Transparency

Emmett Tyrell's latest article is particularly transparent. He is writing about Chris Coons, Christine O'Donnels opponent in her race. Tyrrel's point is the media lets Coons of the hook while slamming into O'Donnel.

But do you know what was being taught at the Yale Divinity School when Coons was there as a graduate student? Witchcraft! Had Christine been a bit older and presumably sophisticated, she could have attended classes with Chris and been taught witchcraft by scholars. Perhaps she could have earned a Ph.D. in the mysteries of reading chicken entrails.

Along with classes in witchcraft, there were classes in queer worship and feminist/womanist/gendered theologies, and in the Intro to Christian Ethics II, there was black liberation theology, a study Coons first picked up in Africa. Were the "values" taught in these classes among those absorbed by Coons at YDS? We do not know because Coons is not answering Lord's calls for him to release his transcripts.

. . . His promise to apply the values he learned at YDS does not even call into question what those values might be. Queer worship? Feminist/womanist/gendered theology? Black liberation theology? Witchcraft? The press is too busy digging up dirt on O'Donnell.

Apparently if you study at a university that teaches some flakey courses, you must have taken them and you must be a flake. Here's a newsflash - even Brigham Young University (where I attended, a very conservative Mormon college) has flakey courses. Or, to be more accurate, courses with titles that sound flakey. So this is pretty sad.

And of course Christine O'Donnel's more serious transgressions involve the misappropriation of election funds.

Let Your Freak Flag Fly

Under normal conditions, it's best, politically, to keep your extremist views to yourself. But this political season, with the primary triumphs of so many tea party candidates, I think some Conservatoids have thrown restraint to the win. Case in point, Terry Jeffrey's latest article.

County by county, state by state, Americans should begin functionally abolishing government-run schools and replacing them with a free market in schools. On the federal level, Congress should kill the Department of Education by choking off its funding. The department was not constitutional in the first place.

Say what you will about the merits of this plan, there is no qustion that it is an extreme plan. Eliminating public education would be a far greater change than the mediocre changes to health care that have caused Conservatives to declare that we are now practically a socialist state.

For the record, of course I think this is a horrible plan. Public education is the bedrock of a civilized society, and to eliminate it is to create, purposefully, a caste system far stricter than the one we have today.

Dennis Prager, Historical Blindness, and the Religion of Leftism

First things first. Dennis Prager's latest article makes this ahistorical comment, that I had to point out.

One of the first books I ever owned -- in high school -- was titled "Danger on the Right." Throughout the world, people are fed the message "Danger on the Right" -- and virtually never "Danger on the Left," despite the left's far bloodier and more totalitarian record.

Allow me to point out a few things - the Red Scares (both the 1920s one and the 1940s/50s one) for one. People were pretty scared of the danger on the left then, weren't they? Let's also comment on the many right wing dictatorships that have imprisoned and executed Leftists and Communists (often with the support of the United States). How do you get away with making such a foolish statement? Perhaps because you assume your readers are fools.

But earlier in the article he makes this fairly common statement.

Liberalism and leftism are religions. While I felt I would be sinning against God when I tasted ham, I was certain I was sinning against both God and man were I to vote Republican.

That is how liberals, not to mention leftists, think: It is a grievous sin to vote Republican (unless the Republican is a liberal). One is abandoning their faith, values, community and very identity.

It is a grevious sin for Liberals to vote for Conservatives. I don't know about the grevious part, but it is a sin, as per this definition "any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle."

If you are a liberal or leftist, it's because you believe that liberalism/leftism is what's best for the nation. Of course it would be a transgression, if you beleive those things, to vote what you believew ould be bad for America.

Muslims are Americans? Who knew?

Steve Chapman's latest article educates Townhall readers on what American Muslims are like. Turns out they are lot like the rest of us.

Most American Muslims are about as radical as Jay Leno. A 2007 survey by Pew found that only 5 percent have a favorable view of al-Qaida -- a number that drops to 3 percent among foreign-born Muslims. Far from praying daily for the rise of Islamic extremism, 61 percent said they were worried about it.

Unlike the alienated Muslim populations of Europe, American Muslims do not feel estranged from society. "Most say their communities are excellent or good places to live," Pew discovered. Most also believe women are better off in the United States than in Muslim countries.

Their overall satisfaction with the state of the country is no different, according to Pew, from the overall satisfaction of everyone else. They don't sound like a violent cult plotting to impose Taliban-style Shariah law on the infidels who surround them. They sound strangely like ... Americans.

So good on you, Mr. Chapman. But let's see how Townhall Readers have responded to this particular mesasge. 471 comments. That's a lot.

The only good Muslim is the one who apostates to Christianity. Unfortunately, the peaceful Muslims kill him. Therefore, there are no good Muslims.

Chapman is like a bystander on a beach saying it's safe to go in the water when would-be swimmers can see sharks circling patiently.

These so called “Moderate Muslims” in America seem to be facilitating, by their actions and words, the Jihadists creed.

Barak NoBama IS A DAMNED MUSLIM!!!

Stay out of my country Muzzie, it is too good for you and yours..

Anyone that thinks Islam is a legimate religion does not know the Bible or god...

Islam IS radical, period.

In fairness, there were a couple who were supportive of Chapman (although one was clearly a liberal (not that there is anything wrong with that)).

Sometimes the Title Is Enough

Case in point, the latest article from Dan Gainor. It's entitled "Left Calls in the Cavalry But Forgets They're the Bad Guys." And that really tells you all you need to know about it. Apparently we are desperate to win the 2010 elections, and so are calling on former Presidents and God to help us out, without realizing that God is on the Tea-partiers side.

We're not the bad guys incidentally.

Trashing Goldwater

Ann Coulter's latest article is interesting because she takes the time to trash an icon of the right, Barry Goldwater. In contrasting him with Reagan, she calls him "abortion-loving Goldwater" and "gay-marriage-loving Goldwater." But that's not all.

Goldwater may have been a thorough-going right-winger on national defense, but -- unless L. Brent Bozell Jr. was writing it for him -- he never would have said this of the Soviets, as President Reagan did: "There is sin and evil in the world and we are enjoined by Scripture and the Lord Jesus to oppose it with all our might."

. . . Goldwater wasn't our guy; Reagan was.

Interesting. Of coures Barry Goldwater wasn't unelectable because he wasn't Christian enough. And Barry Goldwater's campaign pushed this country to the right, essentially setting up Reagan down the road. And certainly Reagan's assessment of Barry Goldwater was pretty positive.

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness. We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

That was from one of Reagan's most famous pre-presidential speeches (on behalf of Barry Goldwater).

It's all about Obama

Dick Morriss and Eileen McGann's latest article is intresting, in that they seem to acknowledge the possibility that their candidates may not have universal appeal.

The Democrats are gleeful over the missteps of Christine O'Donnell. Too many leading Republicans do not realize that all of our fates in the midterm election are tied to her. If the Democrats can discredit her, they can discredit all of those like her and raise lasting doubts about dozens of Republican candidates who would otherwise be victorious.

If the grass-roots tea party is foisting unqualified candidates upon us, and if our very own party leaders think this is true, what a weapon we are handing the Democrats. Those critical Republican leaders who would criticize the O'Donnells of our party must realize that she is here to stay, she is one of us now and she deserves all our support. Fortunately, the grass-roots knows this fact and has showered her campaign with donations and support.

Kind of confusing there as Morris seems to recognize that O'Donnel (and others) are weak, but stressing that they must be supported.

The larger point though is that this election needs to be about Obama; it shouldn't matter what kind of candidate we put up, so long as America focuses on how badly Obama has failed.

New Quote

I used to do a post everytime I did a new quote - since reinvigorating the Quotes page i am updating it more often, but don't feel the urge to highlight it as I once did. At any rate there's a new quote up there at the top.

What if Christine O'Donnel Loses?

The current mood on the right is interesting; it's a sort of eager triumphalism. Everybody expects 2010 to be very good for Republicans, but one wonders what the takeaway will be if more mainstream republicans win while people like Christin O'Donnel lose.

But what do I know? According to David Limbaugh's latest article, I'm an extremist.

But Christine O'Donnell isn't really the issue here. The more interesting and relevant stories arising out of her primary victory are: 1) the liberals' efforts to paint her -- along with other mainstream conservatives, including the entire tea party movement -- as extreme and, frankly, a bit wacko when the real extremism resides in the Democratic Party . . .

We are back in Clinton territory in a way; Clinton was described as an extremist for his 8 years as well; even though he was pretty moderate all the way around, and sold out the liberal base repeatedly. But going back to my main theme, what happens if O'Donnel loses?

The tea partiers are not splintering or otherwise threatening the Republican Party; they are making it more accountable, more conservative and more effective. It can no longer be said that incumbents in either party are shoo-ins. We're witnessing the healthiest paradigm shift in modern politics, and it is an extremely positive development.

What happens is that Conservatives continue to fool themselves about the Conservative nature of this nation. If O'Donnel loses, Limbaugh et al won't take that as a lesson not to put up extremist and shakey candidates just because they are more strictly conservative. They never do.

War Without End

Mike S. Adams has parleyed his annoyance at people disagreeing with him into a quite a little career. That said his latest takes it up a notch.

This debate is about more than two people in love. It is about two factions of society, which are sharply divided. One chooses to live in accordance with God’s word and the other chooses to live in rebellion against it.

Because the stakes are so high the debate must be joined by everyone. It cannot be dictated by those who call themselves gay but use anger to silence those who object to the same-sex union. Now more than ever, we must speak now or forever hold our peace.

I do agree that we should have a debate - there are honest disagreements. On the other hand how do you debate "We should follow God's word" vs. "We should live in rebellion to God." I mean if those are the terms, shouldn't everybody on the "We should live in rebellion" side just give up? What kind of debate is that?

If Wishing Made It So

I got sick last week which is why posting tailed off, but I did want to point out this article from good old Ben Shapiro, Boy Prognosticator. This week Ben has girded up his loins in a silly attempt to be an Ann Coulter like fire breather.

. . . we don't need to be lectured about our intolerance for Islam when we object to radical terror-supporting Muslims building a mosque on the bodies of those murdered by radical terror-supporting Muslims. Our objections to the ground zero mosque aren't based on xenophobic notions about brown people or baseless ideas about the nature of all Muslims. Our objections to the ground zero mosque are simple: We will not submit to a group of people who agree with terrorists in ideology, share funders with terrorists, and seek to use a site of Islamist victory as a site for the worship of an Islamist god.

The key argument here is that Imam Ruaf is a terrorist supporiting radical. He isn't. He clearly isn't. His public statements show him to be the opposite of a terrorist-supporting radical, unless you carefully cherry pick his statements.

I don't know whether Ben knows the truth, but has decided it's more fun to lie, or if he genuinely doesn't know that Imam Ruaf is a moderate.

I'm also amused at that "We will not submit" line, as it does seem to imply that simply complaining about the Mosque isn't going to be enough. This is amusing because plenty of consrvatives have been keen to point out that nobody is saying Muslims can't build a community center there; they just would prefer that they didn't. It's clear that some, young Ben among them, would like to see more stringent opposition that would actually stop the Cordoba center.

The general thrust of the article is about Michael Moore; young Ben really doesn't like Michael Moore.

No True Scotsman

The popular fallacy seems applicable after reading Doug Giles latest article.

How do I know I’m not a terrorist? Well, you pretty much have to be a Muslim or a progressive to be one, and I’m not Islamic but rather a Christian and a conservative.

Hilarious. You wonder if he has heard about those acts of terrorism committed against doctors who perform abortions. Or violence against Homosexuals. But presumably he either condones that sort of violence or he is willfully blind (let's be charitable and go with the latter).

Drown them in Cliches

Scott Wheeler's latest article was written with the aid of Buckley Carlson, and it is weak. Just a collection of pithy sayings and non-sensical assertions. For one thing they seem to think that there's nothing wrong with burning the Koran.

There were no Korans burned or mosques opposed before the Islamic terrorists burned nearly three thousand Americans. And yet, we are not supposed to burn the book they say inspired them to do it…or there will be more violence, Obama and Hillary Clinton tell us. Let’s get this straight: not burning the Koran lead to the burning of nearly three thousand Americans. And now, burning the Koran – we are told – will lead to more Americans dying?

What incredible stupidity that statement reveals. First of all, let's dispense with the notion that America was just sitting around minding it's own business when the terrorists involved. We have been involved in the Middle East for decades. At the very least we are staunch allies with Israel. There are valid or at least defendable reasons why we have done these things, but they are at least one source of Islamic Terrorists actions.

Secondly, dumkoffs, the situation is different now because we have stationed troops in the middle east in far greater numbers than ever before. Deciding to take actions, which should be offensive to decent people even if there were no downsides, has greater risks when you think about the troops serving in those parts of the world.

The pair suggest that Rauf threatened violence if he didn't get his way with the Mosque (he didn't). They then suggest that since the Media believes the Tea Party to be violent (they don't), they should follow the pattern established by treating Muslims as American Citizens worthy of respect (which they see as a terrible concession), and give the Tea partiers whatever they want (omg).

Oh and we should dump Obama.

What puts more American lives in danger than burning a Koran in Florida? Answer: having an unqualified, anti-American street punk for a president! So, if you liberals take Obama at his word, then you must call for his immediate resignation with the same enthusiasm that you are now denouncing the kookie Koran-burner.

Street Punk? That's subtle. Except of course that, my dear dunderheads, most Liberals don't see Obama as all that threatening.

Enemies

Pat Buchannan's latest article is interesting (if sad), particularly set against his previous work. He is essentially an isolationist and nativist; this is well known.

Buchannan's thesis is that we need to be willing to identify Islam as our enemy.

If we are not at war with Islam, why are we fighting the Taliban? They did not attack us. If Islam is a religion of peace, why are Muslims massacring Christians in Nigeria and Sudan? Why did those Afghan mobs also yell, "Death to Christians"? Why are Christian Copts being attacked in Egypt, and Assyrian and Chaldean Christians in Iraq? Did these Christian communities start a holy war against their vastly more numerous Muslim brethren?

What do the terrorists and "state sponsors of terrorism" -- Mohamed Atta, bin Laden, al-Qaida, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- have in common, except for Islam?

. . . How do we win a long war when we cannot name the enemy?

I'm not sure how to take this - obviously the disdain for Islam lies right in line with Buchannan's nativism. But underneath that there is a sense that he feels this war is foolish; we don't have the stomach for wiping Islam out and because of that we probably shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq.

Earlier in the article Buchannan underlines this.

. . . if we are perceived as at war with Islam, we will lose that war, and Osama bin Laden will have won by having broadened and defined what the war was about.

So we can't win the war without naming the enemy, but once we name the enemy we will lose the war. Kind of a catch 22; the implication being we'd have been better served by not involving ourselves with those filthy foriegners.

"Ground Zero" Mosque Builder Threatens America

Or so Doug Giles' latest article would have you believe.

Feisal seems to intimate this, going against his own script (and, coincidentally, the MSM’s) by suggesting that if we offend them by not letting them build a Muslim Theme Park at Ground Zero that this will cause Muslims to explode with violence, . . .

He is referring to an interview Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf participated in on the Larry King show with host Soledad O'Brien. Rauf's point was a bit more nuanced than "let us build our Cordoba Center or we'll kill you."

If we move from that location, the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse. The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack. And I'm less concerned about the radicals in America than I'm concerned about the radicals in the Muslim world.

. . . I have a niece who works in the Army and served in Iraq. The concern for American citizens who live and work and travel overseas will increasingly be compromised if the radicals are strengthened. And if we do move, it will strengthen the argument of the radicals to recruit, their ability to recruit, and their increasing aggression and violence against our country.

This is essentially the faultline that Giles and other conservatoids aren't going to see. Rauf represents a secular Islam that champions America as a nation that is compatible with Islam's ideals. Our secular and multi-cultural society is what Allah wants. This is Ruaf's view, and he hasn't exactly made a secret of it.

Opposed to that view are those of radical Muslims like al-Qaeda and others who believe that America and American style Democracy are antithetical to Islam, that we intrinsically threaten Islam.

In the middle are the vast majority of Muslims; if they see Imam Rauf's actions as being successful, than his views will likely become more dominant. On the other hand if America essentially says that Muslims don't belong and aren't really Americans, than radicals like al-Qaeda will seem to be more correct.

One thing Imam Rauf doesn't want to say because he is a man of peace is that of course if he moves the Mosque Conservatives in this country will claim it as a victory and the likes of Giles and Hannity and Pamela Geller will paint it as a victory of good honest Americans over evil anti-American Muslims. He doesn't want to say that this controversy has been ginned up by certain people for political ends. He does finally reference the Anti-Islam attitudes in this country, which has been growing all year.

Because in a sense Giles agrees with Osama bin Ladin. Islam and America aren't compatible; they are natural enemies. I personally would rather stand with Imam Rauf than Doug Giles.

Is the Media to Blame for Terry Jones

This is the Thesis of Mona Charen's latest article.

He became news because he fulfilled a need for the press. They had to have another side to the ground zero mosque story. Why? Because members of the press are total suckers for "both sidesism." There is nothing they like better in a news story than to present two conflicting views and to pronounce that "both sides" are guilty of provocation, mistrust, violence or bad faith. They are confident that truth nearly always lies between two extremes.

. . . They had to turn over rocks in rural Florida to find the handlebar moustache-sporting Quran burner.

But attempting to present "both sides" as having their extremists, their provocateurs, is quite simply absurd in this case.

Yeah I don't buy that, frankly. Partially because of this report from Salon, which indicates that this has been a much bigger story overseas.

Lynch said that the first story in his files on the Quran burning is this July 28 report from the Saudi TV station al-Arabiya. That in turn "generated discussion on jihadist forums and other media outlets way back then," Lynch said.

By that point in July, according to Howard Kurtz's timeline, the story had gotten some play in the U.S. but had not attracted much interest.

Meanwhile, the story was percolating through the media in Muslim-majority countries, where it was often framed as the latest and most egregious example of rising Islamophobia in the United States, according to Gregg Carlstrom, a journalist with Al-Jazeera English who is based in Doha, Qatar. And given the history of angry reaction to real or perceived vandalism of the Quran, there's no doubt the stakes were high. In Afghanistan and Indonesia there have since been protests of the Quran burning.

This was the context in which Petraeus was asked about -- and decided to comment on -- the Quran burning in an interview with a Wall Street Journal reporter on Sunday.

In other words, this was actually a story, not just something pulled out of thin air (or Florida air). This has been a story in the middle east and as such, I think Petraus needed to comment on it. And once he commented on it, well, it naturally became a much bigger story.

This will be our year

Well maybe not. According to Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, we are pretty well screwed.

The magnitude of the catastrophe facing the Democratic Party in the fall elections is only gradually becoming clear to the leaders of both parties. The Democrats will lose both the Senate and the House. They will lose more House seats in 2010 than the 54 they lost in 1994, and they will lose the Senate, possibly with some seats to spare.

Pretty much all the articles over at Townhall follow a similar theme this week - I guess it's the post labor day period - time to pay attention to the election. And the goal of articles right now is to both convince your voter to fight like hell for victory and to discourage the opposing party to pack it in because they have already lost. So it's hard to put too much stock in these articles.

But it's still depressing to read article after article about how your side is going to lose. So I suppose it's better to be enthusiastic about how foolish these two will look in November.

Every Title Tells a Story

Sometimes it is fun to respond to a title before reading the article proper. The title of Ben Shapiro's latest article is "Why We Treat Obama Like a Dog."

Nice.

I don't believe in calling every conservative racist, and I am not sure Shapiro is racist - I tend to think he isn't. But a statement like that - did it even occur to him how that would read? I mean there's being a racist and just being stupidly insensitive, and I am pretty sure this article title falls into the later camp.

As for the article itself let's take a peek.

If Obama were a dog, he'd be a bad dog. The kind of dog that routinely drinks from the toilet, and simply will not be taught that drinking from the toilet is bad manners (think Obama on health care). The kind of dog that barks at all hours of the night, just for attention (think Obama's pathetic need for constant adulation). The kind of dog that runs from intruders when danger's in the air (think Obama on Iraq, Iran, Russia, North Korea, China -- hell, just think about Obama's position on any country that isn't an American ally).

In fairness Shapiro is using the dog metaphor because the President complained that his enemies see him as a dog. That said, it's a bit uncomfortable to read him talking that way about the President.

Religious Liberty

Good article by Michael Gerson over at Townhall on the Cordoba Center. He makes some salient points. He notes that plenty of those who oppose the Cordoba Center oppose all new Mosques in America, which is something some of those who oppose the Corodoba Center haven't grasped.

Gerson also notes that the Christians who are attacking this and other Islamic buildings, face much the same attacks from the left wing. Perhaps tolerance wouldn't be that un-Christian.

Christianity, as an Abrahamic faith, sets out another vision -- an assertion of human worth and dignity that transcends tribe and nation. Christianity has accommodated this belief in slow, halting, often hypocritical stages -- a history that should leave Christians tolerant of the slow, halting, hypocritical progress of other traditions. The implications of this shift within Christianity, however, are profound. In light of this belief, the purpose of social influence for Christians is not to favor their own faith; it is to serve a view of universal rights and dignity taught by their faith. It is not to advance their own creed; it is to apply that creed in pursuit of the common good. This is what turns religion into a positive social force -- a determination to defend everyone's dignity.

I kind of agree with this (at least in the political sphere), while noting that many Christians would strongly disagree with this theory. Evangelicals do, of course, feel a need to advance their on creed, and many Christians of every faith beleive it an act of charity to explain the one true way to Heaven.

Responses to the article are interesting; there are soem more libertarian Conservatives who are glad to see it, but obviousl there are also comments like these.

Mr. Gerson, you are a dhimmi, a useful shill for Islam.

Is mr. gerson a closet muslim or merely a "fellow traveler" that will sell them the rope by which to hang us??

"Muslims on our side" is a contradiction in terms.

Islam itself IS the enemy. It is the Anti-Christ of religions.

Mr. Gerson, please tell me how you, as a supposed Christian, (or anyone else, for that matter) can corroborate the claims of Muhammad?

And if you cannot, then why do you defend them?

Just a sampling. I particularly hate the one about "Muslims on our side is a contradiction in terms." Just flat out hatred. That last one just baffles me. There are all kinds of religious beliefs I can't corroborate; that doesn't mean I forbid them.

Let's Check in with Ann Coulter

After all it's been ages since I did one of Ann's columns (almost a year). Lets check out her latest; how bad could it be?

Liberals say conservatives don't believe in civil rights. I say liberals are godless traitors. Why is one statement debatable and the other not?

. . . All liberals are atheists. Only the ones who have to stand for election even bother pretending to believe in God.

Not being acquainted with any actual Christians, they aren't particularly good bluffers.

Oh, now I remember why I don't bother with Ann Coulter. She's insane. She is, if she believes this stuff, certifiable. The larger question is why someone so clearly delusional is a prominent voice in the Conservative movement (although her star has been slipping for some time, she's still up there).

Alternatively she doesn't believe this stuff, but knows what her audience likes to hear. Which I have to admit is at least as likely.