Good Choice for Veep:

That we may be of service to Senator Kerry in his ongoing search for a suitable vice-presidential candidate Viewpoint puts forward the name of...Al Gore. Gore has experience, name recognition, he was a journalist in Vietnam which gives him the cache of being familiar with war without the liabilities associated with actually having participated in it, and he would bring a little vivacity to offset Kerry's somnolence. He could also be counted on to be a raging bull as a campaigner given the chance to avenge his loss to Bush in the 2000 election. The fact that Republicans could be expected to capitalize on the fact that Gore sometimes tends to act as if he's lost his mind is a downside, but nobody's perfect. Sounds like an over-all good choice to us.

Voltaire, Call Your Office!

The 18th century French writer Voltaire is famous, inter alia, for having proclaimed what is perhaps the most well-known endorsement of free speech ever uttered: "I may not agree with what you say," he wrote, "but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." Sadly, this noble sentiment has not managed to penetrate the land of unbounded tolerance for all things morally and socially exotic but where speech is tolerated, apparently, only to the extent one says the approved things. No, we're not talking about New York or Los Angeles (although the day may not be far off when we will be). We're talking about Sweden, believe it or not:

Stockholm (ENI). A Swedish court has sentenced a pastor belonging to the Pentecostal movement in Sweden, Ake Green, to a month in prison, under a law against incitement, after he was found guilty of having offended homosexuals in a sermon. Soren Andersson, the president of the Swedish federation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights (RFSL), said on hearing the sentence that religious freedom could never be used as a reason to offend people. "Therefore," he told journalists, "I cannot regard the sentence as an act of interference with freedom of religion." During a sermon in 2003, Green described homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumour in the body of society".

This is what freedom of speech looks like in Sweden. Thank God for the first amendment.

What's He Saying?

I don't want to make too much of this and maybe I'm misinterpreting him, so you tell me, is William Rivers Pitt over at the anti-Bush site TruthOut actually hoping for an armed insurrection to depose the Bush administration? If not, what else does his poem mean? If so, is the entire left now howling at the moon or are there still a few sane souls to be found on that side of the ideological divide?

The concluding lines of Pitt's poem:

The fail-safe, should matters become grave: The next sentence after "...from the consent of the governed."

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Revolution.

The Declaration of Independence.

Which proves the existence of hope, again.

Misplaced Faith

Here's a piece on the different approaches to religion taken by President Bush and Senator Kerry. It gives a little insight into Bush, somewhat less into Kerry, except there is this interesting anecdote about the senator:

Kerry drew a more detailed contrast with Bush on his approach to science, in particular stem-cell research. Where Bush's attitude toward stem-cell research was shaped by his faith, Kerry declared his trust in facts. "We need a president who will once again embrace our tradition of looking toward the future and new discoveries with hope based on scientific facts, not fear," he said. Backed by the endorsement of 48 Nobel prize-winning scientists, Kerry said he would "listen to the advice of our scientists" before making his policy decisions (as opposed to evangelical groups). "I have full faith," he explained in an entirely nonreligious way, "that our scientists will go forward with a moral compass-with humane values and sound ethics guiding the way."

This is odd. After assuring us that, unlike Bush, he will base his decisions on scientific facts he talks about his faith in the ethical judgment of scientists, which leads one to wonder whether he is consulting the scientists for facts or for moral advice. It appears it's both, but then what's the point of his implicit criticism of Bush?

Bush's reservations about stem cell research have nothing to do with the scientific facts of the matter, of course, and everything to do with the morality of producing human embryos only to have them killed by extracting their stem cells. Why listening to scientists rather than theologians on a matter of morality is a particularly wise course of action is unclear. No doubt that if President Bush had a question about what stem cell research can do, he would consult scientists, but the important questions are about what we ought to do, and in that arena scientists qua scientists must be silent.

In what has to be one of the most vacuous comments of the campaign Senator Kerry says he has faith that scientists will follow a moral compass. Well, I suppose they will, although history gives us reason to wonder which way their needle points. Scientists have not infrequently been guided by the maxim, "If we can do it then we should do it," so one wonders what it is, exactly, that the senator bases his faith in the ethical judgment of his scientists upon.

Scientists, at least in Senator Kerry's view, deal only with facts. By their own admission, in addressing moral questions, they would be mere laymen encroaching upon the domain of theologians and ethicists. These, however, are the very people president Bush has properly drawn upon for guidance in the matter of whether the Federal government should fund stem cell research.

Kerry's beliefs, we are given to understand, lead him to consult scientists on a matter of ethics, whereas Bush's lead him to consult theologians and ethicists. And Kerry criticizes Bush?

For a much deeper look at how Bush's Christian faith shapes him as a man and as a president see Terry Eastland's piece in the March 1st, 2004 Weekly Standard titled Bush's Gospel.

Anathema

Christianity Today reports that Sojourners' David Batstone is calling for the Catholic bishops to excommunicate any Roman Catholic who supports the Iraqi war. In a letter to the Catholic bishops Batstone writes:

Sorry to speak so boldly, but you have no basis for so selectively narrowing your rich moral tradition. .. We recently have witnessed in the United States a decision and act by our political leaders to pre-emptively invade a sovereign nation-state. The social teaching of the Church explicitly prohibits and condemns such aggressive behavior. Pope John Paul II certainly understands this fact, as he made clear in an audience with President George W. Bush last month.

I have not heard one U.S. Bishop even suggest that Holy Communion might be withheld for any politician who enacted, or voted for, the immoral pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. Yet the consequent loss of human lives-both Iraqi and American-and the devastation of Iraqi society have been nothing short of tragic. Furthermore, this act of spiritual arrogance-invoking God's guidance while invading-has deepened historical animosities that surely will lead to more senseless bloodshed in the Middle East and across the globe.

Why is it that the bishops of the U.S. Catholic Church are unable to see this serious breach of morality? Over 250 of you are gathered in Colorado this week, and you only see fit to make public pronouncements about a sole moral issue.

Friends and brothers, I fear that your narrow-mindedness is turning the voice of the Church into something far worse than irrelevant. You risk stumbling into hypocrisy. I urge you to reclaim the full gospel of life, and announce it prophetically to those who would trample on the rights of the defenseless-those who have already been born as much as those yet unborn.

CT notes, however, that:

Most politicians who supported the Iraq war believed they were doing the work of justice and charity. A politician who supports abortion, however, would have a hard time saying he was protecting the unborn - the church radically differs on its teachings of abortion and war. "The killing of an unborn child is always intrinsically evil and can never be justified," the American bishops said in their most recent statement. The Roman Catholic Church has always held that war can be justified. The debate was whether invading Iraq met the qualifications of a just war, and it's worth noting that folks in the Bush camp tended to reference traditionally Catholic doctrine on this issue while folks in the Sojourners camp tended to take a more pacifist view.

CT does a good job of responding to Batstone's argument, and the entire article will be of special interest to Catholics as well as readers of Sojourners.

Dumb Philosophers Dept.

More evidence that philosophers are no smarter than anybody else:

"The Fuhrer alone is the present and future German reality and its law. Learn to know ever more deeply: from now on every single thing demands decison, and every action responsiblity."

Martin Heidegger, from an appeal by Heidegger to the students of Freiburg University

Hillary and Taxes

Yesterday (7/2) I posted an e-mail from a friend who thought it inappropriate to make light of Senator Clinton for her recent promise to raise taxes "for the common good." My reply is in the Feedback forum under Hillary and Taxes.

Interesting Question

I listen to Sean Hannity from time to time, but although I agree with much of what he says, I don't appreciate the way he handles dissenting calls.

Even so, I heard him say something yesterday that I thought was pretty clever. He had a Kerry supporter on, and he asked the fellow if he could ever imagine voting for any of the seven soldiers accused in the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal should one of them someday run for president. The gentleman replied that he could not, implying that anyone who would do such awful things was disqualified from holding high office. Whereupon Hannity asked him why, then, he was going to vote for John Kerry who confessed to doing far worse in Vietnam than what these soldiers were accused of doing in Iraq. The man had no answer.

That's an interesting question, I think.

Bush is the Criminal

Sadaam claims that "Bush is the criminal, not me." Apparently he's had access to MoveOn.org.

E-Mail of the Day

A friend takes me to task for passing along the Scrappleface parody of Senator Clinton's comments about confiscating wealth for the common good:

Well, I will try it again. In the "If Only It Were True" piece you again offer this unhelpful parallel to critique Senator Clinton's not-so-shocking notion of having the wealthy pay taxes for the common good. By passing on this not-even-all-that-funny parody (of Ms Clinton's publisher deciding not to pay her her royalties from her book but rather giving it to the "common good") you seem to be again missing the point.

Collecting and distributing taxes is part of the God-required task of the State (and as Bill pointed out in his lengthy piece, is surely, if done properly, part of the founder's vision of what our government was constituted to do.) For a publisher to renege on a contract, say, violating a private business exchange is altogether a different matter. No social institution is set up to do that kind of thing except the state, which is precisely the sort of thing governments are called upon to do. But you make is sound that since Hillary surely wouldn't want that--har, har, har--her tax policy is therefore discredited.

Worse, you make it sound like nearly any tax policy would be unfounded. (Unless, maybe you think the poor should be taxed in order to benefit something other than the common good!) This is just so odd I cannot understand your point. Surely you don't think that Hillary was suggesting, a la St Francis or Dorothy Day, that we are to be voluntarily poor? You don't think that, do you?

No her comments were not about that, although perhaps that is a discussion worth having. And surely you aren't an anarchist who opposes the right of the state to do good stuff by taxing citizens. And you surely aren't opposed to spending said taxes on the common good, are you (what's the alternative?) To wit, your complaint seems to make no sense. Where's the beef? Or is it, not unlike the liberals you so often (and often properly) skewer for allowing their ideology to lead them to meanly mock anyone and everything "on the other side of the isle", just some uncivil carping going on.

I've come to expect that from the blogs and pundits you troll each day, but I wouldn't expect that from you. It looks to me just an excuse for cheap Hillary-bashing.

Documendacity, etc.

Michael Moore has created quite a controversy with his new film Fahrenheit 9/11. FrontPageMag.com has two reviews, one by former New York mayor Ed Koch and one by Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball. Both reviews take the film to task for being wilfully dishonest.

Also at FrontPage is a must read piece by Lee Kaplan documenting how he underwent training by the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) to aid Palestinians in their intifada against Israel. One thing that becomes obvious to the reader is how different, how much more humane, the Israeli soldiers and police are from any other such force in the Middle East and how the left exploits this as a weakness. Another thing that leaps off the page is how incredibly dishonest and deceitful the left is in working to prevent the Israelis from defending their women and children from suicide bombers and other terrorist attacks. Kaplan writes about some ISM tactics:

Such means include the hiding of terrorists like Shadi Sukiya, who was arrested in an ISM office in the West Bank. An arms cache was also found in an ISM office. Two suicide bombers gained entry for their murderous agendas under the auspices of the ISM. These Pakistani Muslims from Great Britain entered Israel through Jordan as clients of the Alternative Tourism Group, an operation set up by Andoni to aid ISM volunteers coming to Israel. They then met with the ISM at their offices for an entire day in Gaza before proceeding on to Tel Aviv where they bombed a popular beach bar, Mike's Place, killing three people.

The ISM are accomplices to murder, but for leftists the end of facilitating the ultimate victory of the Palestinian radicals, which entails destroying the state of Israel, justifies any means, even aiding the deliberate, willful murders of innocent women and children. Consider this:

When one of the trainees asked if we as ISM volunteers favored a two-state solution to secure peace, Brian Malovany, another senior trainer from Oakland who had just joined us explained, "The idea of a two-state solution is pretty much dead." This was an interesting dismissal of all the peace plans ever proposed by the United Nations, the United States, or the official negotiating parties of the Palestinians themselves. "There can only be one state called Palestine," explained Molvany echoing the line of Hamas and other terrorist organizations. "And the Right of Return is non-negotiable. If people ask you about a two-state solution just tell them it's a human rights issue. Whatever you do though, do not dictate to the Palestinians what they should not do."

In other words, Israel must cease to exist. Please read the whole article. It's an eye-opener. Totalitarian communism is dead, but the people who passionately defended and promoted it throughout the twentieth century haven't gone away. They've simply mutated into another virulent form adapted to fight on the turf of the twenty-first century Middle East.

If Only it Were True

Power Line directs us to a humorous parody of Senator Clinton's claim that the Democrats are going to take money from those who have it on behalf of the common good. At Scrapple Face we learn this:

(2004-07-01) -- In the same week that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, told a San Francisco audience that future President John Forbes Kerry will take money away from wealthy Americans "on behalf of the common good", the former First Lady's publisher announced it would not pay the $5.3 million deferred advance it owes for her book Living History.

"To get the publishing industry, and our company in particular, back on track, we're going to cut that short and not give it to you," a spokesman for Simon and Shuster reportedly told Mrs. Clinton. "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Mrs. Clinton's office released a statement saying she was "delighted to help cover the publisher's losses from unpopular books by other authors, bad management decisions and bureaucratic waste."

She suggested that her husband, who served with her in the White House during the 1990s, would like to do the same with his $10 million advance from Knopf.

Well, it could happen. Or not.

A Voice in the Wilderness

A high profile African-American is saying what a lot of people, black and white, have thought for a long time, but have been prevented from saying by an intimidating politically-correct culture. The unfortunate thing is that a white person could still not say the things Bill Cosby is saying without being branded a racist bigot, and most blacks can't say it without being labelled an Uncle Tom or a sellout. Maybe that's changing. Let's hope so.

Some excerpts:

"Let me tell you something, your dirty laundry gets out of school at 2:30 every day, it's cursing and calling each other n------ as they're walking up and down the street,"

"They think they're hip," the entertainer said. "They can't read; they can't write. They're laughing and giggling, and they're going nowhere."

"You've got to stop beating up your women because you can't find a job, because you didn't want to get an education and now you're (earning) minimum wage," Cosby said. "You should have thought more of yourself when you were in high school, when you had an opportunity."

Wise Guys

"The French are wiser than they seem, and the Spaniards seem wiser than they are." Francis Bacon from Of Seeming Wise

I think Bacon got the countries mixed up, although after the last election in Spain, where the voters succumbed to terrorist pressure, maybe the wisdom of both is in question.

Another View On Taxes

The piece Doing Good with Other Peoples' Money (June 29) elicited a couple of replies including the following from my brother Bill. See the Feedback section for another. Bill writes:

It appears that the discussion of taxes misses a most important point that, once recognized, may lead anyone who is interested to a different perspective on the subject. There are taxes and then there are income taxes.

According to the Constitution of the United States: "Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." But the founding fathers who crafted the Constitution had no idea that the above section would lead to an income tax. And it wasn't until the 16th amendment that income tax was instituted, almost 140 years later.

The XVI amendment states that: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." It was ratified in 1913, the same year that the Federal Reserve was established. Prior to this time, there was no Federal Income Tax. There's a connection here but that's probably best left for another post.

It's also interesting to note that under the Federal Reserve, the dollar has lost approximately 98% of it purchasing power since 1913. This is the hidden tax known more commonly as inflation, the true rape of the American people and that fact isn't open to interpretation. Consider the following from economist John Maynard Keynes:

"By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose... If, however, a government refrains from regulations and allows matters to take their course, essential commodities soon attain a level of price out of the reach of all but the rich, the worthlessness of the money becomes apparent, and the fraud upon the public can be concealed no longer."

So when talking about taxes, it really doesn't matter if you are a Republican or Democrat. Both parties are analogous to vehicles on a superhighway..the Republicans are in the right lane, knowing that they will eventually get to the destination..absolute socialism. The Democrats are in more of a hurry and are in the left passing lane determined to reach their destination as soon as possible. The income tax is the way they will accomplish their goal because it enables the politician to reach into your pocket, take your wealth, and redistribute it to those they want to be beholden to them, and Hillary (the Socialist's Socialist) has no problem telling you so.

If you were to look at a demographic map of the US showing the density of the population that voted in the 2000 election you would see that it shows a concentration of Gore voters around urban areas while the George Bush constituency was more rural. Why is that? Because many of the people living in urban areas live there precisely to take advantage of the largesse Alexander Tyler speaks of in the following quote:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses from poor fiscal responsibility, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage."

The loop-hole in the Constitution that makes this possible is the phrase "The Congress shall have power to .. provide for the general welfare of the United States" in Section 8 of the Constitution. Surely the founding fathers never expected it would be exploited as it is today.

When this country was founded, it was established as a republic, and as such, the individual was considered a sovereign entity, hence the Bill of Rights. The individual states also shared that status but over the years, the Federal Government has gradually morphed the U.S. into a democracy which is what Mr. Tyler laments in his quote above. A democracy pays no consideration to sovereignty of the individual or the state and as a democracy, the Federal Government has usurped the freedom and legitimacy of both the individual and the state. A democracy is about majority rule. A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what they're going to have for dinner.

For more on this topic, see here.

The 100 Most Spiritually Significant Movies

Evangelical Outpost brings word that Arts and Faith has come out with a list of the 100 most spiritually significant movies. As with any such list one wonders why some selections are on it and some aren't. I haven't seen all of what's on Arts and Faith's list, but much of the films I have seen I apparently failed to recognize as spiritually significant.

I don't know why, for example, Winter Light, Romero and Leap of Faith are not on the list, and Dogma, Fight Club, and American Beauty are. I'm not saying these movies weren't well done (Well, Dogma was pretty awful) only that I'm not sure what their spiritual significance was (Although, as I think about it, American Beauty did do a pretty good job, inadvertently, I suspect, of showing the absolute banality and sterility of the lives of the main characters, all of whom were complete secularists in whose lives religious belief played no role whatsoever, so maybe I shouldn't criticize that movie's selection to the list). Anyway, de gustibus non est disputandum (there's no disputing matters of taste).

Go to Evangelical Outpost and see how Joe Carter rated some of the films. I'd be interested to know what Viewpoint readers think should be added or deleted.

A Ticking Time Bomb

Here's an interesting item from the Washington Times. It seems that Senator Kerry has actually been charged with heresy by a Roman Catholic lawyer in the Boston Archdiocese. The lawyer, Marc Balestrieri, argues that Kerry's pro-choice stance on abortion amounts to heresy in the Catholic Church and since the bishops apparently refuse to do anything about it, he will.

"Heresy is a public, ecclesiastical crime," said Mr. Balestrieri, 33, whose complaint is posted at www.defide.com. "It affects entire communities. It is one of the greatest sins you can commit."

If the Boston archdiocese declines to act on the charge, Mr. Balastrieri is entitled to appeal to Rome. This has no doubt given Church officials a case of heartburn, and could be a ticking time bomb during the election run up. The question is who will be most likely to look bad, Sen. Kerry or the Catholic Church?

Faith In America

Ali at Iraq The Model writes movingly of his feelings about the handover. He describes a scene where he and a number of his medical colleagues are having a small celebration:

Then suddenly Mr. Bremer appeared on TV reading his last speech before he left Iraq. I approached the TV to listen carefully to the speech, as I expected it to be difficult in the midst of all that noise. To my surprise everyone stopped what they were doing and started watching as attentively as I was.

The speech was impressive and you could hear the sound of a needle if one had dropped it at that time. The most sensational moment was the end of the speech when Mr. Bremer used a famous Arab emotional poem. The poem was for a famous Arab poet who said it while leaving Baghdad. Al-Jazeera had put an interpreter who tried to translate even the Arabic poem which Mr. Bremer was telling in a fair Arabic! "Let this damned interpreter shut up. We want to hear what the man is saying" One of my colloquies [sic] shouted. The scene was very touching that the guy sitting next to me (who used to sympathize with Muqtada) said "He's going to make me cry!"

Then he finished his speech by saying in Arabic,"A'ash Al-Iraq, A'ash Al-Iraq, A'ash Al-Iraq"! (Long live Iraq, Long live Iraq, long live Iraq).

I was deeply moved by this great man's words but I couldn't prevent myself from watching the effect of his words on my friends who some of them were anti-Americans and some were skeptic, although some of them have always shared my optimism. I found that they were touched even more deeply than I was. I turned to one friend who was a committed She'at and who distrusted America all the way. He looked as if he was bewitched, and I asked him, "So, what do you think of this man? Do you still consider him an invader?" My friend smiled, still touched and said, "Absolutely not! He brought tears to my eyes. God bless him."

Another friend approached me. This one was not religious but he was one of the conspiracy theory believers. He put his hands on my shoulders and said smiling, "I must admit that I'm beginning to believe in what you've been telling us for months and I'm beginning to have faith in America. I never thought that they will hand us sovereignty in time. These people have shown that they keep their promises."

Beginning to have faith in America! Now if only some of our politicians, journalists, and celebrities could do the same.

What Would Ayn Rand Say?

If there are any Ayn Rand type libertarians out there who believe that the U.S. had no business launching Operation Iraqi Freedom it might be interesting to get their response to the words of the master herself on the subject. In 1963 she wrote:

Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self interest, not of respect for the nonexistent "rights" of gang rulers. It is not a free nation's duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses. From "Collectivized" Rights (Emphasis hers)

Her argument, I think, was that rights do not inhere in nations, rather they inhere in individuals. The nation has a "right" to exist only insofar as it embodies the collective rights of the individuals which comprise it and freely choose its leadership. The chief right of the individual is the right to one's life which entails the right to be free. Any government which denies these rights to its people has no legitimacy and no right to exist. In short, the destruction of such a government violates no right possessed by the tyrant government.

Rand, I think, would say today that the Bush administration was not duty-bound to liberate Iraq, but they had the "right" to do it. I wonder how many of her libertarian devotees would agree.

Standard Muslim Pedagogy

Little Green Footballs has a piece that shows that the beheadings we've seen of American "infidels" at the hands of terrorists is not an aberration, but is a tactic taught to Muslim schoolchildren throughout the Arab world.