Dropping The F - Bomb

Some commentators heard echoes of Natan Sharansky in yesterday's Inaugural Address. Others, like Fraters Libertas, discerned the source of much of the Left's hatred for George W. Bush. Their remarks are worth reading in their entirety:

Why does the Left feel such a visceral hatred for George W. Bush? Look no further than today's Inaugural Address for the answer. It isn't because he's a unilateralist cowboy or that he believes in God and isn't afraid to say so. And it's not because of the "lies about WMD" or because he didn't sign the Kyoto Treaty.

No, it's all about one word. The F word. I imagine that your average Lefty would have been apoplectic if they actually listened to today's speech and heard Dubya drop the F-bomb twenty-seven times.

You see, as much as they would seek to deny it, FREEDOM is a dirty word to the Left. Oh sure, they like to spout off about how they're all for it, but when it comes down to the heart of the matter, most of their core beliefs contradict it. Can someone please tell me what anyone on the Left has done to advance the cause of freedom in the last thirty-five years?

Were they really interested in the freedom of the people of Vietnam? Or Laos or Cambodia? No. They were more interested in damaging the United States than actually helping those who would fall under the boot heel of communism in Southeast Asia.

What about the freedom of people behind the Iron Curtain? What did the Left's moral relativism during the Cold War do for them? Nada. Again, it wasn't about spreading freedom to oppressed people, it was about reflexively opposing the United States.

The same could be said for the people of Nicaragua and El Salvador. Or the Kuwaitis.

Today, it's the fate of the Afghanis and the Iraqis whom the Left pretends to be concerned about. But how much Leftist outrage did you hear about Afghanistan under the Taliban? And, other then the grossly exaggerated suffering that was attributed to sanctions, did you ever hear a peep from the Left about the brutal suppression of the Iraqi people under Saddam?

What of the Iranians? The North Koreans? The Left loves to kiss Castro's ass and strut around in their Che Chic outfits, but do they care about real freedom for the Cuban people? Hell, for that matter does anyone honestly believe that most Lefties would give a damn about the Palestinians if their cause wasn't a tool to use against Israel (and thus indirectly the United States)?

I'm not saying that Bush's crusade for freedom is based solely on the virtue of helping others attain what we so greatly cherish. There is obviously an American self-interest in seeing the world become more free (the rarity of democracies going to war and all that). But, the fact of the matter is that, whatever his motivations may be, George W. Bush has done more to advance the cause of freedom in the world than any president since Ronald Reagan. And like Reagan, the Left vilifies him for it.

And it's more than just the international front. While Bush's record is far from perfect on domestic matters, his push for tax cuts, reform of Social Security, and creating an "ownership" society are all about freedom. Freedom to keep more of your money. Freedom to invest for your retirement. Freedom to choose your health care options.

What do we get from the Left? Restrictions on what we can eat. Where we can smoke (if we're even allowed to smoke at all). Where we can live. What kind of car we can drive. Where are education tax dollars can be used. What we can say on college campuses. The list could go on and on.

The bottom line is that the Left despises George W. Bush because of his embrace of the one word that they can't abide: Freedom

Despite being marred by what seemed at times an awkward delivery, the content of today's speech was historic. Not just because of the principles the President articulated, although they were truly inspiring, but because unlike most speeches delivered by politicians, the world knows now that what George Bush says, he means.

The Left will object, as Jeannene Garafolo did tonight on MSNBC's Scarborough Country, that Bush's rhetoric about freedom rings hollow because he opposes a woman's right to kill her unborn child or because he opposes granting gays the freedom to marry, or because the Patriot act imposes onerous restrictions on Americans, or because the incarceration of radical Islamists in Guantanamo shows that Bush doesn't really care about freedom at all.

These cavils give further evidence, if any were needed, of the Left's increasing self-imposed irrelevance. People like Ms Garafolo would have us believe that unless one advocates letting everyone do anything they please one doesn't really favor liberty and justice at all. Americans, we are to assume, are toiling under the lash of oppression because we are denied gay marriage and other freedoms that truly liberated people enjoy. Perhaps Ms Garafolo might ask twenty five million Afghans, especially Afghan women, if they have a greater degree of liberty now, even though they don't have gay marriage and abortion on demand, or whether they were freer under the Taliban. Perhaps she might ask twenty five million Iraqis, particularly the Shi'ia and the Kurds, if they are freer now, even though some of them were wrongfully abused at Abu Ghraib, than they were under Saddam Hussein. We suspect that many of them would regard the inquiry as the question of a hopeless naif, and refrain from laughing in Ms Garafolo's face only out of courtesy and pity.

George Bush's speech yesterday raised the anxiety level of oppressors everywhere and gave hope to millions of people who still groan under the weight of tyranny. It was a speech for the ages.

On the Democratic Fringe

Not many Democrats understand that America is still largely a Christian nation and that explicitly secularist agendas will not play well with the majority of voters. Hillary Clinton is one of the few who does, however, and she evidently intends to play her understanding to advantage over the next few years as she seeks to position herself for a run at the presidency in 2008. The following excerpt is from a Boston Globe story:

On the eve of the presidential inauguration, US Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton last night embraced an issue some pundits say helped seal a second term for George W. Bush: acceptance of the role of faith in addressing social ills. In a speech at a fund-raising dinner for a Boston-based organization that promotes faith-based solutions to social problems, Clinton said there has been a "false division" between faith-based approaches to social problems and respect for the separation of church of state.

"There is no contradiction between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional principles," said Clinton, a New York Democrat who often is mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2008.

Addressing a crowd of more than 500, including many religious leaders, at Boston's Fairmont Copley Plaza, Clinton invoked God more than half a dozen times, at one point declaring, "I've always been a praying person."

She said there must be room for religious people to "live out their faith in the public square."

The issue of faith in politics has been at the center of debate following the presidential election, with some arguing that Bush's strong identification with religious values was a key to his victory over Senator John F. Kerry.

Whether Senator Clinton is sincere or not is another question. Right now she seems to be at least saying the things which will distinguish her from the Michael Moore/Ted Kennedy wing of the party. We look for Hillary to continue to define herself well to the right of the Democratic mainstream. It really will be ironic if, two years from now, her political opponents in her own party start hinting that Hillary Clinton is a fringe candidate and an extremist.

Most Influential Spokesperson

The Barna Group has the results of a survey that asks Christian pastors to name the individuals who have the greatest influence on the Church in the U.S., and who they regard to be the most trustworthy spokespersons for Christianity. Here's a summary of just part of their findings:

Greatest Influence On Churches:

The 614 Senior Pastors interviewed were asked to identify up to three individuals whom they believe have the greatest influence on churches and church leaders in the U.S. Pastors named more than 300 different individuals, but only 10 of those leaders were listed by 4% or more of the clergy. Billy Graham was chosen by 34% of the pastors, with Rick Warren (pastor of Saddleback Church and author of the multimillion-selling book, The Purpose-Driven Life) second with 26%. The only other individuals listed by at least 10% were President George Bush (14%) and radio broadcaster and family advocate James Dobson (11%).

Other influencers who were among the ten most frequently listed were Bill Hybels, pastor of Willow Creek Community Church (9%); Bishop T.D. Jakes of The Potter's House (7%); author and motivational speaker John Maxwell (6%); researcher and author George Barna (5%); Pope John Paul II (5%); and author and speaker Max Lucado (4%).

Most Trusted Spokesperson:

Billy Graham also led the pack as the most trusted spokesperson for Christianity, garnering the support of six out of ten pastors (58%). James Dobson was a distant second, with 20% naming him, followed by the 14% who identified Rick Warren. T.D. Jakes placed fourth (7%), followed by veteran pastors Charles Swindoll and Jerry Falwell, each at 6%; and by Bill Hybels and author and prison ministry pioneer Charles Colson (5%). Pastor D. James Kennedy, President Bush, broadcaster Pat Robertson, and author Max Lucado rounded out the top ten individuals, each mentioned by 4% of the clergy.

Billy Graham has had an enormous impact on Christianity in this country and around the world over the last half century and his legacy will ripple and reverberate throughout this century and doubtless into the next. Indeed, it may be that no one since St.Paul will have had a greater impact for the Gospel than has Graham.

Even so, it seems that at the present moment the nod for most influential has to go to Rick Warren. No one has done more to energize the Church in the last few years than has Warren. His influence is different than Graham's because his ministry is different, but millions of people have been inspired by his books and their participation in the small fellowship groups that use them to reorient and recommit their lives to Christ.

We would not be at all surprised to learn that Rick Warren is not only one of the most influential leaders in Christianity right now, but that he has also been one of the most influential people in our society as a whole for the last three or four years.

Not One Damn Dime Day

Tomorrow is "Not One Damned Dime Day" in America. It's being promoted as a way to protest the war in Iraq and the inauguration of war-monger Bush:

Since our leaders don't have the moral courage to speak out against the war in Iraq, Inauguration Day, Thursday, January 20th, 2005 is "Not One Damn Dime Day" in America.

On "Not One Damn Dime Day" those who oppose what is happening in our name in Iraq can speak up with a 24-hour national boycott of all forms of consumer spending.

During "Not One Damn Dime Day" please don't spend money, and don't use your credit card. Not one damn dime for gasoline. Not one damn dime for necessities or for impulse purchases. Nor toll/cab/bus or train ride money exchanges. Not one damn dime for anything for 24 hours.

On "Not One Damn Dime Day," please boycott Walmart, KMart and Target. Please don't go to the mall or the local convenience store. Please don't buy any fast food (or any groceries at all for that matter).

For 24 hours, please do what you can to shut the retail economy down. The object is simple. Remind the people in power that the war in Iraq is immoral and illegal; that they are responsible for starting it and that it is their responsibility to stop it.

"Not One Damn Dime Day" is to remind them, too, that they work for the people of the United States of America, not for the international corporations and K Street lobbyists who represent the corporations and funnel cash into American politics.

"Not One Damn Dime Day" is about supporting the troops. The politicians put the troops in harm's way. Now 1,200 brave young Americans and (some estimate) 100,000 Iraqis have died. The politicians owe our troops a plan -- a way to come home.

There's no rally to attend. No marching to do. No left or right wing agenda to rant about. On "Not One Damn Dime Day" you take action by doing nothing. You open your mouth by keeping your wallet closed.

For 24 hours, nothing gets spent, not one damn dime, to remind our religious leaders and our politicians of their moral responsibility to end the war in Iraq and give America back to the people.

Having been caught up in the spirit of Leftist protest we here at Viewpoint stalwartly intend to join millions of others in spending no money tomorrow in order to "shut the retail economy down." Of course, if we are successful we will inflict the most grievous financial hurt on the little folk who staff the Wal-Marts, pump the gas, drive the busses and cabs, etc.

If those single moms and beleaguered dads struggling to feed and clothe their kids are not harmed by our boycott, well, then that would tell us, unfortunately, that our protest was a failure. So, either we inflict pain upon the little people, or we don't. If we do, we can celebrate our success in bringing increased economic misery to tens of millions of low-income workers. If, however, they regrettably survive our efforts unscathed then we can at least take comfort in knowing that we tried hard to make their lives tougher and their kids hungrier.

This Left-wing logic is really pretty easy once you get the hang of it.

Pale Blue Dot

The service which sends us the Daily Philosophical Quotation the other day offered this one by the late Carl Sagan:

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed.' Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.'

Actually, Sagan was not quite right about this. Once Big Bang cosmology came to be understood, at least in its major outlines, many Christians began to realize that the age and vastness of space had marvelous theological implications. For one thing, the extravagance of creation which people like Sagan think argues against conceiving of man as somehow significant and certainly against the view that man is central to creation, actually does the opposite.

According to the Big Bang hypothesis, the universe began in a primordial explosion of space-time and enormously hot energy, which cooled as it expanded, and from which the first generation of stars precipitated. The theory has it that those stars "lived" for billions of years, compressing protons in their cores into heavier and heavier elements and eventually dying and exploding themselves, creating even heavier elements in their death throes, and spewing this chemical debris into space where millions or billions of years later it would be captured by the gravitational tug of younger stars and condense into planets.

If God did indeed choose to form galaxies and solar systems in some fashion such as this then there are remarkable implications. It took, on this model, thirteen billion years, for the universe to produce the conditions necessary for life to exist on this singular "pale blue dot", to borrow from the title of one of Sagan's books, and all that while the universe was expanding. In other words, the process of preparing a world suitable for human habitation took thirteen billion years of cosmic evolution and all that time the cosmos was growing at unimaginable speed.

Thus for us to be here at all, given the means God employed to create us, the universe has to be just about as old as it is and consequently just about as large as it is. Its age and its size are consequent upon the choices that God made in fashioning it. We, then, really are at the center of the universe. Not geographically, of course, as the ancients thought, but ontologically. It exists as it does so that we could exist as we do.

Just as ecosystems, in order to sustain certain species of animals and plants, has to transition through many stages of development and has to encompass a certain minimum size, so, too, does the universe have to be at a certain stage of development and of a certain dimension in order for life to emerge and thrive anywhere in it.

When looked at this way, the vastness and scope of the universe astonish us even more than they would otherwise. We are left speechless at the fact that God did all of this just so that we could inhabit a tiny speck of it, just so that we could be.

Second Term

As the Presidential Inauguration draws nigh we thought our readers might enjoy this amusing piece of political humor sent along to us by Dick F.

How to Get it Right

Mark Pinsky writing for the Columbia Journalism Review talks about his experiences as a religion writer for the Orlando Sentinel in getting to know that exotic life-form known as the Christian evangelical. Some excerpts:

For the first time in my life, I was living in a sea of believing, faithful Christians, and the cold shock felt like total immersion. As on the West Coast, I learned a lot on the job, interviewing ministers, leaders, and lay people. I attended church services more often than many Christians - some months more often than I attended my own synagogue. But the most intense part of my education came from outside the job, apart from the mediation of a reporter's notebook. At PTA meetings, at Scouts, in the supermarket checkout line, and in my neighborhood I encountered evangelicals simply as people, rather than as subjects or sources of quotes for my stories. Our children went to the same birthday parties. We sat next to each other in the bleachers while the kids played recreational sports. Our family doctor went on frequent mission trips and kept a New Testament in each examining room. In the process, I learned about the Great Commission, the biblical obligation of all Christians to share their faith with the once-born and the unsaved.

Evangelicals were no longer caricatures or abstractions. I learned to interpret their metaphors and read their body language. From personal, day-to-day experience I observed what John Green at the University of Akron has discerned from extensive research: evangelicals were not monolithic nor were they, as The Washington Post infamously characterized them, "poor, uneducated and easy to command." Like Ned Flanders, they are more likely to be overzealous than hypocritical, although there is certainly some of the latter. They don't march in lockstep to what Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or Focus on the Family's James Dobson tell them, and they hold surprisingly diverse views on many issues. While making common cause politically, their theological differences range from the subtle to the significant. For evangelicals, religion is not just for Sundays - or Election Day.

This epiphany - it would be hard to call it anything else, except maybe a revelation - transformed the way I approached my beat. I discarded the traditional way of structuring my stories. No more, "While some wacko evangelical leaders over here say this, these rational secularists and moderate mainliners over there say that," with an author or academic in the middle tossed in for balance. While symmetrical, this is so schematic that it makes the result predictable and unrevealing. Instead, I decided to treat evangelicals as a discrete universe. I started to write about them in a way that would be interesting and informative to my suburban, Sunbelt readers - and to me. That is, "Some evangelicals say this, but others disagree," and why and what that means.

Despite the blustering of some leaders, I think I know why grass-roots evangelicals do not feel triumphant about the [election] results. True, in states like Florida they see Republican control of all branches of government, from Tallahassee to Washington, D.C. Conservatives and Christians dominate the AM radio dial, and the Fox News Channel leads the local cable television ratings. But despite all this, many of my evangelical friends and neighbors still feel besieged, beleaguered, and, to some degree, powerless.

The threat they cannot defeat at the polls is a pervasive, popular culture they consider to be, for the most part, a toxic mix of loveless sexuality and senseless violence. As a parent, a media consumer, and - in my heart - a blue-stater, I have to agree with them on this point, adding to the mix only my personal (elitist?) complaint: pop culture's relentless stupidity.

This is not to say that I agree with them on much else, politically or theologically. Yet neither does it keep me from understanding the sincerity of their beliefs, or from reporting them fairly. I may be flattering myself, but over time I think I have developed a relationship of mutual trust and mutual respect with the evangelical community and its leaders. Of course, that doesn't mean they've given up trying to bring me to Jesus. That's what evangelicals do, it's in their spiritual DNA, and I'm okay with that.

Kudos to Mr. Pinsky for his willingness to immerse himself in the culture he's reporting on and for exhibiting so much security in his own convictions that he doesn't feel threatened by those of others. Would that every journalist who writes on Christianity be as equally conscientious in their wish to get the story right rather than just reinforce Hollywood stereotypes.

Thanks to No Left Turns for the tip.

Sicko-Magnets

Lest anyone think that the Left is comprised of highly caring, highly educated, exemplars of reasoned discourse check out Michelle Malkin's column from the other day in which she shares some of her e-mail. Michelle is a conservative who sometimes takes controversial positions, but the sheer loathesomeness of the hate that she elicits is beyond all rational explanation. There are a lot of demented, embittered people out there on the Left, people in an advanced stage of spiritual and moral putrefaction, and she and Ann Coulter seem to draw them like sicko-magnets.

We suppose there are people just as bad on the Right, but the point is that ever since the sixties we've been told that hatred was the monopoly of the Right and that the Left was the party of peace, love, compassion, and justice. If you still believe that after the recent election campaign go to Malkin's site to be deprogrammed.

Meanwhile, as long as you're reading Malkin, check this story out. It's chilling. We wonder: Did the authorities interrogate the cleaning crew? What did they learn? We also wonder why we haven't heard about this through MSM news outlets.

The Algerian Model

Bill Roggio at The Fourth Rail directs our attention to a piece written by Amir Taheri in Arab News which offers striking parallels between what we see happening in Iraq today and what happened in the early '90s in Algeria. Part of Taheri's column follows:

For more than 10 years the terrorists held the initiative, attacking where and when they wished, forcing the government's forces into a defensive posture. The terrorists specialized in mass killings. In Bin Talha, a suburb of the capital Algiers, for example, they cut the throats of some 800 people, mostly women and children, in a single night. They also targeted the ordinary personnel of the army and the police, in the hope of discouraging young Algerians from enlisting in government forces.

The Algerian terrorists never came up with anything resembling a political program. They just killed people. They killed children on their way to school. They chopped the heads of Christian monks and Muslim muftis. They murdered trade unionists, political leaders, and journalists. They captured teenage girls and forced them into temporary marriages with "the holy warriors." They seized hostages, burned schools and hospitals, blew up factories and shops, and did all they could to disrupt the economy. At times they pulled off spectacular coups, for example by murdering the country's president, and its most prominent trade union leader.

The terrorist campaign had started in the mid-1980s with a bandit, named Mustafa Bu-Ali, wreaking havoc in the environs of the capital. By 1990, however, the terrorists and their political allies had established themselves as a force in national politics. In 1991 they came close to winning power with a mixture of violence and electoral fraud. By 1992, however, they had reverted to a strategy of murder and mayhem.

They pursued two objectives. The first was to destroy the Algerian Army by killing as many recruits as they could in the hope that this would provoke mass desertions. The second was to prevent the holding of any elections. "Democracy means the rule of the people," Antar Zu'abri, one of the most notorious of the terrorist chiefs, killed in action in the 1990s, liked to say. "Those who want the rule of the people defy the rule of God, which is Islam."

By 1994 the terrorists seemed to be close to victory. At least, Francois Mitterrand, France's president at the time, thought so. In a statement he said Paris was prepared to work with an "Islamic" regime in Algiers. At least four provinces and parts of the capital Algiers were deemed too dangerous for government forces to enter.

On some occasions the terrorists demonstrated their strength by engaging government forces in big battles, including one in Jijel which involved both the Algerian Navy and Air Force. Visiting Algiers in March 1994 I was struck by the mood of doom and gloom at almost every level of government. European ambassadors confided their fear that the terrorists might seize power at any time. A segment of the elite was urging negotiations with the terrorists, which meant discussing terms of surrender.

After a long moment of tergiversation in which the Algerian leaders did not know quite how to deal with the threat, they stumbled on a strategy almost by instinct. They soon realized that the terrorists lacked a significant popular base. But it was also clear that a majority of Algerians had adopted a wait-and-see attitude, hating the terrorists in secret but too frightened of them to make a clear stand against them in public. The key, therefore, was to mobilize the "silent majority" to demonstrate the isolation of the terrorists.

The most effective way to do that was to hold elections. Few people are prepared to die, and even fewer are willing to kill in support of their political opinions. But almost everyone is ready to vote. The task of a civilized society is to render the expression of political opinions easy. The terrorists made it difficult because they demanded of the people to kill and died. The Algerian leaders decided to make it easy by asking the people to vote.

The turning point came in 1995 when Algeria organized its first ever pluralist and direct presidential election. This is was not an ideal election. The candidates were little known figures that had appeared on the national political scene just a couple of years earlier. None presented a coherent political program. To make matters worse the terrorists did all they could to prevent the election. They burned down voter registration bureaus and murdered election officers. Masked men visited people in their homes and shops to warn that going to the polls would mean death.

And, yet, when polling day came it quickly became clear that the terrorists, in the forlorn attempt at stopping democracy, were, as in so many other instances in history, facing certain defeat. Never in my many years of journalism had I seen such enthusiasm for an electoral exercise anywhere in the world. The "silent majority" spoke by casting ballots, not because it particularly liked any of the candidates but because it wanted to send a message to the terrorists that they had no place in Algeria.

That one election did not make Algeria a democracy. Since then Algeria has held three more presidential and a dozen local and parliamentary elections. None of these exercises have been perfect, and Algeria may need dozens more elections, which means many more years, before it can achieve the standards set by mature democracies. But the Algerian exercise has made one fact clear: The only way to defeat terrorism is by involving the mass of the people through elections.

Algeria was the first major Arab country to be attacked by Islamist terrorists on a large scale. It is also the first to defeat them.

The Algerian experience holds many lessons for Iraq today. The terrorist insurgents operating in Iraq pursue the same strategy as their Algerian colleagues in the 1990s. Zarqawi and other terror chiefs are also trying to disrupt elections while, by killing recruits, preventing the formation of an Iraqi national army. Copy-catting their Algerian counterparts, the terrorists in Iraq have also assassinated many high profile officials and politicians. But like the Algerians, they, too, will learn that in a democracy no individual is indispensable.

Iraq's first ever free election, scheduled for Jan. 30, will confront the terrorists with the people's power just as Algeria did in 1995. This is why it is vital that the election be held on time and in as many parts of the country as possible. Using elections to defeat terrorism could become the key to the future of several other Arab countries.

The similarities between the two situations are indeed striking, but we have good reason to hope that the results in Iraq will surpass those in Algeria. Algeria did not have the amount of foreign assistance that Iraq has nor was it as wealthy a country nor was its population as well-educated.

The radical Islamists have a dream of creating Taliban-like states, first throughout the Muslim world, and ultimately across the globe. They tried in Algeria and lost. They've been thwarted in Pakistan. Libya seems to have lost interest. They succeeded for a time in Afghanistan and were deposed. They've succeeded in Iran and Syria for the time being. But failure in Iraq, coming so close to the loss of Afghanistan, would be devastating to their hopes.

Iraq is only one battle in this long war, and Islamist failure there won't mean the end of Islamo-fascism, but it will considerably diminish their prospects for ultimate success. The stakes could scarcely be higher.

Good News From Iraq No.19

Arthur Chrenkoff's fortnightly installment of Good News From Iraq is up. This is Chrenkoff's 19th edition and his work cannot be praised enough. Ranging from developments with the coming elections to the economy to security with lots of others in between, Chrenkoff gives us a massive amount of information that the MSM cannot be bothered to report since it doesn't fit their defeatist philosophy. Don't miss it.

Martin Luther King

Watching some of the tributes this evening to Martin Luther King I wondered: If King's I Have Dream speech and his Letter From a Birmingham City Jail were delivered/written today would someone without any prior knowledge of King think the principles he articulated in these were conservative or liberal (or neither)?

Reply to a Muslim

A friend passed our post A Moderate Muslim Perspective on to a Muslim friend of his and received this reply:

I agree about Muslims needing to change themselves. It comes from the Koran that God does not help a people before they help themselves. Unfortunately, attacking them is only reinforcing their teachings. Namely, that the west is intent on reestablishing colonialism and are willing to use violence to do it (as they did before). Most of those people have heard all of the horror stories about western rule and have no desire to return to it. Anyone fighting against the west is going to be perceived as a hero, no matter how sketchy a human being he is. If we want them to stop attacking us, we have to stop attacking them. It seems pretty simple to me.

This is our response which we've edited just a little:

I have to say that I don't understand what your Muslim friend is getting at in the passage where he says:

Unfortunately, attacking them [Muslims] is only reinforcing their teachings. Namely, that the west is intent on reestablishing colonialism and are willing to use violence to do it (as they did before). Most of those people have heard all of the horror stories about western rule and have no desire to return to it. Anyone fighting against the west is going to be perceived as a hero, no matter how sketchy a human being he is. If we want them to stop attacking us, we have to stop attacking them. It seems pretty simple to me.

This is very difficult for me to make any sense of. The U.S. has come to the defense of Muslims far more often than it has attacked them. In Kuwait, Kosovo, Bosnia, and Somalia, Americans died to defend Muslims, sometimes against putative Christians. In none but the first of these was there any real national interest at stake.

The Islamists expressed their gratitude by attacking the U.S.S. Cole, the WTT, Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, and various other targets around the world until they succeeded in murdering 3000 of our citizens on September 11th, 2001. Following 9/11 Americans fought and died in liberating fifty million Muslims from crushing oppression in Afghanistan and Iraq and did far more than anyone else in the world, when all charitable and military aid is factored in, to relieve the suffering of Muslims in the Indian Ocean basin in the wake of the tsunami. All the oil-besotted Muslim nations put together didn't contribute as much to disaster relief as did the U.S. And still the radical Muslims hate us.

Your friend says that they hate us because we're trying to colonize them, but where is the evidence of that? Did we stay in Kuwait? Did we not leave Saudi Arabia when the Saudis insisted? Did we colonize Afghanistan? If all we wanted was oil why didn't we invade the U.A.E. or Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq? It would have been much easier.

Their hatred, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the fact that we're "attacking" them. It has everything to do with the fact that we are "infidels", our values are not their values, and, to their enormous chagrin, the infidels are a lot more powerful and successful than they are. It has also to do with the fact that we are all that stands in their way of realizing their dream of destroying Israel and Islamicizing the globe. As long as these facts remain they will continue to seek to destroy us. Their religion and their pride demand it.

Black Ops

Seymour Hersh, who's reputation as an investigative reporter has had its ups and downs, has a new revelation in New Yorker magazine. Truthout.org., whose own reputation for accurate and balanced reporting has had its ups and downs as well, gives us the report from which the following is excerpted:

WASHINGTON - The United States has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets, The New Yorker magazine reported Sunday. Hersh quotes one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon as saying, "The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible."

The former intelligence official told Hersh that an American commando task force in South Asia is working closely with a group of Pakistani scientists who had dealt with their Iranian counterparts. The New Yorker reports that this task force, aided by information from Pakistan, has been penetrating into eastern Iran in a hunt for underground nuclear-weapons installations.

Hersh reported that Bush has already "signed a series of top-secret findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia."

Let's hope that this, like a rare planetary conjunction, is a remarkable instance of both Hersh and Truthout being simultaneously correct and that matters are as this report states. It is somewhat reassuring to think that this president is as serious about fighting the war against terrorists as they are about fighting their war against us.

New Year's Wishes

It's a little late, but we wanted to bring this column by Dennis Prager to your attention. Prager lists seven wishes he has for the new year, and we agree with all of them. Especially wishes 2 and 6:

Wish No. 2: The ACLU will create a leftist Boy Scouts. The ACLU and other leftist groups are highly accomplished at destroying good institutions such as the Boy Scouts. But they rarely build good institutions. So instead of trying to destroy the Boy Scouts -- because the Scouts require its members to make an oath to God and country and because the Scouts believe that boys and men who publicly announce they are sexually attracted only to males should not be Scouts -- the ACLU should build something for boys in the image of its values.

Since it is so easy to destroy, dear leftists, why not try to build? Start perhaps with a Progressive Boy Scouts that will have no oaths to God and will welcome all males who announce they are homosexual. Then one day we will see which Boy Scouts produces better people.

Quick. Name one organization begun specifically by atheists, and which incorporates atheism into its mission, that's doing any good anywhere in the world ....We couldn't either.

Wish No. 6: All those who drive in the left lane slower than drivers in the other lanes will be given fines and threatened with long prison sentences, perhaps even capital punishment.

There are things Americans can learn from Europe -- perhaps the most significant is how to drive properly. In Europe, driving schools apparently teach something that seems to be ignored in American driver's education -- that the left lane is for passing other cars, not for passing time.

Why do people do this? Why do they pull into the left lane and then drive at the same speed as the traffic in the right lane? It's very irritating, and there needs to be a study done on it. We suspect that being on the left dulls one's ability to think about what one is doing, but all we have is anecdotal evidence, culled mostly from blue states.

The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

This chilling news from the New York Post reminds us of the savage nature of Islamic fanaticism.

January 16, 2005 -- The father of a murdered New Jersey family was threatened for making anti-Muslim remarks online - and the gruesome quadruple slaying may have been the hateful retaliation, sources told The Post yesterday.

Hossam Armanious, 47, who along with his wife and two daughters was found stabbed to death in his Jersey City home early Friday, would regularly debate religion in a Middle Eastern chat room, one source said.

Armanious, an Egyptian Christian, was well known for expressing his Coptic beliefs and engaging in fiery back-and-forth with Muslims on the Web site paltalk.com. He "had the reputation for being one of the most outspoken Egyptian Christians," said the source, who had close ties to the family.

The source, who had knowledge of the investigation, refused to specify the anti-Muslim statement. But he said cops told him they were looking into the exchanges as a possible motive. The married father of two had recently been threatened by Muslim members of the Web site, said a fellow Copt and store clerk who uses the chat room.

"You'd better stop this bull---- or we are going to track you down like a chicken and kill you," was the threat, said the clerk, who was online at the time and saw the exchange. But Armanious refused to back down, according to two sources who use the Web site.

Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy would neither confirm nor deny that cops and prosecutors were looking into the religion motive, saying only that "nothing is being ruled out." But a relative of the mayor who answered the phone at Healy's home said there was information the murders were "religion-related." "There are several theories we are looking into, but we are not commenting on any of them at this time," said Hudson County Assistant Prosecutor Guy Gregory.

Armanious' fervor apparently rubbed off on his daughter, Sylvia - who would have turned 16 yesterday. "She was very religious and very opinionated," said Jessica Cimino, 15, a fellow sophomore at Dickenson HS.

A family member who viewed photos of the bloodbath said Sylvia seemed to have taken the most savage punishment. "When we saw the pictures, you could tell that they were hurt really, really bad in the face; especially Sylvia," said Milad Garas, the high-school sophomore's great-uncle.

The heartless killer not only slit Sylvia's throat, but also sliced a huge gash in her chest and stabbed her in the wrist, where she had a tattoo of a Coptic cross. Also found murdered were the wife, Amal Garas, and the parents' other daughter, Monica.

Fred Ayed, the deacon at St. George and St. Shenouda Church, where the deeply religious family attended services, said he's worried that the murders could have a ripple effect. "I am concerned for the safety of our community," said Ayed, who knew Hossam for 30 years. "People are scared because one family was slain like cows," said Moheb Ghabour, publisher of a local newspaper for the Coptic community.

Osama Hassan, director of the Islamic Center of Jersey City, described the relationship between Copts and Muslims as cooperative if not friendly. "I think there might be people that can get into physical fights, but not to the point of murder," Hassan said.

Both the deacon and uncle poured cold water on the theory that the family were the victims of a robbery gone wrong. "This is not a robbery, Ayed said. "We found all of the jewelry in the house. They didn't take anything."

It may be that this horrific crime was not committed by the people who issued threats against Armanious, but if it was indeed the product of Islamic fanaticism then we are given another tragic glimpse into the future these psychopaths have in store for us unless they are defeated.

What Do We Expect?

As a footnote to 's excellent article on Where Was God?, I'd just like to add the question, what does one expect of God? Those who blame God for the bad that happens and then question his love and omnipotence simply fail to acknowledge his position.

It's made very clear in the book of Genesis, chapter 3 vs. 17 where God said:

Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and has eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, 'Thou shalt not eat of it:' cursed is the ground for thy sake;

...

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Well, that can't be good. I think that the phrase: "cursed is the ground for thy sake" is the take home message here and it appears that the price for all of humanity of original sin against God is death. Whether it's a still-born baby, one who lives to be 100 years old, or for anyone anywhere in between. We all will die.

Given this, it's not surprising to me that 120,000 people die in a tsunami, a nuclear blast over Hiroshima, the massive genocide that takes place today, or less dramatic events.

I find it ironic and another example of man's hubris that he would blame God for the "evil" that happens rather than draw closer to Jesus in the hope of an eternal life with Him as it was originally intended to be.

While it is noble to lament the tragedy that befalls others, I also submit that we should contemplate the fate that awaits each of us...death, the return to dust, and why. One shouldn't ask why all of the victims of a fallen world have had to die, rather ask what awaits them after they die. The bigger question for me is, why are any of us alive?

That these events happen only serves to emphasize man's total inability to circumvent the declaration of an Almighty God. Yes, if one is so inclined, they can raise their fist in outrage at Jehovah, and curse Him for being uncaring and unsympathetic, and I have. But in the final analysis, I'm left with the realization that it's simply all the more reason to believe in and trust in Him because this fallen world is not where it's at.

Have a great New Year...

Is ID Science? Is Darwinism?

Casual observers of the Dover, PA Intelligent Design controversy, which has occupied the op/ed pages of our local newspapers for some months now, may be forgiven for thinking that the conflict is one between science and creationism (i.e. religion).

This is the way that the controversy has been framed by adversaries on both sides, and both sides are wrong. Here's why:

1] The debate is not between science and religion. It's between two disparate ways of explaining or interpreting scientific data. The findings of scientists are not in question. What's in question is the philosophical framework upon which those findings are hung.

Darwinians argue that the data are best interpreted in terms of purposeless, unguided physical processes. ID proponents say that whatever role physical processes may have played in the development of life they are inadequate by themselves to account for biological information. Information, as far as we've been able to ascertain, is the product of minds. The debate is thus a philosophical debate about whether the evidence suggests that purposeful intelligence should be included as one of the congeries of factors responsible for the apparent design of biological structures, or not.

Thus claims like the following from a group of biologists at the University of Pennsylvania, writing to the Dover, PA school board to urge that they change their minds about introducing ID into the curriculum, are really irrelevant:

Evolution is based on and supported by an immense and diverse array of evidence and is continually being tested and reaffirmed by new discoveries from many scientific fields. The evidence for evolution is so strong that important new areas of biological research are confidently and successfully based on the reality of evolution.

It doesn't matter, however, how much evidence there is for evolution, that evidence doesn't begin to address the question at issue, which is whether life could have emerged as it has apart from intelligent input.

2] ID is accused of not being scientific because it can't be tested and therefore has no legitimate place in a science classroom. Scientific theories are capable of being refuted, at least in principle, and, objectors assert, there is no imaginable way that the claim that biological structures are the product of an intelligent mind can be refuted.

In the strict sense this is no doubt true, but what needs to be mentioned is that Darwinism falls victim to the same flaw. There is no test which would confirm or deny that blind forces and random chance can produce complex biological structures.

Any experiment conducted by a scientist that seeks to show that bio-machines and processes either could, or could not, have arisen apart from intelligent input is ipso facto inconclusive. The very fact that the experiment is set up, conducted, and monitored by an intelligent agent renders it so. This is not to say that there aren't ways to test both theories, it is only to say that neither can be falsified.

This, parenthetically, is ironic in light of claims by ID opponents that ID has been shown to be false. Indeed, to believe that ID has been refuted is to tacitly admit that it meets the falsifiability criterion of good science. For a Darwinian to argue that ID has been falsified when his own view is not capable of being falsified is to inadvertently acknowledge that ID is scientific (even if wrong) and that Darwinism is not.

ID proponents, of course, do not allege that mutation and natural selection aren't scientific mechanisms. What they say is that the claim that these processes act solely by themselves apart from any telic input can't be tested. The insistence that that claim is nevertheless true is an expression of a metaphysical preference that Darwinians want to be free to promote in public schools without having to tolerate competition from any contrary view.

Neither of the two competing views are science in the strict sense, but they are legitimate hypotheses in the philosophy of science. As such there is no reason why they can't both be discussed in an appropriate science class, just as it is proper to address many other matters from the philosophy of science in certain science classes (e.g. the definition of science, the nature of the scientific method, the assumptions of uniformity, sufficient cause, parsimony, other universes, etc.). To allow one to masquerade as science while banishing the other as religion is as unfair to students as it is to truth.

Where Do Schools Find These People?

More cognitively-challenged chuckleheads masquerading as educational administrators have turned up at a Florida Community College:

Florida's Indian River Community College (IRCC) is engaging in a campaign of repression against a Christian student group for attempting to show Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ on campus.

In November 2004, the college banned the Christian Student Fellowship (CSF) from showing the film because it was R-rated, despite the fact that the college has hosted a live performance entitled "F**king for Jesus" that describes simulated sex with "the risen Christ."

CSF students report that after their group wrote President Edwin R. Massey in protest, administrators pulled group leaders out of class and, astoundingly, demanded an apology from them for their actions.

Now, CSF is even unable to officially meet because its adviser resigned after IRCC imposed a burdensome new policy requiring that faculty advisers attend all student group meetings.

"IRCC's assault on CSF must end immediately," declared David French, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which wrote to IRCC on behalf of CSF. "Not only has the college adopted a breathtaking double standard for expression, but it has also abused administrative power in the worst way.

"As a public institution bound by the First Amendment, IRCC has no right to ban either the movie or the play, and it is shameful to demand an apology from students for trying to preserve their constitutional rights. IRCC's arbitrary and authoritarian actions demonstrate that the college has no respect for its students or for the U.S. Constitution."

CSF's trouble began on Nov. 15, 2004, when IRCC administrators first rejected fliers advertising the club's screening of The Passion of the Christ and then canceled the event altogether.

CSF reported that one administrator, Lori LaCivita, stated that the reason for these actions was that the film was R-rated.

Students also told FIRE that in early December, after CSF wrote Dean of Student Affairs Johnny Moore and President Massey in an effort to restore its rights, CSF President Preslin Isaac and Vice President Sydney Franklin were pulled out of class by LaCivita and other administrators, who demanded that the students write letters of apology to Dean Moore and President Massey for having addressed the college's "higher authority" without their permission.

When appealing to the IRCC administration proved fruitless, CSF contacted FIRE for assistance. On Dec. 16, FIRE wrote IRCC to explain that its actions against CSF were unconstitutional and violated its own policies, which emphasize that at IRCC "students are treated as mature adults."

FIRE also protested IRCC's remarkably intrusive and reprehensible requirement that government representatives, in the form of faculty advisers, be present at all student organization meetings.

In a Dec. 22 response, IRCC's attorney claimed that the college maintained a blanket ban on R-rated movies, arguing that because the college contains some dual-enrollment high school students, it would be "inappropriate" to risk having these students "wander into R-rated movies that they would not normally be able to see."

The attorney further demonstrated IRCC's mistrust of liberty by stating that if the college allowed constitutionally protected free speech on its campus, "[o]ne could only imagine the bizarre clubs and activities that would be formed." Yet at the college's Wynne Black Box Theatre, a project called No Shame Theatre has hosted skits that would earn an R-rating in any movie house.

One such skit, entitled "F**king for Jesus," involved a character simulating sex with and masturbating to an image of Jesus.

FIRE Director of Legal and Public Advocacy Greg Lukianoff remarked, "If IRCC has consistently prevented adult students from showing R-rated movies on campus, it has imposed on them an unconstitutional, paternalistic, and patronizing rule.

"IRCC's recent actions make it more likely that IRCC has singled out The Passion of the Christ for censorship in an astonishing instance of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and abuse of administrative power. Either way, the college has shown extraordinary arrogance and foolishness."

In January, college spokesperson Mary Locke contacted FIRE. Locke defended the policy against R-rated movies and told FIRE that allowing the No Shame Theatre skit was a breakdown of procedure and would not happen again, even though FIRE made it clear that both the film and the play should be permitted on a public college campus.

Indeed, IRCC seems to have taken action to silence No Shame Theatre; the name of the play has been changed on the IRCC chapter's Web page and the link to the script has been removed, although the script remains accessible elsewhere on the project's Web site.

IRCC has also taken its policy of intrusive monitoring of student organization activities to absurd heights.

In early December, one CSF student reported that an administrator and security guard interrupted a private discussion between her and a fellow student and demanded to know what they were doing.

IRCC's enforcement of the unlawful new rule prohibiting club meetings without the presence of a faculty adviser makes it impossible for CSF, a group that would normally meet at least three times a week, to function as a recognized student organization, as it is unable to find a new adviser who can attend every group meeting.

"It is absurd that IRCC believes that a government representative must monitor the meetings and control the expressive activity of every student group. This requirement is as insulting as it is Orwellian," stated FIRE's French.

FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process, freedom of expression, academic freedom, and rights of conscience at our nation's colleges and universities.

This episode had nothing to do with R-rated movies, of course, and everything to do with censoring a movie on the basis of its religious content.

How is it that people who have evidently never heard of, much less read, the first amendment of the constitution of the United States can be elevated to positions of bureaucratic authority over college students?

Here's a little thought experiment. Imagine that this wasn't a Christian group, but an African-American organization that wanted to show, say, Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing or imagine that this was a gay/lesbian group that wanted to show Oliver Stone's Alexander. Everybody who thinks the school administrators would have banned the movie and imposed such stringent restrictions on the student organization, raise your hand.

RLC

The Incredible Shrinking Deficit

This will surprise you. Larry Kudlow, indulging his penchant, perhaps, for economic optimism, tells us the following:

Here's one story you won't find on tomorrow's front pages: "The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Shrinking Rapidly." The headline would be accurate, but the mainstream media is much more interested in talking down this booming economy than telling it like it is.

This week's Treasury report on the nation's finances for December shows a year-to-date fiscal 2005 deficit that is already $11 billion less than last year's. In the first three months of the fiscal year that began last October, cash outlays by the federal government increased by 6.1 percent while tax collections grew by 10.5 percent. When more money comes in than goes out, the deficit shrinks.

At this pace, the 2005 deficit is on track to drop to $355 billion from $413 billion in fiscal year 2004. As a fraction of projected gross domestic product, the new-year deficit will descend to 2.9 percent compared with last year's deficit share of 3.6 percent.

The rest of the column explains why the deficit is shrinking and why Kudlow thinks it will shrink even further. Hint: Liberals will not like the reason.

Wire reports are loaded these days with accounts of an expanded trade gap (driven mostly by slower exports to stagnant European and Japanese economies, along with higher oil imports from the peak in energy prices). But there's not a single report I can find that mentions the sizable narrowing in U.S. fiscal accounts. Behind this really big budget story is the even-bigger story: The explosion in tax revenues has been prompted by the tax-cut-led economic growth of the past eighteen months.

With 50 percent cash-bonus expensing for the purchase of plant and equipment, productivity-driven corporate profits ranging around 20 percent have generated a 45 percent rise in business taxes. At lower income-tax rates, employment gains of roughly 2.5 million are throwing off more than 6 percent in payroll-tax receipts. Personal tax revenues are rising at a near 9 percent pace.

When the Left reads these numbers there will be much teeth-grinding. Perhaps now would be a good time to invest in the company that manufactures those dental night guards.

Religious Conflict at Baylor

Baylor president Robert Sloan is under the gun because he's trying to make his school into an academically top-notch Christian university. Apparently, he is encountering resistance from those who are perfectly satisfied with Baylor being a Baptist university. There's no need, as they see it, to convert the school to Christianity.