GordoZone

Just imagine:  there are whispers and rumblings.  Something ususual is going on.

Priests walk around with an edge of nervousness.  There’s a joy, but it’s very stressed.  As you come in from your work, you feel a tension in the community that you can’t explain.

As you head across the way, one of your friends comes beside you and asks you what you think.  Of what, you ask?

The menorah.  It still burns fully and without being extinguished.

Did they find more oil, you ask?

No, the priests all say there is something going on.  Something greater at work here.  Some are saying it’s a miracle from God, himself.

You find it incredulous, but you cannot deny the spark of hope in your bosom.  Is there a real God-powered miracle going on? 

You wander closer to the temple to hear the chatter from the more religious classes.  Of all the different things you do here about the flame, no one seems to cast doubt on the facts of the matter.  There wasn’t enough purified oil to burn for three days straight, but the flame has not extingushed.  It still yet burns.

Wow, you just don’t know what to think.

Shalom.

Just imagine: the euphoria of yesterday’s victory still radiates throughout your people.

There is still the dead to tend to, and there are likely some skirmishes here and there occupying some of the warriors on the outskirts of the territory.

You are outside of the temple, and you know that there isn’t enough oil to keep the menorah burning for eight days without ceasing.  The flame should remain lit, but no one could find any additional purified oil.

You privately curse the enemy under your breath.  There is plenty of oil around, but they intentionally defiled it.  Since to their minds there was no advantage to “pure” olive oil, they defiled all the oil (plus the various vessels) to insure that the Temple service would be reduced to a cultural event as opposed to a religious connection to G0d.

As you assume the flame’s resources draw to an end, you secretly feel a little bit of pleasure in any pain that you caused the enemy.  It’s like they have defiled the temple all over.

You imagine the priests return to the vial in an attempt to extract any drops they can to extend the life of the flame for as long as possible, or maybe they’re carefully apportioning an additional eighth of a vial to burn the flame for at least a portion of today.

You hear cries of surprise, peals of joy and astonishment.

A priest comes within earshot and proclaims that, much to the dismay of everyone, that the flame still burns continuously and still with some reserve fuel.

Well, now, that’s interesting.  The vial must have been a little bigger than they thought.  Maybe the oil is especially pure and robust, so it burns slower — wait, that doesn’t quite make sense.  Hmmm…

Well, given the events of the past day or so, you just chalk it up to icing on the cake for your victory.  It’s kind of neat, like a minor little miracle, to have the oil last a little longer than it should.  Praise God.

You say your prayers and wind down for the evening.  All feels right for one more day as the temple stays in proper order for a little while longer.

Maybe you’ll yet find some purified oil somewhere to make it all last yet even another full day.  It won’t be too long now before the new oil is ready.  A week, you think.  Still, it rubs you that the flame will be dark for a period beforehand.

Rest now, as there is much work to be done tomorrow. 

Shalom.

Just imagine: you’ve fought with your life to recover your temple from outsiders.  You were not only fighting a foreign enemy, you were fighting a civil war to maintain the identity of your faith.

As the day goes on and you assess your victory, your holy men order that the temple be clensed and rededicated that day to God on this historic and victorious day.  You are not to wait.

A new alter is quickly built, and new holy vessels are set up.  You feel the energy of God’s love and power emanating from all around you.  This is a special time of freedom and affirmation.

Alas, when it comes time to relight the menorah, which is to stay permanently lit in the holy temple of God, there is only one vial of oil that remained undefiled by the enemy.  Only one vial with the high priest’s seal intact, denoting purity.

But it takes eight days to properly make and sanctify ritually pure olive oil for the menorah.

What do you do?

The priests act with what they have at the moment.  They pour a full measure of oil into the menorah and light it.  Or mabye they apportion an eighth of the vial to have the flame so they can have it lit for at least a little while.  You’re not quite sure.

Today, you celebrate.  Today, you have your victory.  Today, our people act as God would have us with the tools that are here.  Tomorrow, our people shall concern ourselves with the lack of pure oil.  Maybe tomorrow you can find some more pure oil to last us until the new is ready.

Your people thank God for your victory, set the temple right, and  then you rest.

Shalom.

It is no more fair for a Jew to say that a Christian serves three gods than it is for a Christian to proclaim that the Jew is trying to work his way to heaven through Torah law.

For the Jew needs the Christian and the Christian needs the Jew.

It was the Jews to whom the holy God of all revealed himself publicly and in all His glory.  Millions of Jews witnessed the revelation.  It was not a secret epiphany to a person on some solitary pilgrimage only to come out of the woods and proclaim a new religion.  An entire nation bore witness.

It was a Jew through whom the holy God of all revealed himself publicly to all mankind, taking a new angle on Jews being a light to the world.  Gentiles of all stripe ran to the truth of Jesus to find the holy God of all that they had not encountered before in such an intimate and personal way.  Many, many Jews did, too.

The Messiah, the mitzvot — both aim to point us to the holy God of all creation.  Neither serves itself.  Both serve to bring us home.

The Jew and the Christian both find salvation through faith.  Both worship the holy God of all creation.  Both seek the Messiah’s presence on this earth.  Neither have all the answers.

Common ground isn’t a no-man’s land, but is the foundation of power from which this world can change.  Jews must know that the Christian doesn’t love the Jew out of some selfish devotion to the book of Revelation, but that it’s a genuine attachment to the direct connection to God through His chosen people.

To deny the Jew is to deny the very foundation of our understanding of God.  To deny the Christian is to deny God’s promise to make Abraham’s seed as numerous as the stars in the heavens and the sands on the seashore.

Reach out to each other.  Share.  Love.

Peace.

…and for a little holiday entertainment:

http://www.youtube.com/user/MuppetsStudio

I’m tired of living in a world where

the Breath of God isn’t surrounding my being

where

the particles of His being aren’t penetrating my hands

my face

my soul

I’m tired of selling out to the crude matter of life

of things and being

I want to dance with the essence of God in the life we have

I want to swim in the Life of God as it swirls about my finite consciousness

to Live in Joy

to Love in Mystery

the ecstacy of my original being

My children remind me that Joy is our natural state of being

I reach to live

to life

to eternity

Embrace the creativity of eternity and Live

live

love

to the very edge

SUBTITLE: CHRISTIANS WHO USE THE FAITH TO PUSH THEIR SUPPORT FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE IN AMERICA ARE MORALLY INCORRECT

Though I love him, my uncle is an oddball.  And, of course, in making such a statement, I naturally gloss over his good points.

My uncle is mostly not an oddball.  First of all, he’s a great guy.  He’s a great husband, father, uncle, and teacher.  He’s surely also a great neighbor, son, colleague, etc.  You’d want him (and my amazing aunt who is actually a blood relative of mine) to be your neighbor.  No kidding.

Actually, he’s only an oddball in matters of politics.  I really don’t know why this is, but it’s true.  Here’s a man who holds a doctorate in my own chosen profession, was a school superintendent, and currently teaches adjunct on the collegiate level in retirement.  He can carry on the most thoughtful conversations on just about any topic, and has such the right balance of savvy and compassion that any of you would gladly wish for him to be your uncle.  I am so very blessed.

No matter, though, when politics comes into play.

First of all, I’m certain that he has a chip in his head connected to the most nefarious left-of-left bunkers where all the talking-point marching orders are broadcast.  And like a good Manchurian Uncle, he regurgitates little more than the left-wing Democrat liturgy of the day.  Little depth of conversation.  His initiations of topic are always framed with the intent to inflame a conserative — to get a rise out of you.  He gets quite the kick out of it.  However, just about any reasonably well-read conservative can take the conversation to it’s natural next level, leaving him left to try to change the subject. 

Why he is like this, I don’t know.  To talk to him in any other area is to meet a thoughtful and complex man who has been many places in this world.  To live and deal with him is otherwise nothing short of a blessing.  It’s so odd.

Now, you ask, why am I going off on my poor retired uncle?  It’s simple.  Since the invention of the Internet, my uncle has thoroughly enjoyed sending blast emails of the most outrageous nature, one of which always falls into my inbox.  I get emails and links to videos that cover a range of ivory tower leftism from calling a sitting president (Bush 43) a terrorist — failing, naturally, to follow up with Obamas near perfect continuation of Bush war policies — to nearly proclaiming Al Gore as the second coming or bashing religious conservatives on a variety of issues.

Today was no exception.

I received a very sincere and heartfelt email forward from my uncle that is obviously a clear and unequivocal argument for the penultimate Obamacare goal — single-payer socialized medicine at your expense.  There’s only one problem — it’s so totally full of crap that I had to clean off my computer screen.

My uncle is morally incorrect for doing this, and I shall explain why further down.

I post the email in its entirety.  Read and enjoy:

Here is an interesting article from the United Methodist Church Board of Church and Society electronic newsletter Faith in Action.

The board supports health care reform.

An encounter with Great Britain’s National Health System

By the Rev. Peter Storey

I’ve been following the U.S. debate on health care with a growing sense of bewilderment and despair. Arguments raised by opponents seem to be quite bizarre and out of touch with reality — and utterly anti-poor.

For most of my life, one of my heroes has been Aneurin Bevan, the feisty Labour socialist from the dirt-poor coal-fields of Wales, who was the only member of the House of Commons who could best Winston Churchill in debate. Bevan did so on a number of occasions.

As the Minister of Health in Clement Atlee’s post-World War II Labour Cabinet, Bevan was the architect of Great Britain’s National Health Service (NHS). He fought it through in the face of enormous odds and bitter opposition and disinformation from Churchill’s Tories.

Of course, Bevan might be the wrong example to lift up in a debate in the U.S., the only country where even the trade unionists are capitalists! But I have quoted him many, many times: “Private charity can never be a substitute for organized justice.”

British national pastime

The important thing to note is that 60 years later, not one in 100 Brits would part with the NHS. Criticism, whining and moaning about the NHS are a British national pastime, but they know better than to let anyone tamper with it.

Although I’m from South Africa, I have a personal anecdote to relate about the NHS.

Back in the bad days in South Africa, I had to attend an anti-apartheid conference in White Plains, N.Y. The embargo by the U.S. Congress prevented direct flights from South Africa to the United States. I had to travel via London, where I stopped off for a day.

I had left Johannesburg under enormous stress. While hefting my heavy bag across a London street, I collapsed and lost consciousness.

High-care ward

I came to in an ambulance, and a little later found myself in the high-care ward of a London hospital.

The specialist believed I had suffered a heart attack. I was to remain hooked up to all sorts of monitors while they ran tests. After 24 hours in high care, you can imagine my relief when I was told that the tests were negative.

Whatever had happened to me, it no longer appeared to be a heart attack. I was told that if I passed a stress test, I could go.

Relief gave way to a new anxiety when I began to anticipate what all this was going to cost.

The stress test went well. The doctor smiled and said, “You can go now.”

When I asked where I should go to check out, he shook his head and smiled again. “No,” he said, “you can just go.”

It was my turn to shake my head, arguing that surely I owed them.

“This is National Health,” the doctor said. “You owe nothing.”

I reminded him that I was not a British taxpayer, but a foreigner.

Glad to be of assistance

I was flabbergasted when he replied: “That doesn’t matter at all. We’re glad to have been of assistance. You should get on your way.”

The doctor might as well have made the sign of the cross and said, “Go in peace.” His words were like a benediction. I walked out of that hospital quite overwhelmed with gratitude.In the taxi to Heathrow I told myself that I had just experienced a gift of sheer grace — amazing grace — all because in the 1950s, the British people had embraced the simple notion that no sick person should be denied treatment because they could not pay.

In Great Britain, health was not a commodity to be bought and sold. It was the right of every citizen. The burden of providing it was shared by all according to their means.

My experience had echoes of the early Church in Acts 2. I believed this simple British notion was one that must make Jesus very happy. It certainly did that for me.

Another thought came to me some hours later when I landed at JFK airport in New York and reported three days late at the anti-apartheid conference: “What if I had collapsed in New York? What if I had woken in the High Care ward of a New York hospital?” The thought of how many years it would have taken me to pay the bill was scary.

There’s a lot to be said for grace.

Editor’s note: The Rev. Peter Storey is former president of the Methodist Church of Southern Africa, past president of the South African Council of Churches, and was Methodist Bishop of the Johannesburg/Soweto area for 13 years. He currently chairs the Governing Council of the new Seth Mokitimi Methodist Seminary in South Africa.
A native South African with a 30-year track record in urban ministry, Storey served as director of a 24-hour crisis intervention service in Sydney, Australia, senior minister of the Inner-City Methodist Mission in District Six, Cape Town, and of the Central Methodist Mission in Johannesburg. In the 1960s, he founded a network of crisis intervention centers in South Africa, and served as chaplain to Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners on Robben Island.

In the 1980s Storey became a national leader in the church struggle against apartheid. Committed to non-violence and reconciliation, he was a founder of the Methodist Order of Peacemakers and Gunfree South Africa, the nation’s anti-gun lobby. He co-chaired the regional Peace Accord structures intervening in political violence before South Africa’s first democratic elections, and was appointed by President Nelson Mandela to help select the nation’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Storey has authored many publications, including With God in the Crucible: Preaching Costly Discipleship (Abingdon, 2002), and Are We Yet Alive? Revisioning our Wesleyan Heritage in a New Southern Africa (Methodist Publishing House, Cape Town, 2004).

Date: 8/24/2009
©2005-2009
Source: http://www.umc-gbcs.org/site/apps/nlnet/content.aspx?c=frLJK2PKLqF&b=5397287&ct=7318799&tr=y&auid=5224351

Now, I’m not casting any aspersions to the authenticity of this experience, but do let me say I’ve been sent variations of this story before in other emails.

No matter.

I can post dozens and dozens of examples of wretched nationalized health care experiences (such as here, here, here, here  and here).

Still, this doesn’t matter.  There are horror stories within every system.

While I believe that a single-payer system, public options (which are intended to lead to single-payer by the admission of their own supporters) and government requirements for insurance are bad for America, some folks disagree with me.  And that’s OK.  Even if you’re a Christian.

My problem is the use of Samaritan compassion as a demand for all Christians to hand the power of taxation and charity to the state to implement at the point of a gun.

How dare a Christian use the principles of Christianity to compel other Christians to bind themselves by law to the godless State for implementation of compassion?  If Christianity is charged with helping the poor and widows, and modern health care is a part of that well-being, then where is the Church?

Where is the Church?

I’m not saying you’re an immoral person, as an American citizen, for wanting universal health care in America.  Not at all.

I’m not saying you’re an immoral person, as a Christian, to decide to support universal health care.  As a citizen, you have a voice, and that voice can be driven by whatever beliefs you have.  So can your vote.  So be it.

I completely object to church leaders and motivators using the power of the Church to push a political agenda that will take the power of discernment from the Church and put it in the hands of the State.  To look at another person and pressure them to support empowering the State in the name of the Church as a Christian duty is absolutely an abomination to me.

Now, let me air a couple of things.  First, I am not a compassionless citizen when it comes to issues of health care.  I am not by any means championing the status quo by rejecting public options.  For any number of reasons I think public options are bad business for America, and can defend those points.  I also believe that there are a number of viable actions we, as a country, can take to reform health care without enjoining a public option.  It does need some reformation, for sure.  I think we could do a lot of good for a lot of people.  My faith raised me to want the highest good for the most people.

Second, I know what some of you are thinking: the Church is never going to insure the poor, so it’s up to the State to make it happen.

Well, largely, you may be right.

Only 100 years ago we didn’t even have a health care system to speak of.  The Church of the 21st century has not developed the means or system to aid or insure the poor to the degree that the System has developed.   Or is it just the will to do something about it?

So, what’s the Church to do?  That’s the good question.

What I do know is that handing the responsibilities that Christ laid on us over to the state is not the agenda the Church should have.  Championing a specific president’s specific agenda isn’t it.

As a citizen, vote your conscience.  If you represent the Church, then quit abrogating your First Call by petitioning the State to take it over and then feel like you’ve done something by forcing all citizens (believers and non-believers, alike) to pay for your conscience through man’s law.

If you represent the Church, then you’d better figure out how the Church can be relevant in its calling, or maybe the Church isn’t relevant anymore.  Maybe we lack the power to anymore have a pure and faultless religion as discussed in James: Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world (James 1:27, NIV).

What I do know is this: We have to separate those who cannot take care of themselves from those who will not.  Demanding that everyone pay in so as to avoid this type of discernment is bad law as well as bad faith.

If you’re using the Church to push your State agenda, then I admonish you to stop.  It is immoral.

Now, just what is the Church to do?

(n.b. – as I conclude this post, I am going to begin another of my pilgrimages.  It’s a long story, and one I hope to share some day.  No, I’m not physically going anywhere, and yes, I’ll keep posting.  Politics is off the table for a while, though, even though I’m already tempted to comment on some of today’s events.  There are plenty enough commentators out there without me adding to the noise.  If you have a question about a political issue, though, just email me and we can talk.

I hope that at least through the end of the year I can focus on some spiritual journies I’m being called to take.  So, more family, friends, and silliness on the GordoZone, and maybe a few items of a more spiritual nature.  Peace.)

The current state of political affairs disgusts me on levels I’ve never encountered before.  While I may still have my personal politics, as we all do, I am choosing to withdraw from public discourse for the time being.  I absolutely refuse to further engage the issues of the day in the current atmosphere.  The Left is repulsive and has lost the privilege of my further attentions.  I shall post several last thoughts and then retire to non-political issues for a good long while.

TEABAGGING

Teabagging is a slang term for the act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth or on or around the face (including the top of the head) of another person. The practice resembles dipping a tea bag into a cup of tea.

I am repulsed at how many mainstream media talking heads have referred to the Tea Party activists as teabaggers.  This is in no way an error or done out of ignorance.  I have heard it used on morning television repeatedly (with my children watching, no less) as well as seen it in print in numerous once-noble online publications.

Anyone who uses this term to describe the opposition is a rude and pathetic bigot who shall be permanently erased from my sphere of concern.  Any organization that allows it (i.e. Time, Alan Colmes, TalkingPointsMemo.com, The Huffington Post, etc.) is also to be written off.  This is just as bad as the N-word or any other of the perjorative epithets that no longer have a place in public discourse.

PATRIOTISM v. RACISM

During the Bush administration: Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism (for example)

During the Obama administration: Dissent is the highest form of Racism (for example)

Former president Jimmy Carter has declared that the ‘overwhelming’ majority of opposition to President Obama’s policies is race driven, up to and including calling the president a liar.  His proof?  He lives in the South.  Of course.  No polls, no interviews, no data.  The man just knows.

All sorts of Left have jumped on the bandwagon declaring that what they’ve heard said behind closed doors proves it, and that every operative term the Right uses in public discourse is actually a racist code word.

Those of us who oppose actions of the Obama administration are not afraid of an African-American president, or black people in general, at least I’m not.  Me, and everyone else I know who is a conservative, by the way.  In fact, I don’t personally know anyone who fits this image, and I live in a conservative Southern town.  Fairly, this doesn’t mean we don’t have racism against African-Americans.  Sure, I know that it exists, and I’ve even witnessed it.  Some people are just bigots.  You try to help grow them up, but sometimes it doesn’t take.

On the other hand, racism against white Americans is plenty prevalent, too.  Take this characterization, for example: to disagree with a black president is racist.  That, my friends, is racist to the core.  That, and it’s the last refuge to the dying Leftist idealogue.  Is the Left so impotent in their arguments that all they have left is the race card?  The your mama of modern politics?  Well, know this: I’m not afraid of anyone — white, black, red, brown, purple, yellow, or plaid — but if you’re in power, I sure as hell am going to speak truth to you.  If you can’t take it, then step aside.

Please keep in mind that more white folks voted for President Obama than for anyone else ever.  And I do have to give major props to the president for not even remotely joining in this racial-fest, and pro-actively rejecting it entirely.  God bless him.  But let’s keep going, shall we…

BARACK OBAMA IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN

I’ve had enough of the so-called ‘birther’ movement (a much smaller movement than you may be led to believe by the media, by the way).  I know this is strictly an opinion generated from my own head, but here’s my bottom line: the man was born to an American citizen.  The end.

If a child of foreign parents can claim American citizenship simply by being born on American soil, even by parents who are on that soil illegally, then why on earth is a man born to a mother who is actually an American citizen not considered a natural-born citizen of the United States of America?  The man is a natural-born citizen.  Who cares at that point whether the birth took place in America or Kenya?  Really.

I have no issue, either, with taking his statements and evidences at face value that he was born in Hawaii.  If others wish to chase this windmill, then have at it.

Thus, Barack Obama is the duly elected president of the United States of America.  He’s my president.

 ACORN, VAN JONES, AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA

Now, I’m not going to dwell too much on ACORN or Van Jones.  The Right has targeted ACORN for years as being a corrupt organization who has benefitted from federal monies.  Notably, they have been accused of massive voter registration fraud, and most recently aiding in teaching people how to avoid getting caught committing crimes such as tax evasion, prostitution, child prostitution, and sheltering of illegal foreign nationals.  Van Jones is the former(?) self-proclaimed Communist ex-con whom President Obama placed in a so-called Green Jobs Czar position in the White House.  This was an appointed office invented by President Obama that neither required confirmation nor oversight from Congress.  Come to find out, Mr. Jones has been on record believing that 9/11 was an inside job, and also stated this past February, for the record, that Republicans were “a**holes”.

Both Van Jones and ACORN have been rocked by scandal of the most monumental, and nationally significant, proportions in the past couple of months.  Van Jones was forced to resign.  ACORN has gone from screaming “YOU LIE!” at its accusers to issuing statements saying they are conducting internal investigations and re-educating employees, as well as needing to regain public trust.

If it weren’t for FoxNews and the so-called alernative media (and, I must say, CNN did their part, if half-heartedly), we’d never even know these things had happened.  Who hasn’t seen a half-dozen church sex scandals paraded across the media for weeks at a time?  Who doesn’t know about the recent killing of an abortion doctor?  Did you know, though, that a prominent anti-abortionist was shot and killed last week?

Also, when an abortion doctor is gunned down by some crazy nutball, the entire Right gets villified as somehow having whipped up this killer into a frenzy by talk radio, Christianity, and just any conservative thinking in general (those ideas are bad, you know).  We’re all guilty by association.  Kill a non-violent prominent anti-abortionist?  Tragic, but some crackpot acting alone.  Sorry.

Disgusting.

In all fairness, I have seen some exceptions.  In spite of the fact that it is my opinion that MSNBC appears to be the official news outlet of the Obama White House, I have to give credit to some of the reporting and interviewing that Matt Lauer has done on the Today show.  He seems to try to give a fair shake to all sides.  I’m sure there are other exceptions, but the trend is stunningly clear: Bury the bad news on the Left. Blame the Right for everything else.

LEFTIE OUTRAGE

I’ve had enough of the Left being outraged that the Right is even hinting at acting like the Left when Bush was president.  Enough.

The Left was absolutely a wretched abomination in so many ways.  Bushitler?  Dissent.  Obama is a Nazi?  Racism.  Now, I think basically all comparative references to Nazi Germany are entirely misplaced.  I’m merely pointing out the clear double standards.  Let’s have some more, courtesy of Victor Davis Hanson’s writings:

Is the anger against Obama different from what we have seen leveled against presidents in the past? Americans not only know that this is not true, but that some who now charge unfair play were themselves well beyond the bounds of decorum in their own attacks. In the Bush years, “hate” was a favorite word of liberal critics, from both officials (cf. Howard Dean) and mainstream publications (cf. The New Republic). “Assassination” was the rage among liberal culture (cf. Alfred Knopf, the Toronto film festival, the Guardian). “Liar,” “Nazi,” and “brownshirt” were casual slurs from high-profile Democrats (cf. Gore, John Glenn, Robert Byrd, Harry Reid, Pete Stark, etc.). True, shouting “you lie” is more serious than booing the President (cf. 2005), but whereas Rep. Joe Wilson has apologized, none of the booers at Bush’s State of the Union address, I think, felt that ”I’m sorry” was ever necessary. (Questioning Barack Obama’s birth certificate is infantile, even unhinged, but not de facto racially motivated — perhaps analogous to something like Andrew Sullivan persisting in spreading rumors [complete with purported photographs] that Sarah Palin did not deliver her last child and engaged in an elaborate cover-up of a faked pregnancy and delivery to hide her daughter’s own stealth unwed pregnancy.)

Is Obama the only minority high-profile figure to have earned real anger?  No. Clarence Thomas had his character destroyed for partisan purposes, and liberals were enraged when he attributed it to a “high-tech lynching.” Alberto Gonzalez was reduced to a caricature of an affirmative-action beneficiary. Former HHS Secretary Louis Wade Sullivan’s race was explicitly cited by Representative Stark in a particularly nasty attack. When Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was caricatured in state-run Palestinian newspaper cartoons as a pregnant monkey, few on the left rushed to denounce such virulent racism. The sad truth is that if a Pres. Condi Rice or Pres. Colin Powell were now in the midst of pushing a controversial conservative agenda (e.g., a federal ban on abortions, cuts in federal spending, keeping open Guantanamo, etc.), the liberal press would be as aggressively hostile as conservatives are today against the Obama plans. The only difference would be that all in the liberal camp would be furious over suggestions of racial motivations to their own anger over conservative African-Americans pushing controversial policy. This is self-evident.

In addition, the folks on the Left have to actually make up stuff to accuse the Right of racism.  Case in point from Jonah Goldberg yesterday — one example of many I could draw from:

Maureen Dowd of the New York Times hears Rep. Joe Wilson shout, “You lie!” And her instinctive response is: “Fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!”

It’s the “fair or not” that gives Dowd away. She admits to hearing racism whether or not it’s warranted. That’s called prejudice. And unlike Wilson’s foolish outburst, Dowd’s was carefully considered. Dowd, Carter and Sharpton can’t grasp that conservatives are less hung up on race than they are and that we can get past Obama’s skin color. “Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it,” writes Dowd. She’s right. She’s one of them.

Amen, brother.

I LIKE BARACK OBAMA, AND STILL THINK HE CAN HELP RACE RELATIONS

I like the man, even if I oppose many of his policies (I support his shutting down of the Third Site missile defense plans, by the way.  It was a prudent move and not the appeasement that folks on the Right are making it out to be).

Please note what I wrote in October 2008:

If there is one thing that I will be supremely proud of if Obama is elected is the very fact that he is an African-American…  I have dreamed of this day for quite some time (though wishing for my political terms, of course).  This will be a momumental healing moment for the nation.  It will shine a light on numerous ills in society — oddly enough, more on the Left than the Right is my guess.

Words of a racist?  No.  I still basically feel this way.  In fact, it is the moral vapidity of the Left coming to light that is causing the bulk of my disgust.  It’s hard to be the victim when you’re in power, but it’s hard to be in power when all you know how to be is a victim.

TUNE IN TOMORROW

I have one other thing to say before stepping away for a while, but its length and subject matter honestly warrant a separate post.  I’ve said enough for now, but here’s a preview:

CHRISTIANS WHO USE THE FAITH TO PUSH THEIR SUPPORT FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE IN AMERICA ARE MORALLY INCORRECT

Yes, that’s right: morally incorrect.  You need to turn away from your actions.

I defend my position tomorrow.

Peace, and Happy New Year!

I know this has been making the rounds, but it’s just so dang relevant.

If you want something a bit more sober and immediate, then check out The 9/12 Project.  It’s 9/12 today, you know.

http://www.the912project.com/

All right.  This actually sounds reasonable.  More importantly, it appears to be easy, doable, and inexpensive compared to the economy-killing and power-grabbing schemes the likes of Al Gore & Co. have come up with.

From the UK Telegraph:

‘Cloud ship’ scheme to deflect the sun’s rays is favourite to cut global warming. Excerpts:

Ships with giant funnels which travel the world’s seas creating more clouds to deflect the sun’s rays could help cut global warming, say scientists.

They would cost $9 billion (£5.3 billion) to test and launch within 25 years, compared to the $250 billion that the world’s leading nations are considering spending each year to cut CO2 emissions…

Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen think-tank…believes the schemes could prove that there are better ways of addressing climate change than simply reducing CO2 emissions.

“[C]loud whitening ships deserve serious scrutiny,” he told The Times.

It’s a fascinating piece.  Do read it.

 As always, the difference between me and the lefties is that I’ve always believed that innovaition and invention could solve our concerns.  You’ll find most lefties think we’ve somehow done all we can do, and must ’sacrifice’ our current lifestyles.  This has been a pattern of ‘progressives’ since the beginning of the 20th century (some progress, huh). Strangely, this always requires more government intrusion in our lives with new controlling rules and more monies going through the government.  What do you think cap-and-trade is but a contrived set of laws to create an artificial shortage, and then (of course) only the government controls the supply?  In other words, it’s a form of tax extortion.

Then, of course, there’s the left-of-lefties who believe we’ve insulted nature and must somehow have a hair shirt solution to atone for our sins.  No, it can’t be this easy.

A solution like this is distinctly preferable, as it can be adjusted according to need.  More importantly, it can be reversed and stopped altogether without killing economies on a wholesale level.

By the way, did you ever notice since the cooling trend of the 2000’s, that we no longer say ‘global warming’?  The phrase now is ‘climate change’.  Well, now, it’s one thing that the government ‘has’ to get involved to protect the planet from global warming.  It’s another thing entirely to have to do something about ‘climate change’.  Just when doesn’t the climate change???

Think about it.  What a wholesale and permanent power grab. Scary.

Of course, who’s to say that our current climate is the best one for the planet, anyway?