PREACHER DON’T POLITICK
Re: Michael P. Orsi’s Evangelist
and Enabler:
I enjoyed the piece on Billy Graham immensely, as it is
something that I have always felt about Mr. Graham. While I respect
his evangelism and his faith, I have had doubts about his deep
involvement in politics and with politicians, not to mention his
increasing ecumenism in recent years.
Mr. Graham has always seemed to be more interested in being a
part of the political inner circle than in actually ministering to
any of these men. Both sides have used the other: the politicians
benefit from having the support of a man that is nearly universally
loved and respected, while Mr. Graham gets to bask in the glow of
these powerful men and have his ego stroked.
I have never understood how a man such as Graham could be true
to his faith while supporting nearly every position that his
political “friends” held. It just seems odd that a man who calls
himself a Christian can sit idly by and support abortion, or not
speak out against the policy of segregation.
Thank you so much for this excellent analysis of Mr. Graham’s
“career” in political circles.
— Eric Edwards
Walnut Cove, North Carolina
HAVE A VERY OBJECTIVIST CHRISTMAS
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.’s Season’s
Jeerings:
Once again Emmett Tyrrell has indulged himself in one of his
greatest pleasures — imagining that liberals are about to end
Christmas. Never mind that he has confused Christmas with a lot of
contemporary cultural hoopla. If I could wave a magic wand and
address all of the grievances enumerated, I wouldn’t do it. In this
time of giving it would be shameful to take away something the
gentleman cherishes so deeply.
— Mike Roush
North Carolina
Why is “disturbing the peace” at the heart of the liberal project?
Because “disturbing the peace” is the practical means by which the
liberal activist feeds his or her sense of moral vanity.
You see, ironically, Hegelian logic seems to have some basis in
reality. “A” can be simultaneously equal to “not-A.”
The proclaimed selflessness of the activist liberal is merely
the proclamation of pathological self-absorption. For the liberal
activist, it (whatever that may be at the moment) always was, and
always will be, about themselves and their moral superiority.
— Nat Pomrenze
P.S. That’s why leftist theory appeals to both ignorant teenagers
and “grown-ups” with the intellectual horsepower of ignorant
teenagers. It’s all Me! Me! Me! first, last, and always (and
consequences be damned).
PROFOUND KUCINICH
Re: W. James Antle III’s The
Kucinich Crack-Up:
According to the Nation, “A vote for (Kucinich) would
be a principled one.”
That’s a laugh!
The only principle Dennis has is getting elected, and he cares
not what the office. He has campaigned for City Councilman, Clerk
of Court, Mayor, State Representative, Governor, City Councilman
again, State Senator, U.S. Congressman, and President. I don’t
think he has ever held a job in the private sector. He is greedy
for office as some are greedy for money.
I have never agreed with his politics but I used to have a
grudging respect for the guy when he was that rarest of animals: a
pro-life Democrat. When he began hallucinating that he could be
President, he sold out and received in return less than 4 percent
of the votes in Democratic presidential primaries in 2004. The
price of Kucinich’s principles is not high.
Do we want as President someone who spouts nonsense like this
(from a speech at the Praxis Peace Institute Conference, in
Dubrovnik, Croatia in 2002): “Spirit merges with matter to sanctify
the universe. Matter transcends to return to spirit. The
interchangeability of matter and spirit means the starlit magic of
the outermost life of our universe becomes the soul-light magic of
the innermost life of our self.”
Profound, ain’t he?
As President, Dennis “The Menace” Kucinich will embarrass the
people of America as he embarrassed Cleveland residents back in the
1970s.
On the upside, he will provide us plenty of laughs.
— James F. Csank
Seven Hills, Ohio
KRUGMAN ON HIS HEAD
Re: Robert Stacy McCain’s Paul
Krugman’s Fairy Tale:
I have asked a lot of folks how it is that Krugman has earned a
reputation as an economist while his writings tend to turn the
science of economics upside down. No one has given an answer.
Krugman’s apparently favorite column, because he seems to write it
twice a year, is the twin deficit scare story. The budget deficit
is too big and will destroy our economy and the trade deficit is
too big and other nations will suddenly stop buying our debt and
our economy will be destroyed. Never mind that all nations run
deficits and ours is among the smallest as a percentage of gross
domestic product and our trade deficit grows as our trade grows and
represents expanding trade. Krugman has even infected his writing
buddy Tom Friedman with this scare story virus as Friedman writes
the story about once a year. The only answer one can find as to
their strange writing is that they are Democrats echoing the party
line.
— Howard Lohmuller
Paul Krugman writes for the New York Times, which
publishes in a city where government worker unions have nearly
achieved a stunning milestone: they can out-vote the general public
in elections. The implications? They can force taxpayers to fund
ever-increasing wages — and a pension system on course to bankrupt
the state.
And one should never forget their ace in the hole: their ability
to stage crippling strikes, even (as in the case of the transit
strike) when it is a complete violation of the law.
— Arnold Ahlert (former New Yorker)
Boca Raton, Florida
Why react to this moron? I don’t think anyone should pay attention
to him. Then he will wither up and go away. How in the world did he
get a job as an economics professor? To me it is quite obvious he
knows nothing of economics and I am not student of economics but I
do have a little common sense
— Jim
NOT CLIMATE SCIENCE
Re: Patrick J. Michaels’ Not So
Hot:
Whatever in the world has happened to the principles of
science?
Consider this: “…the planet has increased in temperature by
one degree in the past 100 years.”
Have we not acquired more accurate temperature-measuring devices
in 100 years? Is it not possible that our measurements are just
more accurate now? By one degree?
Are we not measuring and reporting temperatures around the world
at many more locations than we did 100 years ago? Would that not
tend to improve the accuracy of the “average” temperature? By one
degree?
Who measured temperatures 100 years ago? With what instruments?
Who averaged the temperatures 100 years ago? From what scientific
data?
Who measured it last year? With what instruments? Who averaged
the temperatures last year? From what scientific data?
And whatever has happened to the margin of error? A margin of
error of less than 1 percent? If the media took a poll of 897
not-so-randomly-selected persons on which candidate 302,561,550.5
Americans believe
will be our next President, a margin of error of 1 percent would be
considered a dream come true.
I continue to hope the principles of science still hold that a
measurement is accurate only to the second-last digit.
Nah. The principles of science in this case are inconvenient, so
they’ve been masticated and evacuated by agenda-driven
mind-controllers.
Just a non-scientific guess on my part.
Much like the “one degree in the past 100 years.”
— A. C. Santore
Pat Michaels is right on!
Great article.
— Matthew Sachs, M.D., M.P.H.
Resident Physician (PGY-1)
University of Virginia Health System
Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences
IN EVIL’S GRASP
Re: Jeremy Lott’s Bad Faith
Bestseller:
One cannot help but admire the many that go out of their way to
refute such luminaries as Christopher Hitchens in the existence of
God argument. Taking on atheists — especially on their own grounds
— is often an unrewarding task. But I sometimes wonder what it is
Hitchen’s detractors are trying to do. It is one thing to get into
a philosophical discussion around possibilities of theism. It is
quite another to bring an atheist into belief in the God of the
Book — in our case, Christianity. Many times we are confusing the
two: seemingly arguing for the existence of God when we are
actually testifying for Christianity.
We often fall into the trap/falsehood of speaking as if belief
is over in one corner and unbelief is in the other. From there one
is to weigh belief and unbelief from an objective, neutral ground.
The problem is that there is no neutral ground. We come into being
as rebels against God and we cannot choose to be other than what we
are. We are born in the firm grasp of evil.
So exactly how does one come to be a Christian? Nothing short of
divine intervention: “He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I
am?’ Simon Peter replied: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the
living God.’ And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon
Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my
Father who is in heaven’” (Matthew 16: 15-17).
Whatever else may be said of Peter, we are like Peter in this
respect. We must be called. I do not know Mr. Hitchens’ fate. One
can only pray for the workings of the Spirit of God — but that
will be at Christ’s timing and not ours. Our task is to proclaim
the Gospel.
But what about free will? Chesterton once remarked that free
will and predestination were really two sides of the same coin. How
that can be is beyond our capability to understand. No doubt many
of our brethren honestly testify to the moments they accepted our
Lord. They believe they themselves decided to follow Jesus. Every
word of it is true. Nevertheless, it is to be remembered that God
Himself has the last word as to what actually happened.
— Mike Dooley
POWELL FOR PRESIDENT
Re: David Weigel’s Guess Who’s
Coming to Des Moines:
For all those trying to equate white folk with racism, if my
memory serves me well, Colin Powell could have been president after
the first Gulf War.
— Richard Szczepaniec
