RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘news’

Good Earth FriDay: Religions in Conflict

22 Apr

Today is the observance two observances.

Christians today commemorate “Good Friday” – the day in which we remember the crucifixion of Jesus (regardless of what day of the week he was originally killed).

Today is also the annual observance of “Earth Day.”

Both focus on commitment to an entity bigger than ourselves, both focus on personal action and commitment.

Yet only one is religious. Right?

Strangely some very religious-sounding language is used by environmentalists and specifically the EPA’s website.  Here’s a few examples:

  1. Belief.Faith is not believing something without evidence, but is believing in something that you can’t see or prove. People can have faith, for example, in the reliability of a friend – this is not to say there’s no evidence, but it cannot be proven that the friend will come through, even if they say they will. Christian faith is strongly based on evidence of the authors of the Bible.  Environmental faith, as Al Gore explains in this video, is based on the beliefs of Al Gore and certain holy writings which consist of select research that Al Gore canonized based on whether they agree with his opinion:
    YouTube Preview Image
  2. Repentance.Repentance speaks to the change of one’s mind that is reflected in a change of behavior. When Christians talk about repentance, they typically mean stopping harmful behavior and committing to healthier, holy, behavior. Here’s where the EPA falls with repentance:

    Earth Day Repentence: Choose at least 5 actions you'll commit to. Use less water and electricity, commute without polluting, reuse and recycle, and more.

    Repent! Repent! Then participate in the 5 sacraments of environmentalism!

  3. Personal Commitment.The Bible speaks to the need not just for one time of belief or a period of repentance upon belief,  but personal, daily commitment to wrap your life around Jesus. The EPA uses the very same language encouraging all to “Make a personal commitment to make environmental protection a part of your daily life.”

    Make a personal commitment to make environmental protection a part of your daily life

    Read your Bible, pray every day? No! replace that commitment with making environmental protection a part of your daily life.

  4. Daily devotions. Many church kids grew up singing songs like “Read your Bible, pray every day!” There’s a general encouragement to be exposed to and affected by the Bible every day. There’s even daily text message services to get you a daily Bible verse, which is similar to what President Obama says is the extent of his worship. The EPA has an equivalent, and you can sign up to be notified every day with new instructions of how to be sanctified in their eyes.They’ve even got an alternative podcast to keep sermons in your ears!

    Learn a green tip every day: Sign up to get a daily email tip during Earth Month in April.

    Daily devotions in text and podcast from the EPA

  5. Community. Christianity cannot be practiced alone. The Bible  speaks of groups of Christians as a body, both connected to and supporting each other, and urges Christians to meet together. The first thing on the Earth Day web page of the EPA is a link to find a church.. er… environmentalist events in your area to keep you involved in the faith.

    Make every day Earth Day and help protect health and the environment throughout the year.

    Get plugged into a community of those who share your beliefs and live them out every day, all year. Christianity? Nope. Environmentalism.

  6. Evangelism. Even if a person has believed in Jesus, repented, committed, exercised daily disciplines, and is involved in community, they aren’t really a disciple of Christ unless they are also a disciple maker, spreading the word to others. The alternative is true as well – once you’ve committed your life to environmentalism, you must be an environmental evangelist to “spread the word” to get others to believe, repent, etc. Here’s my final clip from the EPA website:

    Teach others about the Environment: One of the best ways to spread the word on environmental protection is to teach a class at your local school

    Curiously, they've even capitalized "Environment" in the title but not the other words, similar to how Christians capitalize "God."

 

The EPA isn’t all. Earthday.org says you need to pledge, volunteer, evangelize, and even tithe… er… donate to the cause.

My purpose in highlighting the religious nature of environmentalism this Good Earth FriDay is not to say we should abuse the earth. That idea seems so absurd I’m not sure who thinks we ought to destroy our home, and normally when that claim is made, it’s simply to end the discussion by name-calling.

We ought to be responsible stewards of the earth. We should also recognize that environmentalism as it is being pushed by our government and others today is structured in a way to be opposed to other systems of truth claims, such as Christianity.

 
3 Comments

Posted in Culture, Politics

 

Keep the Democrats in my uterus?

13 Apr
Protest Sign: Keep your Boehner out of my uterus!

Protest Sign: Keep your Boehner out of my uterus!

The signs are back. Boehner, speaker of the house, wanted to remove federal funding of abortion from the budget as one of the cuts. The thinking goes something like this:

If someone wants to stop spending tax-payer dollars on killing an unborn yet scientifically distinct human life, it’s an invasion of someone else’s rights. They should not only have the right to take this human life, but you should pay for it through your taxes.

Where was the outburst of anger when Obama, Pelosi, and Reid rammed through the Obama health care mandate? This gave more government control over every aspect of health, where was the liberal outcry that government should stay out of our bodies?

Evidently, these protesters want Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi in their uterus and John Boehner out. They want legislation out of their uterus, but they want government-paid medical equipment in there scrubbing it. The signs seem like it’s a charge against big government intervention but the argument is the opposite. The sign would more accurately read: “Big government needs to be encouraging and funding abortion.” Statistically Planned Parenthood targets the poor, and a higher percentage of minorities are persuaded to abortion than whites. If the goal was to rid America of poor an brown folks, abortion would be the way to go. In fact, that’s why Planned Parenthood was started – to “to create a race of thoroughbreds” by rectifying “the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit.’” Perhaps the sign should more accurately read:

Big government needs to be encouraging and funding abortion for the lower class and people with brown skin.

I’ve likely severely offended many readers, particularly if they found this article from a web search. Abortion is a highly charged issue for a few reasons:

  1. For lack of measurable results, the feminist movement pinned their success to the legalization and subsequently federal funding of abortion. The entire feminist push in our culture became focused not on celebrating and valuing what women do, but in promoting abortion because it was a situation unique to women (making it a woman’s issue) and along with more freely available contraceptives, claimed to free up women to have consequence-free sex just like men.
  2. Abortion is highly personal and highly emotional. Women who find themselves considering the option are in a huge crisis where the options seem like death of the child or suicide of self. If they keep the child their life feels like it will be destroyed, and they may not feel much more hope for the baby. With the political and cultural push for and funding of abortion, it’s not surprising that women make this choice. We’re paying their doctors to do it!

 

Frederica Mathewes-Green wrote an article about pregnancy centers a few years ago. Most disturbing to me are the statistics that it’s overwhelmingly those with wealth that want funding for Planned Parenthood to be used for providing abortions for poorer Americans. The rich are paying for abortion to be promoted for the poor who don’t want it. Here’s an exerpt:

Those who provide alternatives to abortion believe that pregnancy is just one facet of the woman’s larger and more complex life. They believe she is not best served by treating her as merely a polluted uterus in need of a good scrubbing. Her life is tangled with the life of her child growing within, woven with the lives of the child’s father, with her own parents, friends and co-workers in a tapestry of lives. To remove the child is to cut a hole in the tapestry, by literally cutting into human flesh, tearing the child apart and tearing the mother’s heart. Unplanned pregnancy is not one problem, but a host of problems, great and small; pregnancy care providers try to solve them, one at a time.

Problem pregnancy is associated frequently with poverty, and Planned Parenthood selects the poorer neighborhoods; it is popularly believed that abortion is the best solution for the poor. At any rate, this belief is popular with those who are not poor. Polls regularly show that those with higher income levels are the most likely to endorse public funding of abortion, a gift that the recipients are not eager to accept. David Gergen, in an editorial written before he joined the Clinton administration, pointed out that a 1992 Reader’s Digest poll discovered “poorer Americans are the most opposed to federal funding [for abortion]. Among those earning less than $15,000 per year, opposition ran 63 to 32 percent against funding, while those making over $60,000 favored it by 57 to 41 percent.” Gergen asks, “Is Clinton listening to the people he wants to help?”

When people offer to help you by giving you money to eliminate your children, there’s an implied message that’s hard to miss. A friend who worked in an abortion referral center stocked a flier which explained how we could reduce our tax burden by helping poor women have abortions; one day a Hispanic client came in, slapped the flier on the counter, and hissed, “This is what you really think of us.” Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was an enthusiastic eugenicist who wanted “to create a race of thoroughbreds” by rectifying “the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit.’” Planned Parenthood still has great admiration for Sanger, and president Faye Wattleton said a few years ago that the organization is “just following in the footsteps” of its founder.

Two brands of compassion, each offering what they think is best, but one gets the lion’s share of funding. While pregnancy care centers are a woman-to-woman operation, with funds raised in batches through bake sales and small grants, abortion is more lavishly supported from above. Planned Parenthood Federation of America is the recipient of impressive grants from a long list of foundations and corporations, from Helena Rubenstein to the Pew Charitable Trusts to the New York Times Company. In a typical year, $125 million was received via Government grants and contracts. Planned Parenthood has fought for federal funding of abortion, and with the expanded provisions of the Hyde Amendment will now be able to charge more abortions to the public purse. Some states, as well, use taxpayer funds to underwrite abortions: in Maryland the bill totals $3 million per year. There is plenty of money from above to eliminate the children of the poor, and little need for bake-sale fundraising from below. The director of Planned Parenthood in Maryland is a well-mannered, sober Bostonian in a dark suit; it is hard to imagine him raising funds by poking his head in an office door, like Gloria’s volunteers, and asking how many want a pastrami sub.

 
No Comments

Posted in Culture, Politics, Reason

 

Bugs or babies?

12 Apr

Bugs or the babies: which deserve more rights?

According to the United Nations, led by Bolivia, bugs and beetles out value our babies.

Bolivia will this month table a draft United Nations treaty giving “Mother Earth” the same rights as humans — having just passed a domestic law that does the same for bugs, trees and all other natural things in the South American country.

Bolivia recently passed the legislation on the basis of religious worship of the earth deity, “Pachamama.”

Ought wasps have the same rights as women?

This legislation is immoral. When there’s a total moral equivalence between a baby girl and an earwig, how can there be real respect for life? At minimum the conclusion is that it’s a toss up as to which life is worth compassion. Choosing between the life of a mother and her birthing baby is a moral dilemma. This legislation makes killing the mother the moral equivalent of stepping on a spider. In fact, killing a spider and it’s eggs would be a greater moral crime than killing a human mother and her unborn child.

The Judeo-Christian world view argues in the contrary that humans are unique and have both unity and distinction with nature. According to the biblical narrative, humans are created from the dust of the earth and as he breathes his breath, or spirit, into them, they are created in the image of God. Human life is sacred. Our responsibility to both dominate and care for the earth is also a sacred responsibility.

Yet there is a repulsive reaction to Judeo-Christian values in world government, this animistic theology is welcomed. This should bring clarity – religious values are shunned if the United Nations is opposed to the ideas, and embraced if the ideas help the UN achieve its goals. The problem for those seeking greater centralized government power is not religion – it’s certain values that they will reject whether religious or not.

Two Bolivian women. Bolivia is the poorest country in South America

The values pushed by giving the earth spirits rights is simply another way to push for stripping people of their rights. Bolivia is the poorest country in South America. The land is rich in natural resources, so business has been clamoring to come into the country. This legislation will stop work, stop jobs, and increase poverty. This is what the legislation is doing in Bolivia; this is what the UN is pushing for.

The UN isn’t interested in the planet, and they aren’t interested in Pachamama worship. This is, in the end, simply a power grab by governments. The legislation “establishes a Ministry of Mother Earth, and provides the planet with an ombudsman whose job is to hear nature’s complaints as voiced by activist and other groups, including the state.”

That’s right – the whole idea is that what the state says now becomes a matter of rights. To go against the government is a rights-violation issue. This turns the idea of rights on it’s head, taking rights away from people and giving them to the state in the name of ‘mother earth.’

Even in Bolivia it’s clear that this is primarily about governments accruing more power over the people, as the Bolivian president has been declaring for years that the first step to save the planet is “to end capitalism.”

The environmentalist movement is being used in an effort to strip you of your basic human rights and freedom. Rather than jumping on the bandwagon that provides the opportunity to escape from freedom, there’s a better approach.

Rather than basing our ideas on fear (that the earth is about to die) or hatred (of those evil capitalists), we should be basing our ideas on facts. Christians ought to be taking care of the planet in ways that are effective because it is a sacred responsibility; because it is God’s creation; because it is our origin. Much of the specific ways to be “environmental” are agenda-based to gain votes or reward certain companies and industries for political support. A healthier and more effective approach requires better self-education and less readily adopting political and cultural trends.

 
1 Comment

Posted in Culture, Politics, Reason

 

RNC Pledge To America

24 Sep
Republicans and the Pledge to America

Photo credit: SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

The Republicans have published a 21 page “Pledge to America“. I have only skimmed it so far, but some of the bullet points indicate a commitment to spurring economic growth by lowering taxes on the citizens and downsizing the government. This means that every business and every individual has more money, and the federal government spends less money.

Pelosi, Reid, and Obama are expected to announce the DNC response today: a 2,200 page document called “Hope for America” that no one has read, and we’ll find out what it contains after the Democrats are elected.

 
2 Comments

Posted in Politics

 

Religious Extremists, Part 1

08 Sep
YouTube Preview Image

Since Rosie O’Donnell declared that Christian extremists were as dangerous as Muslim extremists, it seems to have become an official talking-point of American politics. I’ve heard media talking heads say that Christianity and Islam are the same: not all Muslims are terrorists, not all Christians proselytize.

Naturally, telling someone there’s a free gift of eternal salvation available to all is strikingly similar to blowing up yourself along with a bus load of people, or two trade towers. Why didn’t we see that before? In perspective, we can all now see that every Billy Graham event was as damaging to America as 9/11. Yet the American military doesn’t seem to be able to track down one old man in the mountains of North Carolina. I smell conspiracy. How did we not realize this when Graham called his events the most politically incorrect word: “Crusades!” Oh, the horror of extreme Christians!

George W. Bush promoted the idea that Islam is a religion of peace. What about that sneaky worldwide trend of violent extremists rising up within Islam? We’re told that every religion has extremists, but it is no reflection on the religion or the people who follow it. But especially Christians.

Today a Christian extremist is in the news again.

A small US church says it will defy international condemnation and go ahead with plans to burn copies of the Koran on the 9/11 anniversary.

The top US commander in Afghanistan warned troops’ lives would be in danger if the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida went through with the plan.

Muslim countries, the US government and Nato have also hit out at the plan.

But organiser, Pastor Terry Jones said: “We must send a clear message to the radical element of Islam.”

The US government, NATO, even General Petraeus have spoken against this man. Petraeus warned that the action could cause violence “not just in Kabul, but everywhere in the world.”

The Huffington Post calls this “our own home-grown variety of dangerous extremism.”

The State Department calls him “un-American.”

I’m not arguing that this guy is correct – or that he’s incorrect – in what he’s doing. But I think it’s important that we get down to what is happening here. Like the conversations at Jim Taggart’s wedding reception, no one is willing to name what is going on here: Terrorism.

Muslims burn an effigy of Pastor Terry Jones who may burn a copy of the Koran

Crowds of Muslims in Afghanistan are chanting “Death to America,” and burned an effigy of the pastor – who as of yet, hasn’t done anything. The Obama administration has called on Americans to join these protests against this American pastor.

And yet, less than a year ago, there was a Bible burning that did not receive international or even presidential condemnation. What’s the difference? What’s the thought pattern in this case?

Everyone’s behavior should be modified out of fear of violence from a certain group of people.

Yet – isn’t that the very definition of terrorism? (Yes, it is: “the state of fear and submission produced by the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce.”)

Will this empower the enemies of America in Afghanistan? Perhaps. It already has, and nothing has happened.

Will this endanger American civilians in Muslim countries around the world? Possibly.

Is it foolish to tempt a bully that is threatening violence against you? Perhaps. And that’s why the bully stays the bully. That’s why the mob wins. That’s why terrorism works.

The government of the United States is one that will pay someone $15,000.00 to take and popularize photos of a crucifix in urine, that will ignore Bible burnings, yet speaks out against anyone who does not submit to at least some of the commands of Islam.

Regardless of Rosie’s talking point, anyone who argues that this guy is a dangerous Christian extremist is saying that only because of what Muslim extremists will do. Anyone who argues that he should stop because of potential violent Muslim reactions is saying there is a difference between Christian and Muslim extremists.

 
7 Comments

Posted in Culture, Media, Politics, Spirituality

 

Miss Bush Yet?

02 Sep

George W. Bush: Miss Me Yet?

For almost 10 years, the DNC and their cronies in the leftist mainstream media have been villainizing George W. Bush.s

No doubt this has influenced people’s political perceptions – I once had someone tell me they blamed Bush for trouble they had finding a parking space. This also likely helped give Obama the presidency as he and others cast his opponent, John McCain as a 3rd term of Bush.

That Obama and the democrat’s politics of personal destruction have a strong influence on how the citizens of America and the wold perceive American politics. It’s nothing new – every strong opponent of the Democrats since Ronald Regan has been attacked as stupid and incompetent. Think about it – what comes to mind as the attacks on Bush, Gingrich, Quayle, Palin?

Obama and the DNC recognize the effectiveness. Two years into his presidency, Obama continues to blame every problem on his Republican predecessor. However, the excuse seems to be getting worn out.

Ohio went for Obama in 2008. A survey by liberal polling agency PPP was just released shows that now, as Obama is less of a mystery and we all know more about him, 52% of Ohioans wish that Bush was still in office, verses 40% who prefer Obama.

While Bush can’t run again for presidency, the poll is relevant because Obama’s incessant finger-pointing at Bush in his ongoing blame game that he plays with the rest of his party that leads both houses and the majority of media outlets.

The personal attacks, name-calling, and finger-pointing works for the Democrats. If they weren’t doing this, the numbers would be dramatically more in favor of Republicans. As it is, Republicans have a 10 point lead on a generic ballot per Gallup, another polling agency that leans left.

Is this an indication that the finger-pointing and personal attacks have stopped working? That’s now how the democrats will see things. They’ll believe that they aren’t blaming and attacking people enough. Expect the name-calling and “politics of personal destruction,” as the Clintons used to say, to escalate as we approach November and future elections.

 
9 Comments

Posted in Politics

 

President Obama: Muslim or Apostate

24 Aug

I previously wrote about the White House’s explanation of Obama’s Christian faith: he prays, so he’s obviously a Christian. Most articles and tv reporters talking about this subject keep repeating that Obama is a Christian, to tell the rising number of Americans (as high as 25% in recent polls) who think Obama is a Muslim that they’re idiots.

Who decides who is a Christian? Who decides who is a Muslim? Both systems of belief have a recognized authority: for Christians the New Testament, for Muslims the Koran and the hadiths, other teachings supplemental to the Koran.

Christianity

Only 1 way:

Closed Bible The Bible says that no one is born a Christian. There’s interaction between a person and the supernatural, and the person enters into a relationship with the one triune deity, recognizes Jesus as the master (Lord) of their life. Romans 10:9-10 is the closest the New Testament has to a step-by-step process of salvation:

That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

There is no magic phrase to recite, but these verses speak of a verbal confession of what a person inwardly believes. Even the spoken element is only a confession of inward reality. If the inward reality isn’t there, the speaking isn’t a confession, but a lie.

Being a Christian is about an inward spiritual change that affects every aspect of your being. The Bible teaches that only God knows a person’s heart, it therefore follows that only God knows the spiritual state of everyone around the world. It is not possible for someone else to know whether you are truly a Christian through any sort of litmus test. There is evidence, however – outward transformation in a person’s lifestyle and actions that happens when your are inwardly changed. Does a person’s world view, beliefs, and positions on issues line up with Jesus’ teachings? While no one is perfect, a Christian should be conforming more to the person of Jesus as time goes by.

Islam

Closed Koran/QuranIn contrast, one can be a Muslim by conversion or by birth.

Option 1: Conversion

One may convert to Islam by saying the following phrase (the Shahadah) in Arabic: “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.” This is not a direct quote from the Koran, but is based on Koranic and extra-Koranic writings and has been the longstanding tradition in Islam.  A whole-hearted attitude or inner change is not required, though that’s desirable.

Option 2: Birth

Any children born to a Muslim are considered Muslim from birth. While Muslim men are free to marry non-Muslim women, Muslim women are forbidden to marry non-Muslim men. Thus, regardless of the mother’s religion, a Muslim household always has a Muslim man at it’s head, and the children are Muslim. If your father was a Muslim, you are a Muslim, according to Islam.

A Muslim child is not accountable before Allah for his/her actions until puberty. At that point they can continue to live as a Muslim or they can choose otherwise, and are considered an apostate, deserving execution.

Execution!? This is not some archaic story in the Koran that was situational. It is a very clear teaching. While it isn’t practiced by every Muslim, it happens around the world and Malaysia and Iran have recently been considering legislation to legally enforce this Koranic teaching.  The video below is about a teenage girl from a Muslim family in Ohio who fled for her life after her father threatened to kill his daughter.

YouTube Preview Image

Quirk: Lying in Islam

While the Koran forbids lying, there are lies that aren’t considered lies. One general rule of thumb I’ve heard many times is that it’s not considered lying to lie for the advance of Islam or for the heart of a woman (which as we know from above is a quick way to beget baby Muslims). Additionally, “Muslims can lie while under oath and can even falsely deny faith in Allah, as long as they maintain the profession of faith in their hearts. ” You can read this long article on the Muslim practie of Al Takeyya, the practice of lying for one’s self or for other Muslims. The article states that even befriending people of other beliefs and displaying adherence with their unbelief as a means of self-protection is ok, and for self-preservation or the preservation of other Muslims, a Muslim can:

  • Drink wine, abandon prayers, and skip fasting during Ramadan.
  • Renounce belief in Allah.
  • Kneel in homage to a deity other than Allah.
  • Utter insincere oaths.

So from a Muslim perspective, it’s possible to denounce Islam and remain a Muslim, though it seems relegated to being in a position where it would be detrimental to one’s self or to the cause of Islam to be openly Muslim.

President Barack Hussein Obama: Christian or Muslim?

Obama's Ramadan broadcast

Photo from the LA Times

As the previous post referenced, there has been a doubling of the percentage of Americans who believe Obama is a Muslim. The White House and the traditional press (newspapers, network, and cable news) have all risen to his defense to tell everyone about Obama’s faith. According to the White House, he’s a Christian. But according to the White House, the continuing recession is “Recovery Summer.”

But it doesn’t matter what the White House or your favorite media personality states. It matters what the authorities within Christianity and Islam state.

He can’t be both. If President Obama truly believes that Jesus Christ is Lord (God and master of all areas of his life) – the condition of being a Christian – then he cannot believe the Shahadah – the condition of being a Muslim. They are mutually exclusive.

As the New York Times accurately reported back in 2008, President Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as understood uniformly around the world. When he reached puberty, he became accountable for his actions as a Muslim. To apply the information gathered above, there are only 2 possible outcomes in Islam:

  1. Barack Obama is an apostate, worse than an infidel, and should be executed as an apostate by the followers of Islam.
  2. Barack Obama is a Muslim in good standing and engaged in Al Takeyya, pretending to be a Christian for the advance of Islam. This would only be possible if one could conceive of a reason that pretending to not be Muslim could be advantageous to the advance of Islam or his personal benefit as the President of the United States. Perhaps if you take a moment here to think: from the perspective of Islam, what could possibly be the benefit of having a Muslim in charge of the most powerful nation on earth, even if he had to pretend to be a Christian? If you can’t think of any possible answer, I’d like to thank you for visiting from MSNBC!

From a Christian perspective, the best that can be said about Obama is that he is likely a true Christian. Or you could argue likely not, as his positions on issues of importance don’t line up with Jesus’ teachings, and his views ought to be affected by his faith.

From a Muslim perspective, Obama is a Muslim or he needs to be executed.

Is Obama a Muslim? It depends on your perspective.

 
5 Comments

Posted in Politics

 

Media Slant: LA Times Hates Ray Bradbury

18 Aug

Ray Bradbury, Farenheit 451I enjoyed reading the LA Times article about Ray Bradbury, author of Farenheit 451, Something Wicked This Way Comes, and other books. The article includes a few quotes of Ray Bradbury:

First, about President Obama:

“He should be announcing that we should go back to the moon… We should never have left there. We should go to the moon and prepare a base to fire a rocket off to Mars and then go to Mars and colonize Mars. Then when we do that, we will live forever.”

Second, about the size of government:

“I think our country is in need of a revolution… There is too much government today. We’ve  got to remember the government should be by the people, of the people and for the people.”

Here Bradbury agrees with many (most likely the majority of) Americans, and the founders of the country. These are not words to be written off as words of a crazy old man. Yet the LA Times titled the piece:

Ray Bradbury hates big government.

The headline – the part of the article that more people will read than any other – simply labels Bradbury a hater. He’s expressed a differing opinion, therefore he can be lumped together with Fox News, Sarah Palin, the tea party movement, and everyone else labeled those who hate – also known as those just as easily called sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, racist, and bigoted.

All of these words have been hollowed out of their meaning and redefined to simply mean “hateful.”

Then again, Bradbury didn’t say anything hateful. In the end all of these slanderous labels simply mean: “someone who disagrees with the Left.”

Take note, if someone disagrees with the Left, the LA Times and often the personalities on “progressive” talk radio and television news networks show how to handle them: Call them a name and never respond to their arguments.

 
No Comments

Posted in Media, Politics

 

Jello is Racist Part 2: And so are you! (The Shirley Sherrod story)

26 Jul

Yesterday’s post, Jello is Racist, was a response to the name-calling frenzy of the NAACP, the White House, and Howard Dean. Here’s what happened. Later this week with what this means for US culture and politics.

Photo of racist jello

Part 1: NAACP overreacts without basis: calls tea party racist

  • July 14: The NAACP officially condemns “racist elements” within the Tea Party Movement and the “Tea Party’s continued tolerance for bigotry and bigoted statements.”
    Keep in mind that there has never been any documented bigotry or bigoted statements within the Tea Party movement. This was simply the NAACP, without evidence, calling a large segment of the US population racists. Meanwhile, the Tea Party members have never tolerated racism or bigotry, and routinely repudiate it.
  • July 14: Various groups of Tea Party members responded.  The “St. Louis group fired off to the NAACP the statement demanding the organization withdraw its “bigoted, false and inflammatory” resolution.”

Part 2: NAACP video released

  • July 19: Andrew Breitbart, conservative Internet journalist released a video he had on file of a woman being cheered on as she told a story of withholding help from a white man who asked for it, sending him instead to one of his own kind – a white person to help him. NAACP audience members cheer her on for what she did, but she goes on to say she later learned it’s not about race, it’s about class warfare. Here’s the video – you can skip to about the 1 minute mark:
    YouTube Preview Image
    She’s not the problem here. She went on to learn and change – now she’s a Marxist not a racist. I still don’t agree with her, but she’s not the one cheering for racism. It’s the NAACP members that are. While there’s no documented evidence that people associated with the Tea Party movement are racist, this is evidence that the NAACP’s charges are true of themselves!

Part 3: NAACP, White House overreact without basis: Fire & Condemn Sherrod

  • July 19: The White House decided that instead of reacting to the true story – the racism within the NAACP, they’d make Sherrod the fall guy, and their demanded her resignation.
  • July 19: The NAACP harshly condemned Sherrod. Here’s an exerpt

Her actions were shameful. While she went on to explain in the story that she ultimately realized her mistake, as well as the common predicament of working people of all races, she gave no indication she had attempted to right the wrong she had done to this man.

Unlike the tea party, there was actually documented racist reactions from people in their organization. Did they condemn themselves and their continued tolerance of this? No. They said, “The reaction from many in the audience is disturbing. We will be looking into the behavior of NAACP representatives at this local event and take any appropriate action.” Their own actions pale in comparison to what they demanded the tea party do.

  • July 19: After the White House had fired Sherrod and the NAACP condemned her, Fox News Channel first reported on the story.

Part 4: NAACP, White House reverse course, overreact without basis: Blame Fox – They’re Racist too!

  • July 20: Glenn Beck first reports on the story on Fox News, and takes Sherrod’s side.
  • July 20: In a full reversal, the NAACP changed their minds. They say they were “snookered by Fox News.”
    The full video showed that she had learned over time not to be racist – but they already knew that, as they had written it into her condemnation the previous day. Also, remember – the condemned her after  the White House demanded her resignation. They acted BEFORE Fox News Channel reported on it.
  • July 22: The New York Times blames Fox News.
  • July 22: Shirley Sharrod blames Fox News, and says she was fired because the Obama administration was afraid that she might appear on Fox News.
  • July 25: On Sunday Howard Dean, former DNC chair, appeared on Fox News parroting the talking point: It was Fox News’ fault, and they’re “absolutely racist” too. When asked by the fox host Chris Wallace if he knew that Fox didn’t even report the story until after she was fired, he just pressed further, calling people racist.
 
2 Comments

Posted in Politics, Reason

 

Jello is Racist, Part 1

25 Jul
Photo of racist jello

A sample photo of the racist dessert.

The NAACP, the Obama administration and former DNC chair Howard Dean “wholeheartedly condemned” gelatinous desserts today*. The NAACP issued a statement calling on “Jello and Jello-salads everywhere to condemn the racist elements within Jello.”

Obama’s press secretary issued a statement that read in part, “We will not be bamboozled by Jello in this silly season of politics. All gelatinous foods have been removed from the congressional cafeteria since several Democratic congressmen clearly heard racist remarks spoken by Jello in recent weeks.”

Jello is “absolutely racist,” former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean charged on Sunday. “Not one gelatin-based dessert has apologized to me or the congressmen whose feelings were hurt, nor did they apologize for the video shown regarding the Shirley Sherrod controversy. And I’ve been listening to a lot of Jello lately. We’ve got to stop being afraid of Jello!”

The rest of the story tomorrow.

* This piece is entirely satirical. If there’s something about Jello that actually is offensive, I’m not aware of it, and you should probably get over it.
 
2 Comments

Posted in Politics

 
« Older Entries