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
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).
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
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!
— 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
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.