopefully undermine conservative ideals in the minds of the general public. And they are being taken out of context using one of the Left's favorite plays: the race card. They seek to paint Coulter as an anti-Semitic Jew-hater because she believes Christianity is the best way to find truth.

Let's examine some of SouthDakotaMac's points.

Yes because the My Religion Can Beat Up Your Religion has not emotional component to it at all. And it wasn't just a matter of "prefering" one religion to another, it was about ridding the world of the jewish religion.

Christianity is an intellectual religion. While all religions (even atheism) requires a certain element of faith, Christianity is not just a religion but a pursuit of knowledge, as it seeks understanding of the Author of all knowledge. But that isn't really what SDMs statement was about--it was about undermining my argument with a cheap shot without the need to bother with intellectual debate.

Also, "ridding" carries the connotation of a systematic, oppressive elimination of a group or belief. Coulter's statement said nothing of the sort. Christianity went from a religion of 12 to a religion of millions not by forcefully eradicating anyone's beliefs, but by proving itself to those who accepted it as the way to truth. That remains true today.

SDM is also upset with Coulter's statement that "we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians" (which was her interviewer's choice of words, not hers). Again, there is no implication of an oppressive campaign. Anytime we abandon a belief, we "throw it away." When I became a Christian, I threw away my belief that humanism was better; no one forced me to, but I had no need of it anymore.

Then SDM resorts to a tactic which is quite popular these days, as personified by Media Matters and their war on anyone who doesn't see things their way. He quotes my previous post

We would probably agree to this supposition if it were a cure for cancer, the discovery of a clean energy source, or something that would make us all supremely happy? So why is it so wrong to want everyone to embrace the solution you've found to spiritual separation from God, in this life and the next? As long as no one's being forced, where's the harm?

Then proceeds to take it completely out of context (SDM must really be a star pupil of Media Matters):

So there you have it ladies and gentlemen, according to Bobbie and his ilk, being Jewish is equal to having cancer, or something else that is in need of solving.

SDM has already proved he/she/it (what is SDM's real name?) isn't interested in truth, but in misrepresenting, discrediting and thus eradicating (gee, isn't that what he/she/it accused Coulter of? Hmmm...) a point of view which he/she/it finds unpleasant. But I'll indulge anyone who is interested in an explanation for this out-of-context passage.

Contrary to what liberals would have us believe, there is absolute truth out there (e.g. 2+2=what, ladies and gentlemen?). Islam makes the claim that the path of Allah is the only way to find that truth. Judaism also makes a claim of exclusivity, in that Jehovah is the one true God. Christianity also believes the claim of Judaism, but also that Y'shua is God's son, and that faith in Him and His sacrifice for a sinful humanity is the only way to meet God's approval. We can debate which of these is correct or most correct, but the fact remains that the three major religions of the world make the claim that there is an absolute, exclusive truth. If you claim to be an adherent to any of these, then you believe there is a specific way to attain a more fulfilled life here on earth, and a specific way to meet God's standard and go to Heaven once you die. (Sidenote: even atheists believe in their own absolute truth--that humans would be better off abandoning belief in a deity and recognizing human reason as the ultimate intellectual force in the universe). So finding that solution isn't the sinister, hateful thing SDM makes it out to be. To proffer one more example, if you knew that a bridge was out on the road ahead, would the correct thing to do be to smile and wave at people as they drove past you and over the precipice...or to warn them? If you were the one driving unsuspectingly toward the precipice, would you want someone to tell you about the danger...or just smile as you drove ahead to your doom? (Feel free to take that out of context, too, SDM).

SDM then places what he believes to be the icing on his phony cake:

So where is the slippery slope for Bobbie and his Dakota Voice:
.
What other group viewed Jews as something that needed to be cured?
.
What other group sees their own superiority and views others as inherently inferior and in need of being "improved"?

Ah, now I understand. Bob is evil. Bob is Hitler. Bob is taking us down a slippery slope to genocide. Uh huh. (For the record, anyone who knows me knows that I love the Jewish people and have the greatest respect for them, even as I believe those who haven't accepted Y'Shua as Messiah are missing out on their promised Redeemer). Incidentally, many Jews who have accepted Y'Shua as Messiah also want their Jewish brethren to be "completed," so are these Jews genocidal Jew-haters, too?

Coulter's intent, which was to promote and defend both her Republican values and the predominately Christian heritage of this nation, is irrelevant when the opportunity for a smear arises.

SDM, in his out-of-context, likely intentional misrepresentation of what I said doesn't even realize it, but he has proven himself to be exactly what he claims Coulter and I are: an intolerant person who wants to eliminate a point of view from sight.

The difference is, I'd prefer to win over (those who have an interest in the truth in the first place) with persuasion, facts and logic. Others, meanwhile, would rather do so with emotionalism, demonization, misrepresentation, and fear mongering. Check out some of the comments to SDM's post for further examples of this behavior.

But then, what's new on the Left?

Encouraging Others NOT to Share our Beliefs

I know it's hard to believe, but Ann Coulter is once again at the center of a controversy.

From WorldNetDaily:

In the Monday interview, Deutsch asked Coulter: "If you had your way ... and your dreams, which are genuine, came true ... what would this country look like?"

"It would look like New York City during the [2004] Republican National Convention.," Coulter said. "In fact, that's what I think heaven is going to look like."

In her recollection of the convention, she said: "People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America."

"It would be better if we were all Christian?" Deutsch asked.

"Yes," she said.

Later, Deutsch returned to the subject, saying: "[Y]ou said we should throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians."

"Yes," she replied again.

First, you have to remember that Coulter is the queen of hyperbole. Hyperbole is a truth which is exaggerated to make a point. Countless people use hyperbole, even in everyday language, across all ideological and political lines. When Coulter uses hyperbole, it's not to say that she doesn't mean it, and it doesn't mean it's made up; what it means is she's making an exaggerated statement to get your attention and illustrate a point.

But if we can set our emotionalism aside for a moment, let's examine what she actually said and why it has liberals boiling: she had the audacity to prefer one religion over another--AND SAY SO!

But step back from a moment from the preachings of the politically correct Church of Tolerance and think about this.

Does ANY religion say, no, we don't want people to believe like we do. Do atheists for that matter say, no, we don't want people to believe like we do? Everyone wishes others saw things the way they do. The lack of logic here speaks for itself, so why is Coulter expected to take such a position?

Now let's examine theology for just a moment. Are Christians supposed to try to perpetuate their faith? They're not supposed to do so at the edge of a sword, as Islam, the "religion of peace," has historically done for centuries, but are Christians supposed to try and convince other of the truth of their beliefs?

Did Jesus say, when he issued the Great Commission, "Go forth but don't make any disciples, just encourage others to do their own thing?" Did Jesus say, "Don't be light and salt to a hurting world; just let them go on stumbling around in the dark and suffering from ignorance?" Silly, huh? So why is Coulter being hammered?

If someone has the answer to a problem, isn't it reasonable that they'd want to share that answer with others also plagued by the problem? Could you even make the case that they have an obligation to share the answers with others?

We would probably agree to this supposition if it were a cure for cancer, the discovery of a clean energy source, or something that would make us all supremely happy? So why is it so wrong to want everyone to embrace the solution you've found to spiritual separation from God, in this life and the next? As long as no one's being forced, where's the harm?

I may do more on this later, but consider a few quick thoughts on the Jewish angle of this controversy, and how Coulter's remarks were supposedly anti-Semitic. Was Jesus Jewish? Were his disciples Jewish? Did Jesus' disciples try to convince Jews to embrace Christianity? Were Jesus and his disciples anti-Semitic? Are there any Jews today who encourage other Jews to recognize Jesus (Y'Shua) as the Messiah, and if so, are these Jews anti-Semitic?

Kudos to the Argus Leader and Young Socialists

I had to re-read Sheri Levisay's Voices post on the Young Socialists Club at Roosevelt High School in Sioux Falls. At first, probably because someone made the same asinine comment on this blog a few days ago, I thought she actually believed this:

It’s a little bit too easy to shrug off the objections of some people to the Young Socialists Club at Roosevelt High School. Don’t they know the Cold War is over?

Then, after re-reading it a couple of times, I think she's just repeating for illustrative purposes the asinine comments of some really ignorant people.

For those who don't understand what I'm getting at, someone who makes an associative comment in this context about socialism and the demise of the Soviet Union is making the implication that socialism disappeared with the Soviet Union. Nothing could be further from the truth. Socialism, one of the flavors of Marxism, still thrives throughout the world, despite the demise of it's most virulent form in the Soviet Union.

Socialism, a more benign but still very destructive form of Marxism, is rampant in Europe. I lived in England for three years, so I've seen it up close. A National Health Service that is a pathetic method of delivering health care. The government taxes everything in sight to pay for all it's socialistic programs, including pets, outdoor water spigots on your home, and even TV. Their government owns or is heavily invested in rail (much bigger there than here) and their utilities (electric, oil and gas). Huge segments of the population live in government housing, even in small towns. The number of people they have on welfare (the dole) outnumbered ours by far, even before the Republican welfare reforms of the mid 1990s.

But we have a healthy (or rather, unhealthy) dose of it here in the United States. We have socialized medicine in Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, etc. We have our welfare programs, even though they've been cut back since the 1990s. We have Social Security. We have far too much government regulation and meddling here. The particularly sad thing about what we have here is that it is EXTREMELY rare that it is ever acknowledged or labeled as the socialism it is (it's apostles and the mainstream media realize it wouldn't rest as easy with the American public if we called it what it really is).

I don't give a lot of props to the Argus Leader, but I have to give them to Sheri for pointing out, for the moral equivalency apostles out there, one of the many critical differences between the Soviets and the free republics of the West: we didn't have to lock our people IN.

I also have to give her exceptional props for pointing out the dark truth about communism, along with the mention of the Black Book of Communism which documents the incredible crimes of communism:

The truth is out there, though. THE resource for the crimes against humanity committed in the name of Marxist regimes is “The Black Book of Communism”.

Many people know the number of people killed in Nazi concentration camps (14 million, 6 million of them Jews). But few realize that 100 million have fallen in the name of communism over the years, the largest portion being the 65 million who died in China’s Maoist revolution.

Finally, while I could not be more opposed to socialism and the advancement of that philosophy, I will at least give the Young Socialists Club props for being open and up front about what they believe and advocate. As I said above, most socialists in America avoid the label like the plague and Ebola combined.

I think it's great that the youth of Roosevelt High School will be able to examine socialism in the light of day. I believe that when most of them do, if they're intellectually honest about it's implications and effects, they will realize that socialism is devastating to productivity and the human spirit, and is antithetical to the U.S. Constitution and the American way of life. What they do with it then is up to them.

Nobel: The Politically Correct Prize

From CNS News:

Just as the buzz predicted, the winner of this year's Nobel Peace Prize is former Vice President of the United States Al Gore for spreading the word on global warming.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee announced on Friday that Gore would share the prize with the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which also blames human activity for warming the planet.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee said in awarding this year's peace prize, it wanted to highlight the importance of battling climate change.

As if we didn't already know, we have one more example to throw on the pile which proves the Nobel prize is not necessarily for achievement, but simply a way for liberals to but a seal of "respectability" (or so they hope) on their pet efforts and causes. With dictators and tyrants (and don't forget the bumbling tyranny-enabler Jimmy Carter), Gore is in good company as a recipient of a Nobel award.

The only ones fooled by this are the ones trying to fool others, however:

Critics of Al Gore believe that the former vice president should not receive a Nobel Prize for his efforts regarding global warming - including his film "An Inconvenient Truth" - but should perhaps get an award for his efforts as a climate change propagandist.

"The real 'inconvenient truth' is that Gore seems to have intentionally omitted it from his movie," Steve Milloy, publisher of JunkScience.com, charged in a news release on Thursday. Instead, the film presented "false facts" and major inaccuracies that fit the Democrat's personal agenda, he said.

Milloy pointed to a ruling last week in a British court that "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least nine material falsehoods and can be shown to students only if it is identified as containing "partisan political views" that promote only one side of the global warming argument.

The Candidate Calculator

A friend sent me a link to this "Candidate Calculator" to help you determine which presidential candidate most closely agrees with you.

Here's how it came out for me:

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R)88.89% match

Your Other Top Matches
Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo (R) - 87.30%
California Representative Duncan Hunter (R) - 85.71%
Businessman John Cox (R) - 84.13%


Middle of the Pack
Kansas Senator Sam Brownback (R) - 82.54%
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R) - 82.54%
Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson (R) - 82.54%
Texas Representative Ron Paul (R) - 68.25%
Arizona Senator John McCain (R) - 63.49%
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) - 48.41%
Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D) - 35.71%
Delaware Senator Joseph Biden (D) - 26.98%
New York Senator Hillary Clinton (D) - 25.40%
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (D) - 23.81%

Bottom of the Barrel
Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel (D) - 20.63%
Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd (D) - 19.05%
Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards (D) - 19.05%
Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich (D) - 15.87%

No big surprises here (though I know next to zero about John Cox--he must be a pretty good guy).

There are other intangibles or less-tangibles that affect this, though. For instance, while my "calculated" top pick is Romney, and we do see eye to eye on most things, I am uneasy with him as "my candidate" for a number of reasons.

First, I've read conflicting information about where he truly stands on abortion and homosexual issues. He seems to be saying the right things, but since he's changed his mind on some things--namely abortion--there is a bit of doubt in my mind as to whether that was a heart-felt change, or political opportunism. I'm in the process of trying to determine that now.

Also, there's the Mormonism question. I don't think that necessarily disqualifies him from getting my vote, but it is something I have to carefully consider. Mormonism makes some claims that are pretty far outside Christian orthodoxy (#1 that Jesus isn't THE son of God, just a god; also the polygamy that some believe in isn't supported by the Bible; and there are a number of other beliefs that simply can't be called "Christian")

These theological matters probably wouldn't directly come to bear in performing the duties of President of the United States. However, a person's faith and worldview come to the table whenever they do anything of significance, which is why Founder John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, said "...it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

Then there's Ron Paul, who came in above McCain. Admittedly, they're both toward the bottom, which is where I'd put them both. But here's where another of those "intangibles" comes in, though it's actually more a matter of degrees. While I agree with Ron Paul in many important areas, his opposition to the Iraq War and myopic view on the use of the American military policy overseas are so opposed to mine that this is a HUGE detractor for me ("high, medium and low" options just don't cut it for something this important). While I respect the wisdom of the Founders who warned against foreign entanglements, they didn't live in a world where ICBMs can wipe out a city of millions in 30 minutes, or militants in civilian clothes fly jet airliners into skyscrapers. And beyond that, his "Bush lied" and "war for oil" garbage makes him sound like he's been hanging out at MoveOn.org.

But the candidate calculator was interesting to try. Give it a shot. Just don't forget to consider those "intangibles" that are still important.

First Amendment Assault at Capitol Stopped

Who says complaining does no good and Christians should just keep silent as our religious freedoms and Christian heritage erodes away?

From The Hill:

Turner objected to the AoC’s decision to eliminate the word “God” from a certificate mailed to one of his constituents, a 17-year-old who wished to honor his grandfather. The requested text was, “This flag was flown in honor of Marcel Larochelle, my grandfather, for his dedication and love of God, Country and family.” The end of the message on the certificate returned with the flag instead read, “for his dedication and love of Country and family.”

The AoC said it was enforcing a rule, established in 2003, that said “religious expressions are not permitted on flag certificates.”

But that's changing now because some good people spoke up against this outrage against the First Amendment.

The Architect of the Capitol’s (AoC) office is reversing its policy on the use of religious language on flag certificates, according to a draft document, after dozens of lawmakers condemned the practice of removing the word “God” from the certificates.

Stephen Ayers, acting Architect of the Capitol, said in a statement the new policy will be effective immediately and will be outlined in a memo sent to congressional offices.

“The Office of the Architect of the Capitol is a service organization. Flying the flags over the Capitol is an important constituent service for Members of Congress. When one of our services or policies doesn’t effectively serve Members of Congress or the American public, it needs to be changed immediately,” Ayers said in a draft statement.

The Left, and all the destructive ideological groups that comprise the Left, have no qualms about being very outspoken and very loud. That's why traditional values and respect for the Constitution have been so undermined for the past 60 years: they've been very loud and very determined...while traditional Americans sat on their hands and moped.

It's time for Christians and other traditional American to stand up and counter the erosion of our history, our heritage, our rights and our Constitution. Time is running short; if we don't take a stand now, soon it'll be too far gone to reverse.

Unhealthy Pro-Abortion Campaign Continues

The Rapid City Journal provides coverage today of the South Dakota Campaign for (Un)Healthy Families petition drive to curtail abortion legislation.

The South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families is taking petitions door to door in several cities to show lawmakers that people are fed up with the fight over abortion.

The group hopes that many people will sign the petitions or contact their legislators and urge them not to revisit the issue in the 2008 lawmaking session.

Petitions were circulated Thursday in Sioux Falls, and the effort was scheduled to continue Friday in Rapid City. More than 4,000 homes in several towns were targeted last week. The group plans to conduct similar canvassing in about 10 more towns over the next two months.

I'm not sure why this group thinks dead babies, breast cancer, infertility, depression, substance abuse, and a host of other results of abortion are "healthy."

They don't need to stop by my house. No one here is in favor of killing unborn children, or allowing others to do it, either.

Socialized Medicine: Maybe for My Neighbor, Not for Me

Apparently the American people aren't as stupid as liberals think they are. While many may be overly magnanimous when it comes to the assumed deprivations of their fellow Americans, they don't want socialized medicine for themselves.

From Rasmussen Reports today:

A survey conducted September 29-30 found that 51% of American adults initially supported the notion that health care should be made available for free to all Americans. The survey also found that most Americans (52%) believed that such an approach would decrease the quality of health care in the United States. Just 29% thought it would improve the overall quality of care.

Forty-nine percent (49%) believe that making care available for free to everyone would increase the nation’s overall cost of providing care. Just 22% thought it would result in savings. Fifty-two percent (52%) thought that, when taxes were considered, the proposal would end up costing them more than they pay now. Just 28% thought their own costs would go down.

Despite these concerns, when asked to consider these impacts, 47% of adults continued to support the concept of providing health care for free to all Americans.

However, that support falters when people are asked to support a plan that provides coverage for all but requires everyone with insurance to “change their coverage and join a program administered by the government.” A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey conducted October 9-10 found that just 31% of adults would support that plan.

One big reason for the drop in support is that 68% of those who are already insured believe their own health care coverage would get worse. Only 18% think it would improve.

This poll is VERY revealing.

Americans in general have a recurring fault; it's one that seems benign on the surface, but can lead to great public follies. That fault is that while they usually know personally what a great country this is, what great opportunity they personally have, and how well off they personally are to live here...when it comes to their neighbor, they often buy into the sob stories and class envy promoted by the Left in their quest to get everyone worshipping at the Temple of the Government God.

For instance, back in April the Northwest Area Foundation released a survey built almost completely on how people in South Dakota perceive the poverty and needs of other South Dakotans. One claim of the report was "51 percent (of South Dakotans) know someone in their community who works two or more jobs and is struggling to make ends meet." How they know this, and the accuracy of their perceptions or statements, was not specified. At least one of the questions revealed that the aim of the survey was to prod government officials to dispense more of other people's money. This report wasn't built on facts, but perceptions. There was a lot of perceived need, but did it match up with reality?

Here's what I pointed out in the Rapid City Journal in response to the NAF survey:

In South Dakota, March unemployment was at 3.1 percent. USDL stats for 2005 say the average hourly wage statewide was $14.02, and was $14.18 for Rapid City. Those wages are undoubtedly higher now.

According to Investors Business Daily, in the past five years disposable income has risen 29 percent to $9.68 trillion and 69 percent of Americans own their own home.

Consider also the actual picture of poverty in America, where 43% of poor households own their own home, 80% have air conditioning, 97% have one color TV and more than 50% have two or more, 62% have cable/satellite TV, and more than 33% have an automatic dishwasher.

This Rasmussen report also sheds a lot of light on the chasm between perceptions and reality.

It seems that while many Americans are willing to acquiesce to imposing socialized medicine on their neighbor, when it comes to embracing it for themselves, they don't want any part of that.

THAT speaks pretty loudly, for those with ears to hear.

Quote of the Day: Hillary Clinton

From the Boston Globe:

Clinton recently floated the idea of issuing a $5,000 bond to each baby born in the United States to help pay for college and a first home, but it immediately inspired Republican ridicule and she quickly said she would not implement the proposal.

She defended that decision yesterday, saying she is focusing on proposals with more political support and she is not formally proposing anything she can't fund without increasing the deficit:

"I have a million ideas. The country can't afford them all."

Ain't that the truth! Just one or two will make your taxes skyrocket.

Dobson: Why I Cannot Vote for Rudy Guiliani

From Frank Pastore's column, here's why Dr. James Dobson and many other values voters can't bring themselves to support Guiliani:

Dobson: Here’s why I cannot vote for Rudy Giuliani. He’s pro-abortion. He’s never repudiated gay marriage in New York City or at least the civil unions in New York City. He’s called a champion of gay rights. Rudy is opposed to school choice. He’s in favor of open borders. He lived with a mistress in the mansion in New York while he was married to his wife—and she was in the same house. He’s been married three times. When his second wife got sick of it she threw him out and he went to live with two homosexuals. He appointed terrible liberal judges as a mayor; he says now he’ll appoint Scalia-type judges, you can believe that if you want to, I don’t because his record says otherwise. He dressed up in drag and appeared on “Saturday Night Live” in a very disrespectful manner—I just can’t see a presidential candidate doing something like that. He’s a Catholic, but says he will not be guided by it. He has utter disdain for the pro-life and pro-family movement. I mean it goes on and on and on.

Is Dobson alone in his lack of support for a candidate like this?

There was a Rasmussen poll on Thursday of last week that said 27 percent of the entire G.O.P said they would not vote for a pro-abortion candidate. You cannot win an election losing 27 percent of your base, you just can’t.

If you call yourself a Christian, can you support a candidate like this over better choices like Brownback, Hunter, Huckabee, and just about every other Republican candidate? If so, why?

Gallagher: Hillary Beats Rudy

Maggie Gallagher's latest column examines some of the things I've been saying about Guiliani and the potential third party bolt by values voters. Seems I'm not the only one who isn't buying the "Yeah, he may be pro-abortion and pro-homosexual, but he'll appoint judges who honor the Constitution."

And the Supreme Court is not the only issue of concern to social conservatives. What will Rudy do if and when a resurgent Democrat majority tries to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding for abortion? Or for that matter overturns the federal definition of marriage in the Defense of Marriage Act? Will Rudy spend his political capital on vetoing either of these? He's made us no promises. Instead, he's counting on widespread self-delusion and cognitive dissonance to carry enough social conservatives to win the nomination.

Gallagher also sees through that "he's the only one who can beat Hillary" smoke screen:

The halo of "America's Mayor" is already slipping. For months, polls showed Rudy Giuliani leading Hillary Clinton in a head-to-head matchup, but by June of this year that lead had begun to evaporate. The latest poll, conducted in late September by ABC News and The Washington Post, shows Hillary Clinton beating Rudy Giuliani by eight points. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney trails Clinton in a head-to-head matchup in the latest Rasmussen poll by only nine points. One point better than Romney does not a convincing argument make for abandoning all principles.

And that's before Christian conservative leaders bolt the party, which has abandoned them on abortion, to run a third-party candidate.

A little political realism, please. If you think a candidate who breaks up the Republican Party is the best man to lead the nation, vote for Rudy. But don't imagine, it's going to be easy to elect him.

But it's starting to look like Guiliani's losing steam on a number of fronts, according to the latest polls. Maybe people are starting to wake up to the realization that Guiliani's not the best person to represent Republican values...especially when he doesn't share so many of them.

Study: Parental Involvement Critical to Academics

From Education Week:

Low-income students who attend urban public high schools generally do just as well as private-school students with similar backgrounds, according to a study being released Wednesday.

Students at independent private schools and most parochial schools scored the same on 12th-grade achievement tests in core academic subjects as those in traditional public high schools when income and other family characteristics were taken into account, according to the study by the nonpartisan Center on Education Policy.

While the finding is in line with a handful of recent studies, it's at odds with a larger body of research over the years that has found private-school students outperform those in public schools. Some of that research found a private-school advantage even when income levels are taken into account.

However, the new study not only compared students by income levels but also looked at a range of other family characteristics, such as whether a parent participates in school life.

As the piece points out, a larger body of studies has still found greater achievement in private schools, but it appears this study examined what most don't: parental involvement.

The role of an active parent cannot be underestimated. Society is beginning to realize this, as evidenced not only by studies, but by the increasing number of TV and radio commercials that encourage parental involvement and guidance in academics, drug avoidance, abstinence and other areas of youth development.

This study might help explain why homeschooled children usually out-perform their public--and often even private--school peers. There is seldom a parent more involved in their child's life and education than the homeschooling parent.

Even for those who don't homeschool, though, this study reinforces the need for parental involvement. We can't just drop off the kids at a government institution and expect well-adjusted, productive people to pop out the other end after 12+ years.

Perkins: You Don't Beat a Liberal With a Moderate

Seems I'm not alone in stating that the Republican Party will lose, with our without a third party, if they nominate Guiliani for president.

Mark Silva quotes Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, at the Baltimore Sun:

“I don’t envision the majority of social conservatives actively moving toward endorsing a pro-abortion rights candidate,’’ he said. “This issue runs strong, and just to sing the simple ABC song – Anybody but Clinton -- is not enough to rally social conservatives who have been working for 30 years to support a culture of life.’’

Voter turnout will be greatly affected by the party's choices of nominees, he says. And conservatives will find "little difference'' between Giuliani and Clinton on a November ballot.

“My experience has been that you don’t beat a liberal with a moderate, because what you have is a motivated base on the left and a lack of enthusiasm on the other side,’’ he said. “In the eyes of many social conservatives, on social conservative issues, there is little difference between the two…

"When you get to a point where you have two candidates who are pretty much indistinguishable on those core social issues, then yeah, it’s kind of hard to see why you should vote for one over the other.’’

According to the piece, Perkins says he doesn't think it'll come to that, and I tend to agree.

Perkins says he expects the options for values voters to be more clear after the Washington Briefing I'll be attending next week.

“Support has not solidified for one of these candidates,’’ he says – but the “Values Voter Summit’’ planned in Washington on Oct. 18-20 should help advance that cause. With perhaps 2,000 or more expected to attend and hear each of the Republicans speak for 20 minutes, they will close the conference on that Saturday afternoon with a straw poll.

Liberalism Collides with Reality in San Francisco

Apparently even the liberal mecca San Francisco is getting fed up with the "homeless" problem.

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

San Francisco - the liberal, left-coast city conservatives love to mock - could be undergoing a transformation when it comes to homeless people. Although the city would still be a poor choice for a pep rally for the war in Iraq, indications are that residents have had it with aggressive panhandlers, street squatters and drug users.

"Maybe there has been an epiphany," says David Latterman, president of Fall Line Analytics, a local market research firm. "People have realized they can hate George Bush but still not want people crapping in their doorway."

"I don't expect it to be Cow Hollow or Pacific Heights," he says. "But the other day Jenny is bringing the kids back from the park, and some guy is standing on the corner throwing up on himself."

"We go out to drive the kids to school," he says, "and there's human poop between the cars."

This is what happens when the crop finally comes in and liberals reap the full fruits of their permissiveness.

Most of these folks aren't the "down-on-their-luck, hard-worker-oppressed-and-put-out-of-a-job-by-evil-capitalist-profiteers" people the Left paints them to be.

As a local article inadvertently pointed out here in Rapid City recently, many are in this situation because of substance abuse and mental problems that should warrant institutionalization, and most have reaped the fruits of moral failures.

The answer isn't to be "tolerant" of their situation and pat ourselves on the back for our open-mindedness, but to address the root causes of this situation.

It looks like things are getting so bad that even liberal San Francisco might have to rejoin the real world and do something substantive for a change.

UK: 7 Years in the Nick for 'Homophobia'

From the UK Telegraph:

People convicted of stirring up hatred against homosexuals face up to seven years in jail under a new law.

Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, told MPs that existing prohibitions against race and religious incitement would be extended to cover ''homo-phobic" behaviour.

His statement prompted fears among Christian organisations that they could be prosecuted for preaching that homosexuality was wrong.

Liberals are working on a similar path here in the States. The First Amendment will take a back seat to politically correct considerations.

Pretty soon, the only group it'll be legal to speak ill of will be Christians.

Faith, or Lack Thereof, in Star Trek

ON THE CHURCH AND SOCIETY

By Raymond J. Keating


Late last month, I stumbled upon a series of essays at NationalReview.com about Star Trek. It turned out to be the 20th anniversary of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Wow. Since I became a fan as a kid with the original Star Trek series in reruns during the 1970s, the fact that it’s been two decades since Captain Jean Luc Picard first beamed into our living rooms makes me feel kind of old.

Several conservatives writing on NR seemed to wrestle with being fans of this rather liberal television show. It’s an interesting point, including for this self-confessed conservative Trekker. Perhaps it’s as straightforward as a combination of interesting characters, compelling stories that often involve some big issues to debate and discuss, cool space stuff, and general sci-fi geekiness. (Full Article)

Praying to God or Government?

From CQ

God will be asked this Sunday to weigh in on the state children’s health insurance program, as members of various faith groups are encouraged to pray for an override of President Bush’s veto of the measure.

The call to prayer by the PICO National Network of religious organizations is aimed at generating at least 10,000 calls to 35 targeted members of Congress who voted against the bill (HR 976) but might still be convinced to support an override attempt Oct. 18.

I'm wondering if they'll be praying for God to provide for those who are truly needy, or if they'll be praying for government to provide for those who are needy?

See, normally people of faith ask GOD to help them, not government...unless government IS their god.

And if people are unable to meet their own needs through what God provides for them, the next step in God's plan is not for government to help, but other people:


If one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells some of his property, his nearest relative is to come and redeem what his countryman has sold. (Leviticus 25:25)

If a man will not work, he shall not eat. (2 Thessalonians 3:10)

These should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family (1 Timothy 5:4)

As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list…they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house (1 Timothy 5:13)

If any woman who is a believer has widows in her family, she should help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need. (1 Timothy 5:16)


So is it God or government they should be praying to? Is it welfare or people who are to help one another? I think PICO is barking up the wrong tree if they're looking for God...unless government is their god.

Besides, can you really say that someone making $83,000 a year, or nearly $40 an hour, is "needy?"

Hillary Better for Pro-Life Cause than Guiliani?

Randall Terry of Operation Rescue has issued a press release today entitled, "Hillary Would be a Better President than Rudy for the Pro-Life Cause."

While Terry hasn't sold me on that one, he does raise some points worthy of consideration for pro-lifers:

The ultimate goal of the pro-life movement is to make child-killing illegal again.

Concerning child-killing itself, Giuliani would appoint judges who will uphold Roe vs. Wade; he has stated he would allow federal funds (taxpayer dollars) to be used to pay for the death of unborn children; he would make pro-abortion appointments in positions of great power; all of this would result in setting the pro-life movement back 20 years, and severely undermining our goal of restoring the protection of law to unborn babies.

As President Giuliani would be the de-facto head of the GOP; he would systematically destroy the political power of the pro-life movement within the GOP; he would pressure the party to take the pro-life plank out of the party platform; he would declare the "abortion issue" is divisive, and should not be part of federal races; he would make the GOP the mirror image of the DNC regarding child-killing, thus insuring that there is no pro-life party.

An enemy outside your camp makes you vigilant; an enemy in your tent makes you dead. Hillary would unite us, and she could be defeated in 4 years; Giuliani would destroy the cohesion of the right wing.

Could we vote for a man who [was] right on every single issue, except that he was a racist? Or was a candidate who supported slavery? (Of course, he would never own his own slave, but he would defend any other white persons right to own his own Negro.) How then can we in good conscience vote for a man who supports the destruction of innocent human life, which is far worse than slavery or racism?

Guiliani to Speak at FRC Washington Briefing

The Family Research Council has announced that Rudy Guiliani has accepted the invitation to address the Washington Briefing coming up in about a week and a half.

Rep. Ron Paul has also recently accepted the invitation, which means all the Republican presidential candidates except Alan Keyes will be speaking at the event.

So far, still no Democrat candidates have accepted the invitation.

As I mentioned a week or so ago, I'll be going to the Washington Briefing Oct. 19-21, and will be sticking around through Oct. 22 to do some sight-seeing in Washington. I plan to provide updates throughout the conference (FRC will be having a "bloggers row"), and will get to attend a private screening of an upcoming family-friendly movie called Bella the evening of Oct. 18.

It should be an awesome weekend!

Will Third Party Bid Mean a Democrat Victory in 2008?

From the Raw Story:

"If in fact you were to mount a third-party challenge and support a third-party candidate, the result would be a 'landslide victory for Hillary Clinton,'" said Hannity, citing a recent Rasmussen poll that found Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani would lose to Clinton by 16 points if a more conservative pro-life alternative entered the race.

What Hannity's missing is that the Democrat nominee would win over Guiliani, even without a third party movement. Whether it's 6 points or 16 points is irrelevant: the Democrats win either way.

At least with a pro-life, pro-family third party option, people can remain true to their values without compromise, if they want to. And you never know: both parties have done a lousy job lately, so many people across party lines might decide they're fed up with the status quo and opt for something truly new. It's been a long time since a political party came and went...but it's happened before.

I like Hannity, but I think he's letting his admiration of Guiliani's 911 leadership cloud his judgment with regard to Guiliani's liberalism in other areas (e.g abortion, homosexuality).

Me, I'd hold my nose and vote for Guiliani if it was him or Clinton. But many values voters won't make that compromise of their principles. And even if they would, none of us is going to get excited enough to create the synergy a campaign needs to win. A candidate can't win if their core base is so disgusted with their party's nominee that they can't bring themselves to contribute money or contribute time for door-knocking and promoting their candidate to their friends, and all the energy that comes with a popular campaign.

It was this very phenomena that doomed Bob Dole's 1996 candidacy against Bill Clinton and produced a 9-point loss. Incidentally, Clinton STILL didn't gain a majority in the 1996 election, but even if you combine Dole's and Perot's numbers, Clinton still comes out on top. Voters just won't buy a fake liberal (a "moderate") when they can have a real one for the same price.

Guiliani has fallen to 4th place in Iowa, and a Des Moines Register poll reveals the vast majority of Republicans there are unthrilled with his pro-abortion position:

A new poll sponsored by the Des Moines Register newspaper finds former mayor Rudy Giuliani falling to fourth in the first presidential battleground. Additional questions of likely caucus-goers by the newspaper finds 75 percent of Republicans are turned off by his pro-abortion stance.

The only way to ensure Democrats don't win in 2008 is for the establishment to ditch it's support of Guiliani and get behind a candidate that more closely reflects actual Republican values. Some are better than others, but almost all (except maybe McCain) are better than Guiliani. The media isn't going to make it easy to highlight a candidate of solid Republican values, but the media isn't as monolithic as it used to be, either.

The Republican Party platform is a pro-life, pro-family one. A candidate who would leave innocent life and the family exposed to the ravages of a hostile society doesn't deserve a Republican nomination.

South Dakota (Un)Healthy Families on the March

The pro-abortion crowd isn't waiting for the legislature to get back in session in January; they're taking the first shot on the abortion battlefield.

Below is a flier distributed by the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, the pro-abortion group that thinks dead babies are "healthy."

When abolitionists worked to free black people, maybe they should have listened to people who said, "Enough is enough. It's time to move forward and work on important issues." Perhaps Martin Luther King Jr. should have listened to the same advice when he fought for equal rights with whites.

People fighting to save the lives of unborn children will never give up and "move on." Sexual freedom and career goals never trump the right to simply live.

Epidemic of Homosexual Restroom Sex

In commenting on a post about the disgraceful Clinton "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" homosexuals-in-the-military policy, Anonymous yesterday made the claim:

If you believe homosexuals are incapable of controlling themselves, you must be basing your opinion on wrong, hateful stereotypes.

In a subsequent comment, I cited why I question the willingness of homosexuals to control themselves, and here is a fresh example of why:

From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

Andy Bookwalter complained for years about people having sex in the restrooms at the Georgetown Playfield near his house.

But the situation peaked in September, when somebody actually started advertising on Craigslist.

"Looking for fun in Georgetown," the post was titled. "Looking for someplace fun to get off with other men? Georgetown park bathroom between 11:00 a.m. and 1 p.m. is a great place. Hit me up if you would like to pick a time."

It's not the kind of thing he wants his two young sons -- 3 and 1 -- to walk in on someday.

This is far from the only area dealing with this problem. Democratic Mayor of Fort Lauderdale Jim Naugle was in the news a couple of months ago for his welcome efforts to stop this in his community.

Normal, mentally healthy people don't run around having anonymous sex in public restrooms. Such a behavior is strong evidence that self-control is lacking.

And on the military question, we don't need these antics--or the risk of them--going on in a tank, a bomber, an air-refueling tanker, a ship, a submarine, or a foxhole. We don't need this going on in public restrooms, but beyond that, national defense is too important to risk with politically correct social experiments.

LATEST: Morningstar Ad Rejection

Last week, I posted on an article from OneNewsNow which stated Morningstar had rejected an ad from Faith Financial Planners on the basis of it's Christian content.

I provided an update on the issue last Friday which stated Morningstar says the ad was NOT rejected based on it's Christian content, but on other grounds.

I have made additional inquiries to Faith Financial Planners and OneNewsNow, but there is nothing new to report. I haven't heard from Faith Financial Planners at all, and my contact at OneNewsNow says he also has not heard from FFP, and has nothing new to report at this time.

I will provide new information as it becomes available.

Clinton Campaign Stops at Burglar King for a Bite

Looks like Hillary Clinton now has the help she needs to run smooth presidential campaign.

From Fox News:

Republican lawmakers blasted Sen. Hillary Clinton Monday after learning that the campaign is taking advice from Sandy Berger, a former top aide to President Bill Clinton who admitted stealing classified documents and disposing them.

Sandy Burglar, er, Berger has an impressive resume that could prove very useful in a political campaign. Need embarassing documents about an associate's suicide to disappear? Failures in your policy on terrorism? One could only imagine what might disappear down his pants leg or socks.

Selective Media Coverage of Homosexuals

Kelly Boggs at the Baptist Press brings up an interesting examination of the recent homosexual-fest, the Folsom Street Fair.

It would seem the mere fact that 400,000 people gathered in one place would be news, regardless of the reason they came together. The big three television networks didn't seem to think so since they also were missing in action.

If it were not for a few niche and alternative news publications, no one outside of San Francisco would have an inkling of what took place at the Folsom Street Fair. So what is the event and what exactly takes place? Be forewarned, the following descriptions are not for the faint of heart, even though they have been edited to mute the content.

The Folsom Street Fair is one of San Francisco's premier celebrations of alternate lifestyle -- specifically "leather pride." The "leather community" is a euphemism for those that indulge in sadomasochism, also known as S&M. These are individuals that enjoy bondage, whipping, spanking and other unmentionable perversions.

While the Folsom Street Fair does draw a few heterosexual sadomasochists to the event, it is clear from reports that the overwhelming number celebrating were homosexuals –- mostly male.

The most detailed report of the event came from Pink News, an organization that describes itself as "Europe's largest gay news service."

"American police adopted a distinctly relaxed approach to this year's Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco," Pink News observed, "taking little notice of the hundreds of men baring their genitals on every street corner."

According to Pink News, there were orgies in the street, drawing "laughs and photographs from curious onlookers but no police action." Homosexual men and women walked down the street, completely naked, performing sex acts, the website reported. (Keep in mind the website provided far more detailed descriptions.)

Why, you might ask, would the media take a pass on this huge homosexual event? After all, the "mainstream" media is usually there will bells on to provide positive coverage of homosexuals and their agenda, any time they can. Maybe the answer can be found in the strategy outlined by homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen about 20 years ago in their book "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s."

For instance, from page 183 under Principle 5 (of "The Strategy of 'Waging Peace': Eight Practical Principles for the Persuasion of Straights") entitled "Portray gays as victims of circumstance and oppression, not as aggressive challengers":

In practical terms, this means that cocky mustachioed leather-men, drag queens, and bull dykes would not appear in gay commercials and other public presentations. Conventional young people, middle-age women, and older folks of all races would be featured, not to mention the parents and straight friends of gays.

The really offensive types must be kept out of the public view, as well as the criminally indictable mentioned on page 184:

It cannot go without saying, incidentally, that groups on the farthest margins of acceptability, such as NAMBLA [North American Man-Boy Love Association], must play no part at all in such a campaign. Suspected child molesters will never look like victims.

How does this media campaign play out? That is outlined, in part, on page 170:

Indeed, the wide range of favorably sanitized images that might be shown in the media could eventually have a more positive impact on the homosexual stereotype than could exposure to gay friends, since straights will otherwise generalize a suboptimal impression of gays from the idiosyncratic admixture of good and bad traits possessed by their one or two gay acquaintances. (One of the special advantages of a media campaign is that it can—and should—portray only the most favorable side of gays, thereby counterbalancing the already unfairly negative stereotype in the public’s mind. When this is done, the picture labeled queer is aggressively painted over; prior images of dirty old queens or coarsened dykes are overlaid with pleasing new images of all-American and Miss American types.)

As you see, the Folsom Street Fair was "overlooked" by the "mainstream" media because it was too transparent about homosexual behavior. It wasn't glossed over, cleaned up and polished enough.

How does it feel to be played like a fiddle, America?

Values Voters Can't Support Liberal Republicans

Focus on the Family's Citizen Link points to a New York Times poll (not a bastion of conservatism, to be sure) which indicates Guiliani or any pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Republican candidate would be in trouble, regardless of any third party contingency plans by values voters.

A New York Times/CBS News poll shows white, evangelical Republicans agree with Dr. James Dobson.

Nearly 60 percent of those who plan to vote in the primaries said they could not support a candidate they didn't agree with on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. Eighty-six percent said presidential candidates should be judged on both their political record and their personal life.

Columbus Day in the Alternate Universe

On the day when most of America celebrates Columbus Day, commemorating Christopher Columbus' discovery of the New World, here's what some on the Left are thinking about.

From SD Watch:

the fact that South Dakota changed the name of the holiday from the butcher’s/imperialist’s name to celebrate our state’s indigenous peoples is significant.

And from the Robbinsdale Radical:

This Native American Day, I'm reflecting that LGBT people have been here in Dakota Territory for a very long time, and have earned our respect and deserve dignity.

There are lots of important ways to observe Native American Day from this long-ignored viewpoint...

Why is the Left always obsessed with sex and/or loathing anything to do with America's foundations?

Lake Baikal and Global Warming

An interesting report from Daily Tech today about Lake Baikal in Siberia.

Lake Baikal is the deepest lake in the world (about a mile) and is the largest freshwater lake in the world by volume.

Due to it's depth and distance from the ocean, the article says Lake Baikal has "the northern hemisphere's most pristine, uninterrupted sedimentary record."

Researchers found something interesting in studying that record, as it relates to the current global warming controversy:

The record clearly demonstrates the region has often been considerably warmer than it is at present. More stunning is the most recent data, which shows Siberia first began warming around 250 years ago -- long before the industrial revolution, and its resultant greenhouse gas emissions.

Just as the dinosaurs didn't have SUVs, I don't think they had them 250 years ago, either. Maybe it's not SUVs, but that big ole star in the middle of our solar system that's behind any heat increases?

Don't Ask about Background

CNS News provides the background you seldom hear over Bill Clinton's pro-homosexual "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" rule allowing closeted homosexuals to serve in the military.

The "don't ask, don't tell" policy is not a law but a federal rule that the president could rescind, which would automatically make it illegal for homosexuals to serve in the military, according to the Center for Military Readiness.

Meanwhile, Congress is considering legislation to bypass existing rules and allow homosexuals to openly serve - an idea that some Democratic presidential candidates support, which could stir public debate as the 2008 campaign moves forward.

The "don't ask, don't tell" policy was never approved by Congress. It was an administrative order issued by President Bill Clinton in 1993. Later that year, the Democrat-controlled Congress rejected the policy and passed a law codifying into law a Department of Defense regulation that said "homosexuality is incompatible with military service."

The compromise in this bill was to allow Clinton's policy about not asking or telling to stand, unless the secretary of defense determines the question should be reinstated.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was never reconciled to military law in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). It was simply an official policy of "we're going to ignore the law."

Is Allah the God of the Bible?

The video below is one I made at last night's Islam seminar at South Canyon Baptist Church in Rapid City called "Is Allah the God of the Bible?"

It's about an hour long, so you may have to watch it in parts if you're a busy person. The sound isn't as great as I had hoped, but you should still be able to hear Dr. Wells discuss this important topic.

SCHIP: The Clash With Reality

The Weekly Standard blog points out some research done by someone at Free Republic which shines the light of reality on the lib poster child for SCHIP.

We were told about a 12 year old boy who was hurt in a car accident and (violins, please) SCHIP made his recovery possible. But there's a little more to the story:

1. Graeme and his sister Gemma attend the Park School, a private school that costs $20,000 per child.

2. Brown wrote that the family lives on $45,000 per year, but icwhatudo notes: "Halsey Frost has owned his own company 'Frostworks' since...1992 so he chooses to not give himself insurance. He also employed his wife as 'bookkeeper and operations management' prior to her recent 2007 hire at the 'medical publishing firm.'"

3. His business is housed in a $160,000 building -- that he owns.

4. The Frost family lives in a recently remodeled 3,000-square-foot home that cost $485,000.


Yeah, the Frosts sound dirt poor, and certainly worthy of government handouts.

In reading this, I'm reminded of how "tough" the poor in America typically have it.

- Some 43 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes; the average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

- Some 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning; by contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

- Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

- Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

- Some 97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

-Some 78 percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

-Some 89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

I've seen poverty--real poverty--in other countries, poverty caused by government corruption and the malaise of socialism, and typically the "poor" in America have it pretty good compared to the rest of the world's poor.

Is that the socialist requirement for needing help in America: not whether you're going to be destitute on the street, but if you can't maintain your standard of living without help from the government (be it a $485,000 house or whatever), the taxpayers must roll over and dispense coerced compassion?

You run into old friends in the most unusual places

By Gordon Garnos

EXPLANATION: More than one column by yours truly have been written about the uniqueness of South Dakotans. For example, in my column for the week of Sept. 17, I mentioned "Sparky" Anderson of baseball fame, one of this year's inductees into the South Dakota Hall of Fame. He declared, "No matter where you might move to, once a South Dakotan, always a South Dakotan." Another example of this uniqueness just happened during a meeting of the Dakota Territory Chapter of the American Political Items Collectors in Watertown. I ran into a childhood friend. (Full Article)

Islam Seminar at South Canyon

I attended the seminar on Islam at South Canyon Baptist Church tonight and it was what I expected: some of the same info covered when Dr. Richard Wells did this seminar at the beginning of the summer, but with a lot of new stuff as well. He said the seminar will be continuing for the next two weeks, concluding on Oct. 21.

Below are the notes I took at the seminar. I haven't cleaned them up much, as I'm a little short on time and energy right now, but they're still pretty good. Most of what I wrote are exact quotes of what Dr. Wells said, or very close paraphrases. In either case, I believe it will be pretty faithful to what he said. It was very educational and informative, with Dr. Wells often reading from the Qur'an and books written on Islam by Islamic scholars. I would highly recommend anyone in or near Rapid City attend the next two week's installments. Tonight's event was held in the church gym with a lot of tables set up, and still they ended up lining the walls with chairs, so it was very well attended.

Here are my notes...



Dr. Wells said Islam is not just another world religion. Wells taught World Religions as a college professor, and among all the religions, there is none that quite has the historical impact as Islam.

The community response the first time the Islam seminar was taught a few months ago told Wells they needed to do it again and expand on it. This seminar began where the original seminar did, so that the attendee gets all the background.

Some of the most important reasons for studying Islam are:

1. Islam today and for the foreseeable future is the single greatest threat to America. Within the last month, bin Laden has issued another video. In that video he called for us all to convert to Islam. Many Americans probably don't think they're serious, but they are deadly serious.

2. Many public leaders including our president have made a distinction which to them seems very important, but in fact does not really exist. That is between Islam and Islamism. There are some Muslims who are more extreme than others, but what most people don’t fully realize is that this distinction is a very Western, Christian distinction. It is almost impossible to find Muslims who will condemn the actions of Osama bin Laden.

A study which came out May 22 entitled “Muslim Americans” by the Pew Research Center, and it will get your attention. It’s a survey of mainstream, middle class Muslim Americans and what they believe. The survey found that the younger they are, the more open Muslims are to the radical elements of Islam.

3. Most Americans, even though they know there is such a thing as Islam and that it’s a threat, know very little about Islam. They might remember that there was someone named Mohammed, but the average citizen in America can’t even name the four Gospels of Christianity.

4. Islam has a long history which is well remembered. Americans typically don’t know much about the Crusades, but Muslims have not forgotten them. Osama bin Laden chose Sept. 11 for his historic attack because it had great significance.

Islam begins with Mohammed. Mohammed was basically a camel driver who married into money by marrying a rich widow many years his senior. He lived 570-632 AD. He had appointed no successor when he died, leaving a lot of strife over who his successor should have been.

Mohammed was illiterate. He began to have visions, and details about these visions were written down by others in what we know as the Qur'an. There is no such thing as a legitimate translation of Qur’an because Muslims say the real Qur’an is in God’s language: Arabic. The Qur’an isn’t arranged like the Bible, more or less chronologically, but is arranged from the longest chapter to the shortest, and these chapters are called surahs. Mohammed never wrote anything about his visions but others made recordings of them based on what they were told about them. Most of what we know about Mohammed was written 100-300 years after his life.

Surah 97 refers to the night on which the prophet received his call and the first verses of the Qur’an. Mohammed at first things he’s going mad when he receives his first visions, but his wife assured him he was not.

Between 632-732 the world saw the most meteoric rise of any empire it has ever seen. It took all the Middle East up into southern Russia, central Asia, into India, North Africa, and was knocking on the door of southern Spain and France.

For about the last 100 years, the re-biblization or renewal of Islam has been occurring. After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire around the end of WWI, the Islamic empire fell to it’s lowest point in history. A good book on history of Islam recommended by Dr. Wells is Bernard Lewis, recognized as the finest scholar of Islam in the Western World: “What Went Wrong” It helps answer the question, “Why do they hate us so much?”

Is Allah the God of the Bible? The answer Wells gave at the last seminar was “Yes and no.” Yes, in the same sense as the Elohim of Mormonism is the God of the Bible, or the Jehovah of Jehovah's Witnesses is the God of the Bible. Or the God of the Moonies Unification Church is the God of the Bible. "Cults are the unpaid bills of the church." There is a sense in which Islam is a Christian cult. All cults by their nature begin with the God who has already been revealed. The nature of evil, as CS Lewis pointed out, is not to create something new but to distort something that already exists. Cults always take truth and distort it.

In the minds of many Muslims and even many Christians, Allah is the God of the Bible. But also, in many of the ways he is described he sounds like the Christian God of Adonai, Elohim, the God we know from the Bible. Of course, we’ve all heard the politically correct statement: “We all worship the same God, we just worship him in different ways.”

On the “No” side, the god of Mohammed doesn’t come incarnate to man, so there is no intermediary as there is in Jesus in Christianity. There are lesser intermediaries, however, and they are the genies or gen that are spirits who work good or ill for Allah. There is no reference for Allah as “Father.” He does not beget, and he is detached from the petty worries and annoyances of man. (This is from Caesar Farah’s “Islam” book). In heaven, Muslims believe, there is a sacred, ideal copy of the Qur’an and it was dumped on Mohammed. The true Qur’an can’t be translated because it wouldn’t be a faithful copy of the original in heaven.

Allah is a provincial god, the God of the Bible is a universal god. In Christianity, there is no requirement that the Scriptures be in a specific language, but in Islam everyone must speak Arabic to properly receive his word.

Allah is unhistorical. Allah doesn’t know much about history. There are some unbelievable examples in the Qur’an where the Qur’an misinterprets history. The God of the Bible reveals himself over centuries. Seventy five percent of the Bible is narrative with God telling the story. God revealed himself in the history of the world. He shows himself in the way he rules in the lives and affairs of people. There are visions in Islam, but no prophesies, and certainly no fulfilled prophesies regardless of how you classify the visions. With Allah, you only have a claim with no evidence of validity.

Allah loves conditionally. When you read the Qur’an , one of the things that will strike you is that the mercy of Allah is only for those who already believe. If you don’t believe, there is no mercy. That is why bin Laden can read the Qur’an and blow up the World Trade Center. That isn’t radical Islam, that’s just the Qur’an . “For Allah schemes against the unbelievers and Allah is the best of all schemers,” the Qur’an says.

With Allah, there is no plan for redemption. There is no recognition of the need to address the problem of human sin. There is no cross, there is no sacrifice for sin, it’s not even on the radar. All Allah does is what all pagan gods do: just demands obedience. He doesn’t offer hope or encouragement or strength, just demands obedience.

In some ways the most distressing difference is that Allah is detached from the worries and annoyances of man, but as the Bible tells us, "We do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin." Allah cannot be known, only feared.

Tonight's seminar was entitled IS ALLAH THE GOD OF THE BIBLE. Next week comes IS THE QU’RAN THE WORD OF GOD.