B. Hussein Obama, the "civil rights" advocate has now worked to stop re-votes
in Michigan

Good luck Hussein: you will need it in November if you swindle the
millions of voters in two of the largest states. 

How do we stop Hussein?

Well first, don’t bash Hillary now. Instead, help her defeat
Obama-then use ourammo on Hillary in the general.

So, hold you fire, *smart* conservatives:

We need to stop Hussein Obama in the Dem primary-and not
risk McCain defeating him in the general-although McCain could win,
McCain doesn’t match up well against Obama:

McCain is gruff and doesn’t exactly give people warm fuzzies. And
when placed next to the slock, personable, smooth talking, Obama,
McCain has real problems.

But, on the other hand, McCain when placed next to Hillary, who also
isn't people friendly, McCain can beat her on national security, and
she can't counter with feel good oratory and warm fuzzies-like Hussein.

We must boost and uplift Hillary NOW, and save the hate Hillary
rhetoric for the general election-if we are successful in stopping
Hussein Obama in the dem primary.

Hillary will be much easier for McCain to defeat than a warm and
friendly Hussein preaching love, "change" and "unity" .

Also, let's not fogtet  if Hill gets the nomination, black voters will pout and stay
home-insuring a GOP victory by a very  large margin resulting in
a possible take back of the House and Senate.

So, in instead of posting hate Hillary stuff, let's all play up the
glaring hypocrisy of Obama's supporters today for opposing and
thus dooming a re-vote in Michigan.

Shame on Barcak Hussein Obama for deliberately working to
disenfranchise millions of Michigan voters.

Its not the fault of the voters in Florida or Michigan
that DNC  bosses discriminated against their states by allowing 4 states
to have early primaries and then denying all the other states
that same equal right-its ridiculous and unfair.

All states should vote on the same day, or be given the freedom to
have their primaries when the Iowa SC, and NH folks are permitted
to have their primaries.

As for the disenfranchised Florida and Michigan voters, the DNC should
either permit their delegates to be seated or else let them revote and

the DNC should pay for it-since they screwed it all up.

The Democrats should also realize that the November election

is a winner take all, state by state, contest.

So the democratic party if they really wanted to see which candidate
might run strongest in a national elction, they should have held winner
take all primaries-in which case, of course Hillary would now be ahead of Hussein.

But they are incompent boobs-and they now suffer for it-and McCain
will undoubtedly win in November-unless he picks Mitt Romney,  who will become
a  highly controversial  running mate.

This is a tempest in a teapot. imho.

If I were a New York voter I would vote to oust
him *if* he ran for reelection. And the New York voters should decide this one,
not the lawyers.

His behavior was sinful, disgraceful, and of course unbibilical.
(Adultery for starters is a sin.)

But, the wire fraud, money laudering jabberwocky is ridiculous.
This kind of "crime" is not what those laws were enacted to deter.

He was not trying to defraud anyone but his wife, who may have
otherwise questioned where the money went if he hadnt juggled *his* bank account funds.

As for the "innocent" business execs some was "abusing", I assume they had their
day in court with a jury of their peers, or maybe they simply pled guilty.

So, if they were persecuted, as some conservatives believe, it was by (hopefully)
unbiased jurors who were no doubt examined for evidence of bias by
the defense attorneys in the pre trial voir dire-but not by Spitzer.

I wonder how many of those he prosecuted were acquitted.
 
There's no evidence that he pulled a Mike Nifong on any of those he prosecuted.

I do agree that he's a hypocrite with a lot of gall, but still, this is overkill.

Once again the hysterical calls from liberals and
a few misguided conservatives for so-called  tort "reform"
are reappearing on internet blogs.

It's time someone shined a light on the embarrassing
derriere  of the malpractice advocate-the gullible soul who
reads  a sensationalized headline, or hears the angry rant of
a talk radio host, whose livelihood  depends on a multitude of angry
callers, and assumes the information  is complete and truthful without
ever reading the full transcript of the trial, and in many cases makes a
stupid premature judgment without even having seen the evidence,
and before the case has even gone to trial!

It's not intellectually honest, but then tort reformers rarely are.
.
The primal need for food on the table financed of course,
through paying readers and subscribers who ultimately
persuade paying advertisers who are the real source
of big revenues for the paper.

This is a strong  motivation for newspaper editors and writers
(and talk show hosts) to resort  to misleading and inaccurate
headlines in order to sell papers or gain listeners
by sensationalizing the latest "outrage".

Its called outrage peddling-and it works.

Yes, it's Jerry Springer time for the media-and the well financed
AMA lobbyists who are anything but objective or truthful about tort reform.

But its also worth noting that jurors are not media elites or powerful  
people who dont believe they have the time to serve on a jury.

Jurors are by and large ordinary people like you and I,
with the God given common sense to see through bogus claims.

And contrary to what been published on this subject, 
trial  jurors are not automatons, nor are they  pro-plaintiff.
We do after all, have voir dire for jury trials.

By the way, a person advocating so called tort "reform"
who doesn't know what a motion for
summary judgment is, and how it works
and what  a Voir Dire is and how it works, lacks the credibilty
to voice a strong opinion on this issue.

Most of these anecdotal "outrages" or claims, have been found to be less than
"outrageous" when the full trial transcript has been read by people
who dont accept the one sided, sensationalized, very dubious reports
of the latest law suit "outrage" by angry talk show hosts and news papers
who need outraged readers or listeners-in the case of radio
talk hosts -for their continued existence.

The truth is, tort reform legislation prejudges and limits an
American citizen's constitutional right to have their case heard by a jury
of their peers

It's up to the trial judges to discern when a suit has no legal merit,
and rule in favor of every defendant's predictable motion for summary judgment.

And trial judges generally do a good job in dismissing cases which do
not state a claim for which there is a legal remedy. And lawyers who
 filke a spurious law suit can be sanctioned by the trial  judge, and in 
egregious cases they can be disbarred. Thus, the spurious law suit is mostly,
 but not entirely, and urban legend-spread by  lobbyists

It's up to the trial judges to discern when a suit has no legal merit,
and rule in favor of every defendant's predictable motion for summary judgment.

And if after scrutiny by a  judge, the claim states a case for which relief can
be be granted, then there must be a trial to determine which side is supported by
the relevant facts. If it does not state an actionable claim, it is summarily dimissed

And that is the way it should be-and we don't need
legislators tinkering with a good and fair process, to insulate powerful and
wealthy defendants from responsibility for their actions.

That is why many rightly call tort reform, the "Wrong doers Protection Act"

I would rather not see the government further limit the rights of ordinary
people to seek redress in the courts against powerful well financed
defendants with well funded lobbyists like the AMA has.

These are the folks behind so-called "tort reform", which is just a way
to preempt a jury trial as guaranteed by the constitution for persons
requesting access to the justice system.

Why not put a cap on the outrageous malpractice insurance
premiums if we want to impose a government solution into private matters?

What conservatives and democrats alike do not seem to understand:

Americans are not ideologues, who look at each public issue or problem
(or proposed solution) through some kind of philosophical filter.

Alas, If only the conservatives were as wise.

Indeed, a foolish insistence on ideological purity is mindless, and foolish.

Ralph Waldo Emerson once put it is this way:

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind"

Most conservatives either do not understand or else refuse to a
ccept that the average American voter is not ideological.

And they are seemingly unaware that most Americans *rightly*
believe in a social safety net,and with good reason.

Indeed, Many people would be in dire staits today without the
much maligned (in some extremist quarters) social security or medicare insurance.

HOWEVER: These same generous Americans cannot stomach
the democrats' position in favor of abortion on demand and gay rights.

And these two isssues are what keep the democrats from perpetual power.

Someday, maybe in another 20 years, the democrats might just wise up
and abandon their abortion on demand and gay rights, and ant-gun positions.

And when, or should i say IF they do; they will never lose another election.

Why? Because, most Americans also can't stomach these far right extremists
in our party who are so rigid ideologically that they would even oppose
a 1% tax increase to support a guaranteed cure for cancer-becaus
e "taxes are not a *conservative* idea!"

Fools! These doctrinaire anti-government extremists are killing the GOP.

First let me state for  the record, that I  do not believe in absolute freedom
of religion, or absolute freedom speech, or absolue freedom of
anything .

The U.S Supreme Court apparently felt the same way when it ruled
that Mormons (in the Smith Case) could not practice polygamy even
though it was a part of their religion at the time.

And the court has also ruled that free speech doesn’t allow for slander, libel, revealing
government secrets, uttering threats, blackmail, extortion, pornograhic
communications, and so on. Thus, freedom of religion or  speech is not
an absolute unfettered right under our constitution. If it were,
I would be lobbying hard for a constitutional ammendment to change that.

In my opinion, Islam is a blight on human civilization.
Christians and Jews stopped doing the barbaric things Muslims do today
200 years ago.

I for one, don’t think Islam should be permitted to be practiced or preached in the USA. 
But, our  constitution as currently interpreted allows for even the vilest and most socially destructive religions to be practiced with few if any restrictions.
.  
And to make matters  worse, many good people who are patriotic and well meaning, but
also gullible and naive, seem to think that all religion is equally good, and that all religions are equally valid.

That of course is nonsense! Not all religions are "good"; and not all religions are equally legitimate or valid. And if a religion condones or teaches "Jihad" or "honor killing" or female genital mutilation, or advocates stoning, whippings or beheadings for petty sexual sins and vices, then that "religion" must be monitored carefully to be certain that no violations of our laws  are advocated, suggested, condoned, encouraged, or actually comitted or covered up after the fact. And if such violations do occur, the guilty should be imprisoned and upon release deported. 

But, punishment for law violations and punishment is only retrospective. We need to also act prospectively to nip the growing Islamic menace in the bud by placing stricter immigration quotas on Muslims seeking to immigrate to America. Muslims immigrants who are virtually unassimable, present a far greater threat to our culture and our national security than the hard working and economically exploited, undocumented Mexicans.  They are, in the overwhelming majority of cases, harmless and also imminently assimable. 

So maybe we should not wax so hysterical over the undocumented Mexicans. The real fifth column in America are the practitioners of Islam. And they need to be reined in, restricted,  monitored and managed-now before it is too late, and we become like France and The UK cowering  in our country.

 Mitt Romney, the slickster millionaire from Massachusetts, is now playing on
the public's sympathy, crying lugubriously "I am a victim." 

It all started when an unknown group hired a PR firm  to "push poll"
voters to let them know that Mitt is a Mormon.

Mitt immediately cried "un-American"  instead of defending his Mormon beliefs, which many religious conservatives rightly believe to be  bizarre enough to call into serious question the candidate's personal judgment and powers of discernment.

Push polling is indeed sneaky, but so what else is new? Bush Republicans did it against John McCain in South Carolina, and it was done against Steve Forbes when he ran in the republican primaries.

The practice is of course deceitful and unethical, but it is certainly NOT "bigotry"as the term is most generally used and understood.

*Bigotry* as the word has been commonly understood by most people (although not Webster's dictionary)
is basically an attitude or intention to discriminate against, or actually mistreat someone based on life's
un-changeables: such as race, sex, age, or physical disability.

But someone’s beliefs and philosophy are not one of life's un-changeables. They are judgments and conscious moral choices. Therefore, they should be fair game.

The current liberal PC mantra that any belief system is beyond criticism simply because it’s religiously based is utter pernicious nonsense. 

Any religious doctrine or belief system should and must to examined- just like any secular philosophy, and it must stand on it's merits.

There can be no unexamined, or unquestioned ideological sacred cows if you want to be the President of this great country.

Mitt, if you have religious beliefs, the voters have a right to know them and discuss them so they can evaluate your personal judgment.

So please stop crying "I am a victim" and saying your critics are "un-American".

What’s really un-American is your big government mandatory health plan that FORCED people in Massachusetts to buy those inadequate, overpriced health insurance policies that are not attractive enough for people to buy voluntarily on their own accord-in a free market.

Is it bigotry to examine the religious beliefs of someone who wishes
to be our commander in chief to see whether those beliefs are consistent
with sound judgment and discernment?

If the candidate's religion is a main stream Christian denomination
the answer for most of us would likely be leave it alone; it's off limits

But might one answer the question differently if say, the candidate's religion
were a strange religion such as as Witchcraft or  Santeria? (Voodoo)

Actually the type of religion that a candidate professes
"faith" in may tell us something important about his or her judgment and discernment
of truth from  fiction ,and history from mythology. Aways ask the question: "Faith in what?"
If a person  places his or her "faith" in something unsubstantial, unrealistic, or downright foolish,
it calls their judgement into question.

And one character quality that everyone wants to see in a serious presidential candidate
is good judgment and discernment. Conversely, a quality that makes most voters very uneasy,
is naivette, or extreme credulity.

And, based on his faith in the weird  teachings
of the Mormon "church",  one of the qualities  which is sadly lacking in Mitt Romney
is an abilty to discern fact from fiction, and mythology  from history

I firmly believe that any person who can swallow the  strange and bizarre doctrines
of the Mormon religion, is  simply be too gullible and naive to be
President of the United States and responsible negotiating with
tough minded foreign leaders.


The Mormon teachings read like something from a far fetched science fiction paperback
rather than a world respected religion. Moreover, It is decidely unchristian,
unbiblical, and it's so-called "scriptures" such as the "Book of Mormon" is
 filled with patently ridiculous  fables, which would be downright funny if
grown men and women did not actually take them seriously.

So with that in mind, I must ask the question: Does Mitt Romney possess sound
judgment and discernment? And what would be  the spiritual consequences be for
thousands of lost souls if  he  were actually elected President of our country?

Well, lets see. He already  has admitted that he believes the teachings
of the Mormon church. 

Such as:
 

1. Magic underwear that must be worn 24-7

(it allegedly protects "temple worthy" mormons from danger.)
Maybe Mitt would issue a pair to each of our troops in Iraq?

 

2. An angel called "moroni" speaking

in King James English to the criminally insane sex fiend, Joseph Smith, about
some "golden plates" with the book of Mormon  inscribed upon them.  

(What if some night Moroni makes a surprise midnight visit to the
Whitehouse and  begins wispering in Mitt's s ear.  The Mormons
beleve in continuing relevation. Its their defense to Josephs Smiths "new bible": The Book of Mormon.

I hate to think Mitt might listen to Moroni  if he were to tell him that
a certian mideast country is actually ancient Assyria, or Babylon and thus needs to be destroyed.
Mitt  says he wont let church leaders influence his decisions; but how about the "angels"
who visited Mormon leaders from time to time??
 I would not want to take that chance.

 

3.  Anti-black doctrines pertaining to an unscriptural and ridiculous
"Melchizedek  priesthood" available to caucasians only.
(in the late 1970's and old coot named Spencer Kimball ,
who was head of the very  heirarchical Mormon church,
 issued a fatwah, or proclamation that blacks were no longer
to be considered Inferior. Maybe that is why the call  themselves
 "Latter day" Saints-they were definitely way late in receiving the new revelation
from Spencer Kimball, that no man is inferior due to his race. Or perhap, like Slick Mitt
Spencer Kimball's "conversion" was born out of PR expediency.

 

4. Racial bias against Native Americans. (see #3 above)

5. A childish belief in a race of beings called "Nephites" alleged to have
lived in America two centuries ago. This absurd belief has been
scientifically disproved at laughed at by professional archeologists.

(One has to wonder what a President who swallows such fantastic fables
might decide in matters where sound science or history is needed in order
to make an important policy decision.)

 

6.  The baptizing of their ancestors (salvation by works) 
(Lots or religions teach that false doctrine however, it is still wrong)
 

 

7.  "Sealing" men to plural wives in heaven, so that when Mormon men die and enter
the "celestial kingdom" they get to have relations with thousands of beautiful virgins.
(Not all that dissimilar  to a promise made to young male suicide bombers of the Islamic "Faith".)
 

8. Calling Our Lord Jesus Christ the "spirit brother" of Lucifer-which is utterly blasphemous!

 

 And there are dozens of other lunatic doctrines such as: 
 The Garden of Eden was actually located  in the state of Missouri..

I could go on, but, if you want to learn more about the Mormon cult,
read  Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults
for a revealing  expose of Mormonism. (see www.waltermartin.org )

  

After reading "Kingdom of the Cults", one can only conclude that Mormonism
has got to be the most far fetched, outlandish, and also the
most destructive so-called "religion" on the face of the earth-next to Islam.
And any adult who believes this nonsense lacks the judgment and
discernment required to lead our nation!

What a person  believes or does not believe reflects his or her
 judgement and discernment, and  henece is fair game.

This is just another example of PC gone amuck. And this
" I am  a victim" business by Mormons is getting old.
It's just one more pathetic example of liberal PC whining, recycled
for us, by of all people, self professing "conservatives".
 

But what is an even more shameful commentary on the spiritual condition
of our nation are the so-called evangelical "leaders" who are endorsing
this heretic knowing full well that if slick, flip flopping, Massachusetts Mitt
became president it would furnish a windfall of free publicity to this
strange cult and increase Mormon conversions exponentially - leading to
the damnation of untold numbers of poor lost souls seeking desperately for
something to believe in.

 

 So, shame on these backslidden  preachers who are more worried about
accomplishing certain temporal and worldly political objectives than
they are in saving lost souls.

If there is one single common tactic that all politically active people seem to employ regardless
of their political beliefs, it is declaring their victimhood in order to silence their opponents or
at least place them on the defensive.

So, marvel not when Hillary Clinton plays the gender card: "The other candidates are piling on the only woman in the race."  And why shouldn't she play the game? She's smart enough to realize that victimhood, like negative advertising, is a powerful tool -and it all too often works. But Hillary is hardly alone. We all use the "You Hate me" defense.

("we" meaning the particular religious or political group we tend most to identify with)

Blacks predictably charge racism if someone opposes affirmative action, or
criticizes the hip hop culture's deplorable sexism, or it's condonation of criminality and sexual debauchery. They are likewise "hurt" and deeply offended when some tasteless comedian makes fun of the stupid ebonics movement that exalts ignorance, or the equally tasteless gold teeth and jailhouse pants hanging low and exposing bright  colored underwear. And they now whine that  their "culture" is under attack by those who oppose animal cruelty and dogfighting.

In Atlanta, Georgia some years ago local black leaders were particulary indignant when Atlanta based talk show host, Neal Boortz, heaped  ridicule and scorn on the practice of giving "African sounding" names to many African American children. These names which are presumably chosen to give the child a sense of his roots and ethnicity,  often simply focus negative attention to their child's race, and "otherness" thus singling them out for immediate and unnecessary racial indentification on school and job applications. 

One such "victim" of Boortz' scorn was DeHundra Caldwell, an Atlanta high school student, who was in trouble with the law for some school related misdemeanor.

Instead of simply discussing  the local African American community's defense of DeHundra's bad behavior, Boortz instead immediately zeroed in on, and began demagoging the boy's given name: "DeHundra", which was ostensibly given to him because it sounded "African". 

Whether or not it really sounded all that "African",  or simply just exotic is besides the point. Blacks in Atlanta felt "persecuted"  after setting themselves up perfectly for someone like Boortz to easily and effortlessly exploit and ridicule for ratings.

As in the instant case, we often bring the "persecution" on ourselves (or our group) by using bad and  sometimes  extremely bad judgement. Then, when the going predictably gets tough, we whip out  the "you hate me" card because it shifts the focus away from us to our critics'  preceived "hatred" of us.

Sometimes, we nurture and cherish very real persecutions from long ago  
to demand and emotionally extort from the larger society special protections and kid glove treatment that others are not afforded. 

Jewish pundits and  victims of anti semitism, like Abe Foxman, and even many non-Jewish  neo-conservatives routinely accuse any and all critics of Israeli foreign policy such as
 conservative columnists Joe Sobran andPat Buchanan  
of being  cryptic "anti-semites".

In fact , one has only to use the term "neo-conservative" to be labeled "Anti-Semitic"
(see Suzanne Fields TH column of November 1, 2007 entitled "The Kosher Conspiracy".

And sadly, these high priests and priestesses of anti-semitism usually get away with the
"You hate us" strategy.  Their critics are immediately pounced upon by a media 
hungry for a gaffe or "scandal". Thus, the critic is forced to backpedal, deny, and attempt to "explain" repeatedly, over and over what they "really" meant to say-and then for penance, to grovel obsequiously and apologize to all those who chose to deliberately "misunderstand".

The alternative is to resist and refuse to back down, but the risk is high that one may be  permanently marginalized and turned into a suspected anti-semite who is henceforth under a cloud of suspicion and hence not to be trusted. 

Lately, the persecution Sanhedrin are coming after former President Jimmy Carter, mediator of the Camp David accords, and an unlikely anti-semite if ever there was one.

Note: As a personal dislcosure, I am from Georgia, but I voted for Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford first against  *candidate* Carter, , and then later agaunst President Carter.  But, I have to say despite his bungled and failed presidency and the mismanaged Iran hostage crisis, and his rather ironoic tendency in his old age to speak less than diplomatically, Jimmy Carter deserves better than to be falsely accused of "antisemitism".

Sadly, this anti-semite charge is unlikely to continue to be  deadly effectivefor a long time, because the holocaust was so incredibly horrid that nobody wants to tell American Jewry that it's time to stop playing the perpetual victim.

But all too many Jews reply thusly: "we have suffered like no other people on earth." And who can top the holocaust for victimhood credentials? 

But, we evangelical Christians sometimes rty it ourslves however clumsily. We too also cry lugubriuously about being "persecuted"-often for such trivial "persecutions" as when some sophomoric TV comedy host or liberal news paper columnist ridicules some of our more frivolous causes, like purging "witchcraft" (Harry Potter?) from the local school library. Or, when some uniformed TV talking head (invited to the studio to stir controversy and ratings) ridicules intelligent design and conflates it with "creation science", we point to media/hollywood "hostility" and "persecution" of Christians.

Mormons too are now calling labeling as "bigots" many critics of Mitt Romney, who question his judgment, based on the many strange beliefs of his Mormon faith

But, Chritstians Jews and Mormions  are far from alone in wallowing in self pity: it's now pandemic.

Hispanics, Mormons, Muslims in America, and just about everyone else is likewise beginning to catch on: victimhood is powerful!  Everyone, that is, except the American Indians, who were ridiculed to scorn and told to "get a life" when they once complained  that "Indians" should not be used as mascots for professional, college,or local high school football and baseball teams.

But, then the Native Americans are virtually unique among all the "victims" in that they alone have no political power, or sympathizers among syndicated pundits, blogs, or other vehicles of mass communication, and so they must endure their victimhood alone and in silence.

Rest assured, there will never be an NBA franchise in New York called the "New York Negroes", or an NFL team  called the "Jacksonville Jews".

Can you imagine the outrage if there were? Why even Don Imus would come out to tell us just how "offended", "shocked",  and "saddened" he is by this "despicable" racist nickname. But, hey, the "Cleveland Indians" and the "Washington Redskins" are just fine.

But, enough. Rather than endlessly cataloging, documenting and archiving all of
our favorite group's sufferings caused by unjust persecutions, what say we all stop pretending to be victims of hate when our critics fairly (or unfairly) stick it to us? (often in retaliation for something they think we previously said about, or did to them)

Maybe we should all try to learn how to take it at least as well as we routinely dish it out?
Or better yet, not dish it out at all, but instead just ignore those who persist in "persecuting" us.

 

It is a fact: people don't comprehend the truth of the Gospel of Christ or come to Christ through intellectual excercises and debate.

CS Lewis's "Mere Christianity" and Josh McDowell's book of Christian apologetics ("Evidence that demands a Verdict") have had little success in converting  non believers-and we believers don't need "logical" proof.

According to Paul in First Corinthians chapter 3 verses 18 and 19, ""The things of God are spiritually discerned.."  He also wrote: "Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise.  For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God..." 

So it is written in the scriptures that spiritual discernment and revelation comes from God, not through man's intellect.

Thus, no book of apologetics will do a thing for non believers-and believers don't require "proof" in the first place.

"Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God"-not clever books of "logic"

This the main weakness of the Christian  conservative political movement today.
We are trying to create the Kingdom of God through our own political efforts-which lead only to frustration and anger at the wicked, and consequently we simply damage our testimony in the process.

Psalm 127:1  says: "Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it" 

Remember also, most of the Roman Emperors were Godless dictators as were many of the unelected Kings of Israel, such as Ahab and Herod, yet God's purposes were accomplished.
and will be in the future-regardless of who is our next President.

That is why Christians should not  stay awake at night fretting over President Hillary or President Guliani. The Bible says "Be still and know I am God"


So, why waste time or emotional energy debating with atheist fools like Christopher Hitchens?  It's a colossal waste of time, and we only make ourselves appear foolish- meanwhile the fool sees himself as wise in his own eyes.

Atheists have no heart for wisdom-just an unquenchable lust for vain disputes and ridiculous quibbling-which Paul admonishes us to avoid.

Proverbs 9:7-9 says:

"He who reproves a scoffer gets shame for himself. And he who rebukes a wicked man gets himself a blow. Do not reprove a scoffer lest he hate you. Reprove a wise man and he will love you." (Proverbs 9:7-9)

Mr. d' Spouza should read all of the previously cited scriptures such as 1st Corinthians 3:18-19
and internalize them.

 Then, he will have more of his finite time here on earth to spend sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ and less time squandered in a futile attempt to "debunk atheism".  (see Matthew 28:19-20)

What Dinesh d'Souza apparently fails to understand is that trying to debunk atheism is futile. Because the poor wretches who embrace atheism, are fools at the atomic level. Folly is embedded in their bones, their blood cells, their mitochondria, even their DNA.

Proverbs 27:22 makes that clear:  "Though you grind a fool
in a mortar with a  pestle  still the folly will not depart from him." 

Logic doesnt change minds on spiritual matters-because spiritual issues are decided by the Spirit-not the *soul" which consists of man's fallible mind (intellect) and emotions.

Mr. d' Souza, if you truly want to truly change America for the better rather than further polarize it politically, share the Gospel of Christ.  But, resist the temptation to add a subtle dash of politics into the Gospel, or you risk needlessly aleinating the very people you seek to win for Christ. 
 
God tells us that his word shall not return void become shall accomplish all that he purposes" Isaiah: 55:11

There is, however, no such Biblical promise for our logic and polemics. 

 

 

I have recently been called on the carpet by two Christians for things I had written
in response to various Town Hall columnists. One criticism I totally
agreed with (and apologized for) was a harsh remark that was sharply
critical of two evangelical Christians.

I have deleted the offending remarks from my blog.

The second incident I am less peninent about because I believe
the offending remark was benign in and of itself-let alone when compared
to  current standards prevailing among politically engaged Christian writers
and pundits.

Since I have twice now been called on the carpet for rhetoric or  hyperbole
unbecoming to a Christian, I thought perhaps now is a good  time to raise the question:
does involvement in politics, and having strong political beliefs
unduly tempt  Christians to get down in the mud and
verbally wrestle with the ungodly in an undignified and carnal 
manner which reduces us to operating on their often sinful level?
Is this living life on a lower level than we are called by God  to live on?

I will attempt to address some of my  spontaneous reactions  to this in a 
response to a fellow Christian, who most recently called me on
the carpet for labeling Mr. Dennis Prager an "arrogant windbag".
Here are some of my thoughts:

Dear Christian friend,

I really do understand how you feel. And I agree
Christians should never, ridicule or attempt to belitle or humiliate
those with whom they disagree.

In the book of proverbs it even goes so far as to
say: "cast out the *scorner* and strife will cease."

Honestly, however, and I know you disagree, I think my comment
about Dennis Prager was fairly tame- especially given how
Dennis Prager and much more regrettablly how so many high
profile professing *Christians* such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh,
Ann Coulter, Ann Malkin, and others too numerous to catalog here,
often mercilessly belittle and ridicule those who disagree with them.

Indeed, Mrs Malkin and Ms Coulter occasionally have used sexually
vulgar slang words and sexual double entendres to ridicule their
most despised "liberals".  I'll never forget some of their graphic language
and sexual punds used when discussing the disgraceful Clinton-Lewinsky tryst.
Does an immoral act call for a vulgar rebuke?

I must also say I was disappointed by the Wall Street Journal'  
unnecessarily graphic, and sexually explicit editorial on the same sordid
subject. I was partucularly disappointed in Mr John Fund and especially
Mr Paul Gigot who is normally the model of decorum and civility.

Sadly, vicious and ugly rhetoric is especially typical of talk show
hosts when they are confronted with vigorously dissenting or
vehement and argumentative callers.

But, of course that doesn't excuse my words if they are indeed unkind.

The fact that "everybody does it" is never an excuse for wrong
actions. And I agree calling someone an *arrogant windbag" really
isn't very nice. Moreover, it is also  lazy writing.

But, still in my humble opinion, its extremely tame when compared
with the rhetoric common in the politically active Christian community. 

I remember the late Dr. Jerry Falwell also routinely ridiculed "liberals" as
does Rush Limbaugh who claims to be a Christian-though thankfully,
he downplays that on the air.

You may disagree, but it seems to me that a rather common and besetting
sin among *politically active* Christians who have strong political beliefs
is the tendency to mock, ridicule, and viciously question even the motives or
honorable intentions of those  (and particularly and most conspicuously Mrs Clinton) with
whom most of us more often than not have a visceral distrust-and with whom
we often disagree on public policy. 

Funny many if us have a disrust for the very slickly managed Mitt Romney. But the difference is Mitt has apparently flip flopped back to our side- which makes his flip flops and perceived  "slickness" and insincerity imminently more forgivable.

A few specific examples of Christian writers gone wild are probably are in order:

Item:  For example, a towhhall columnist recently called 
Mrs Clinton  "pro abortion" rather than "pro choice"-on a Town Hall thread recently.
Come now, If she were truly "pro abortion, I doubt seriously Mrs Clinton would have
carried her daughter  to term.

No. I rather choose to believe, that like Mr Guiliani and former First lady,
Barbara Bush, Mrs Clinton  simply thinks it is acceptable policy to legally permit 
women to make  that "choice"- a choice they will answer for before God,
and a choice which  you and I of course agree is the wrong choice.

But being "pro choice", as wrong headed as that political position may be,
is very different from being actually "pro abortion". 

Being "pro abortion implies that a person actually likes to see abortions 
performed-which is shocking to the conscience.
|
It is akin to calling the person morally perverse-a much worse insult than
calling him/her a "windbag"-which I frankly wouldn't get too upset about. 

Item: Ms Coulter calls pacifists such as Cindy Sheehan and Noam Chomsky
"traitors". She also routinely accuses people who oppose the Iraq war
of "hating America". 

With respect, and in all honesty, how can Ann Coulter (or anyone else for that matter)
possibly *know* that war opponents actually "hate" their own country? Is
she gifted with clairvoiyance, or mindreading skills and omniscience
that most would ascribe only to Almighty God?

Note: Ms Coulter never called Pat Buchanan, who is a Catholic
Christian, but who also opposes the war a "traitor".

But, perhaps that is because Buchanan doesn't oppose most of the
other wars previous administrations elected to enter overseas-only this particular one.

Now that (calling someone a traitor or a  hater of their country)
is much more like what I would call actually "judging"a person

To me, "judging" is not pointing out bad behavior or wrong actions.

No, Judging is attributing or imputing  bad motives to people whose
hearts and minds The Lord alone can truly read-as opposed
to ascribing to them merely bad judgment or unwise public policy.
Or calling somebody a "wind bag" or "blowhard".
  

I think anytime we evangelical Christians get too emotionally involved
with politics, we tend to take back control of our speech and behavior
from the Holy Sprit because it is so very difficult to
"be angry and (yet) sin not".
 

That passage in Ephesians reminds me a lot of one of the
words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount:"  how difficult it is for a
rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven"

I think it is because the lust for money and the lust for control or
power (read: politics) is so powerful among those of us who
frequent political message boards and who are active in political
dialogue and other political activities, it often drowns out the still
small voice of the Holy Spirit. We do this tothe detriment of our
personal testimony and ability to witness as we are called to do
in Matthew 28:19-20.

You probably remember Christ said "my kingdom is not of this world."

So maybe our hearts and emotions should also not be too involved
in the things of this world. 

"Love not the world or the things that are
OF the world. For he that loveth the things of this world, the Love of
the Father is not in him." (1st John 2:15.)

Simon, since you are a Christian voice for civility, I am just curious what
you think of the "Clinton Chronicles" -if you have ever read them.

I have never read anything more unchrist-like, or more filled with
hateful calumnies and deliberate misstatements of fact than this book which
Dr. Falwell helped to promote and disseminate.

Frankly, some of the writings in the American Spectator are not far behind.

But back to your original point. To me the word "windbag" is akin to calling
someone a "fuddy duddy" a "blowhard"  or a big  "fathead". It is more like the benign
things we used to say to each other in the fifth grade back in the 1950's.
Yes its certainly childish, but it is hardly malevolent.

I welcome contrary opinions of course.

Blessings,

Cornpone Harry

PPS: Note that ironically in this article, I express grudging admiration
for Ms. Coulter for having the frankness (rare in the Christian right political movement)
to declare unashamedly the "one way" to salvation doctrine of John 14:6; Acts 4:12;
and  John 3:36. 

 Yes she does, and she has said so . And  she implied as much in her recent appearance on the Donny Deutch show. And she is on sound scriptural ground. Moreover, Ms Coulter has stated repeatedly that she believes the Bible literally and she also knows full well that the Gospel  of John says the following plainly and unambiguously:

 

"He who has the Son (Jesus )has life. He who has not the Son  has NOT life but the wrath of God abideth upon him." John 3:36

 

(see also John 14:6 and Acts 4:12  if there is any doubt in your mind that the Bible allows for any other possible way of salvation for Jews or other non-Christians)

 

Unfortunately Cal Thomas, Hugh Hewitt, Star Parker, Glen Beck, Richard Land, and many other timid and  politically sensitive Christians also KNOW and believe these passages in the Gospel  of John; but unlike  Ms  Coulter, they have so  far been too timid and politically sensitive to admit it-much less fearlessly declare it.

 

So what kind of "friends"  are afraid to tell their conservative Jewish friends what they, as "born again Christians"  REALLY  believe about the ultimate damnation of ALL non-Christians (including their politically conservative Jewish "friends" (read useful political allies) who refuse to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour??

 

Such a  craven lack of candor speaks volumes about their honesty and integrity.

 

 Well then just  try getting a straight forward answer from ANY of these other aforementioned  word parsing  equivocaters like Hugh Hewitt, Glen Beck, Star Parker, Richard Land, or Cal Thomas to this simple question: "Will Jews  go to heaven  when they die if they deny the deity of Jesus Christ and he is indeed the Messiah?"

 

Don't hold your breath waiting for a clear straight forward yes or no answer. Because what you  will get get will be the same kind of  evasive, double talk reminiscent of the slick word parsing Bill Clinton speaking to Kenneth Starr.

Its ironic and sad.  I used to think of Christian conservatives as being straight forward, candid,  plain spoken, "let the chips fall where they may"  type folks who are loathe to sugar coat the truth for anyone or any political cause. Well, not any more apparently.

 

Shame on the whole feckless  lot of them.  Since when did electing conservative political candidates trump the great commission of Jesus Christ to preach the Gospel to the whole world-to the JEW FIRST then to the gentile?  I guess when it comes to preserving "conservative" interfaith  political  alliances, The Lord understands a little perfidy: politics ain't bean bag.

In a recent column, Michael Medved resorted to  the favorite tactic of pro-life writers to cite outrage over animal abuse cases as evidence that everyone but they have warped values if  thise who soeak against obvious animal abuse do not quickly in the same breath, vigorously condemn abortion and child abuse. Never mind that abortion and child abuse get ten thousand times the attention and news coverage that is devoted to occasionally reported animal abuse cases.   Like many understandably frustrated pro-life activists, Medved is chagrined by the public's  increasing fatigue and impatience with the emotionally draining drum beat of the pro life movements' constant attempts to keep the spectre of dying babies ever before our eyes 24-7. So Medved predictably used the public outcry over the Vick tragedy  to lambast and assign guilt to those Americans who expressed outrage over Vick's animal abuse-presumably for their misplaced priorities. And on the surface it would seem as though Medved has a case, since there was no apparent public outcry over recent revelations of an MFL football star who reportedly has fathered numerous children and shamefully refused to pay child support to the mother of his children. However, it also is worth noting that the public at large probably was largely unaware of the irresponsible NFL father's neglect of his parental duties. But regardless of the direction of the media's focus, it is also true, that the actions of the NFL star do, as Medved contends, have a cruel effect on kids. Still, unlike Vick, who clearly intended to be cruel when he body slammed wounded dogs to the floor to kill them, the irresponsible NFL star and part time "father" was at least not intentionally trying to be cruel.  And that is a clear and  obvious distinction which at least partially explains the difference in the public's (perceived) emotional response. And if Medved's simplistic analysis is taken to its logical conclusion, then nobody has any moral right to complain about any social ill whatsoever-UNLESS he/she can first show that their particular issue or public concern is as important as the issues of abortion or cruelty to children-which would of course be extremely difficult to do. So, basically to "prove" our priorities and values are in decent order, we would have to abandon 99% of all charity and volunteer work on behalf of people or animals in America until abortion and child cruelty issues are first addressed-or else have our priorities questioned-and frankly that's ridiculous.