Going Along to Get Along

Ever wonder why people continue to vote for the same incompetent fools year after year? This may help explain...

Socialist = Black?

According to Kansas City Star columnist Lewis Diuguid, John McCain and Sarah Palin should be ashamed of themselves for implying that Barack Obama is a socialist. He writes, "McCain and Palin have simply reached back in history to use an old code word for black. It set whites apart from those deemed unAmerican and those who could not be trusted during the communism scare."

So, if "socialist" really is code for "black," then I guess Obama is only half socialist. Would that be more appropriate?

Come on, Mr. Diuguid. You're a smart guy. Your readers deserve better than this. Get over yourself.

Bigfoot vs. Media

In all of the hubbub surrounding the alleged discovery of Bigfoot, did you stop to think how odd it is that members of the mainstream media will go out of their way to discredit stories like this, but will swallow without question equally fantastic and sensationalized claims pertaining to things like global warming, weapons of mass destruction, and Barack Obama?

The Warmongering Press

What would the neocons do without their useful idiots in the "conservative" media? Just take a look at this NewsMax headline: U.S. Intel: Iran Plans Nuclear Strike on U.S.

Now, one might expect that clicking on a headline like that would bring up a breaking news report direct from the Pentagon about a recently uncovered Iranian terrorist plot to detonate a nuclear bomb within our borders. Homeland Insecurity would raise the national threat level to "High." (That's Orange, kids.)

No. Instead, you get sheer speculation (i.e. wishful thinking) on the part of the warmongering press:

Iran has carried out missile tests for what could be a plan for a nuclear strike on the United States, the head of a national security panel has warned.

In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee and in remarks to a private conference on missile defense over the weekend hosted by the Claremont Institute, Dr. William Graham warned that the U.S. intelligence community "doesn't have a story" to explain the recent Iranian tests.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that this is what passes for journalism in a country where most people are too lazy to read beyond the headlines.

The "C" Word

You know, it's getting harder and harder not to be a conspiracy theorist in this country. Consider the case of the D.C. Madame, Deborah Jeane Palfrey. Here we had a woman running an escort service for D.C.'s elite and it was only when she decided to get out of the business that the government went after her. She threatened to name names and, lo and behold, she "commits suicide." And guess what? Not one mainstream media outlet has questioned the official report. No, that's the stuff of Internet conspiracy sites.

So, when you read stories like the one on PrisonPlanet.com, or listen to Palfrey say in an interview last July that she would not kill herself, that she was planning to fight the government in open court, it won't get noticed because the source of those reports is a site run by a well-known "conspiracy nut." Sure, Alex Jones sounds paranoid, but does that mean everything he says is bunk?

As another blogger noted, the feds find conspiracies all the time. They level conspiracy charges against mobsters and anti-abortion activists. (Does RICO ring a bell?) They accuse big corporations of conspiring to hide the dangers of smoking. (Do you recall all those tobacco lawsuits?) They even use conspiracies as justification for war. (Remember the supposed Iraq-al Qaeda link?)

Ah, but those were real conspiracies. If, however, you dare to suggest that there might be a conspiracy or cover-up in the death of a woman who had the potential to destroy the careers and reputations of high-level members of the most powerful government in the world...well, you're just a kook.

Mainstream Media vs. Ron Paul

TV producer Jerry Day reveals the mainstream media's bias against Ron Paul:

Ron Paul: Not Ready for Prime Time

At least according to the mainstream media.

John Stossel sat down to interview Ron Paul. Do you think ABC has any plan to air it on TV? Not a chance. Here's how Stossel glosses over that decision:

Despite relatively low poll numbers, Paul has had a big influence on the presidential campaign. That's in part because he's raised a ton of money, and in part because of the passionate following he has on the Web. It's one reason we're posting my interview with Paul only on the Internet, where the debate about Paul is very active. In fact, he's the most Googled presidential candidate.

You can watch four-and-a-half minutes of that hour-long interview here. (Naturally, ABC selected what they saw as probably the most "controversial" segment of the interview.)

The fact that more people aren't crying "Foul!" is mind-boggling. We talk about how "free" we are in this country, and yet we keep silent as the Beltway bureaucrats and their media lapdogs choose our political leaders for us. Here is a popular candidate from one of the two "acceptable" parties, who has defied all odds up to this point, and the media continues to relegate him to the sidelines.

What's even more amazing is that Paul is treated as an extremist kook, even though his positions on the major issues reflect those of the ones who gave their lives to build this country. If that isn't a wake-up call for all Americans, I don't know what is.

UPDATE: You can watch all segments of the interview here.

Ron Paul: The Soldiers' Choice

ABC News featured a rather impressive report on Ron Paul. You can see the video and read the accompanying article here. One important point stands out:

Another Paul constituency, interestingly enough, comes from the military. A study by the Center for Responsive Politics found Paul received more campaign cash from members of the military than any other Republican presidential candidate.

The study of contributions of $200 and more during the first two quarters shows that Paul has raised three times as much from members of the military as what's been raised by GOP fundraising front-runner Romney, and four times what Giuliani garnered.

So, in an ironic twist, the very troops pro-war conservatives say we should support are supporting the candidate conservatives hate the most.

That's great news. But this story also shows that the mainstream media is no longer able to ignore Ron Paul -- and that can only mean trouble for warmongering frontrunners.

Libertarian Filmmaker Aaron Russo Passes Away

Aaron Russo, who produced such Hollywood hits as Trading Places and The Rose, passed away on Friday, August 24, after a long battle with cancer. He was 64.

Over the last decade, Russo gained popularity as a political activist, candidate, and Ron Paul supporter. But those of us in conservative/libertarian circles will remember him for his most recent film, America: From Freedom to Fascism.

He will be missed.

You can view America: From Freedom to Fascism in its entirety on Google Video.

Fox News: Tool of the Establishment

Karen DeCoster got it right when she referred to Sean Hannity as a "fat-faced, simple-minded, rattlebrained, bumptious, scamp-of-a-twit."

Terrorism by Any Other Name...

Take a look at this news report from Faux News:

At Least 92 Dead After Tamil Rebel Attack on Naval Convoy

COLOMBO, Sri Lanka - Tamil Tiger rebels rammed a truck loaded with explosives into a naval convoy in central Sri Lanka on Monday, killing at least 92 sailors and wounding more than 150, in what the military described as a cold-blooded massacre.

"All these people were without weapons and were going on leave," military spokesman Brig. Prasad Samarasinghe said.

Samarasinghe said the attack happened near the town of Dambulla, about 90 miles northeast of the capital Colombo, when the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam rammed a small truck loaded with explosives into a convoy of military buses. The blast killed 92 sailors, while more than 150 were wounded and evacuated to nearby hospitals.

He said the buses were carrying sailors from the port town of Trincomalee.

President Mahinda Rajapakse's office said in a statement that the attack "was further proof of the LTTE's unmitigated commitment to violence to achieve its ends and was in total disregard of international demands for it to abandon violence and seek peaceful means to achieve its goals."

The military called the attack, one of the deadliest since a Norwegian-brokered 2002 cease-fire, a "cold-blooded massacre."

"This inhuman act is a clear revenge by the terrorists on the navy who inflicted successive defeats for LTTE against their attempts of smuggling arms and explosives," a military statement said. ...

... Fighting has left about 2,000 people dead this year, according to the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission, set up to oversee the cease-fire.

The Tigers have been fighting since 1983 for a separate homeland for the Tamil minority in the north and east, citing decades of discrimination by the majority Sinhalese. About 65,000 people were killed before the 2002 cease-fire.

You can read the full story if you want, but even in this excerpt, two things should jump out at you. First of all, the report refers to the Tamil Tigers as "rebels," not terrorists. The only reference to terrorism at all is in a quote from the Sri Lankan military. On one hand, this isn't surprising because we have been conditioned to think that only Islamic radicals are capable of committing terrorist acts. On the other hand, if this had happened in Iraq, it would have been considered the work of terrorists. But since the suicide bombers weren't Muslim, they are merely rebels.

The second thing you should have noticed was how long this conflict in Sri Lanka has been going on: 23 years. The Sri Lankan government hasn't been able to suppress the rebellion within its own country in almost a quarter of a century. What makes us think that we, as outsiders, can do any better in Iraq?

The Passion of the Christ: A Beautifully Offensive Work of Art

When a movie I have been anticipating is finally released, I go to great lengths to avoid learning too much about the plot. I don't want anything to be given away that might spoil the cinematic experience. I want to be a participant in the storytelling process rather than a mere spectator.

Even when I am somewhat familiar with the story - the Lord of the Rings trilogy is one example - I can maintain a certain element of surprise by refusing to listen to know-it-all movie critics who think they have a better understanding of my likes and dislikes.

However, when I went to see The Passion of the Christ, I was already very familiar with the subject matter. I knew all the main characters and their backgrounds. I knew exactly how each scene would unfold. As a Christian, I knew how the story was going to end - or, more accurately, begin.

If that weren't enough, I had read dozens of movie reviews, many of them describing scenes in great detail. For all practical purposes, there was no reason at all for me to see this motion picture.

I went anyway. Though I was intimately familiar with the gospel accounts of the crucifixion, the movie made a tremendous impact on me and proved to be an eye-opener in more ways than one.

A good artist is someone who is able to make tangible the intangible, and a true work of art takes something that would ordinarily defy description and put it into terms that mere mortals can understand. Picture the most magnificent painting you have ever seen, or imagine the most beautiful piece of music you have ever heard, and you will know exactly what I mean.

Mel Gibson accomplished this with The Passion. He was able to take an event as indescribable as the crucifixion and present it in such a way that makes an indelible impression.

The vivid images of an innocent man being tortured to death provided the shock Gibson was going for. There in all its grotesqueness was an artist's depiction of what it must have been like for millennia of sin and wickedness to be poured out on one individual. Through the sounds of splattering blood and ripping flesh I could hear members of the audience gasping and crying. Even though every single one of us in that theater knew the violence was simulated, that didn't make it any less disturbing. What's more, I believe that despite Gibson's great attention to detail, his version of the crucifixion was most likely a bit tame compared to the actual event.

As I sat riveted to the screen, I suddenly realized why so many people found this movie offensive. No, it isn't anti-Semitic. Those who have leveled that charge have either never seen the movie or are simply covering up their abject hatred for Christianity and the gospel. The reason they were offended is that they saw the truth come to life on the big screen - and people tend to lash out in anger when confronted with the truth. Paul reminds us in his letter to the church at Corinth that "the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor. 1:18).

I know it is only a movie. I know that it isn't God-breathed scripture. But there is something to be said of one's ability to bring history to life.

I believe that people were offended because they fail to understand how Christians can find such joy and happiness in an act as hideous as the crucifixion. In Psalm 118:24 we read of the anticipation of Christ’s sacrifice: "This is the day the Lord has made; we will rejoice and be glad in it." Hebrews 12:2 speaks of Jesus enduring the cross "for the joy that was set before him," and 1 Peter 4:13 tells us to "rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ's sufferings, that when His glory is revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy." That kind of joy is something the world cannot understand.

Many critics complained that the movie didn't provide an adequate explanation for the reason behind Jesus' suffering. Why did so many people hate him? Why did he subject himself willingly to such excruciating pain? Why didn’t the movie focus more on his ministry of love and forgiveness?

Oh, it truly is amazing how utterly ignorant people can be. The gruesome act of the crucifixion was the ultimate act of love and forgiveness played out before all humanity! It was the culmination of Jesus' entire life and ministry. Beyond that, it is the one, blessed event to which all of scripture points.

As shocking as it may sound, The Passion of the Christ is perhaps the most beautiful love story ever filmed. It portrays a love so powerful that it hurts to even look at it. It shows us a love so overwhelming and so suffocating that sinful creatures cannot help but recoil from it in horror. The critics whined that they wanted to see more of Christ's message of love and forgiveness; for two whole hours it was right there in front of them in all of its crimson glory.

The beauty of the crucifixion is that it is the embodiment of God's love. The apostle John captures the essence of this truth: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:1, 14).

Christ made flesh was God's ultimate masterpiece. The Master Artist made tangible the intangible, and in doing so provided His children with something we could never hope to achieve on our own: eternal life.

Yes, The Passion of the Christ is only a movie, but it reminds us of the offensive beauty of God's love. It also delivers the unforgettable message that it is a love that cannot be ignored.

Racism and American Hypersensitivity

In an effort to avoid being branded racists, Americans have grown increasingly sensitive to how the different races, ethnic groups, cultures and religions that make up our society relate to one another. This is not to say that racism is non-existent, but I do believe that our threshold for tolerating certain types of behavior has been lowered significantly.

You may recall the flack talk show host Rush Limbaugh received for his comments about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb. In pointing out the amount of media attention McNabb was receiving, Limbaugh said, "The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well." No sooner had those words passed from Limbaugh's multi-million dollar mouth than charges of racism began to fly, and Limbaugh was eventually pressured to resign from his job at ESPN.

While not surprising, the response to Limbaugh was unwarranted. Not once did he hurl a racist insult at McNabb, nor did he call the media racist. He was merely focusing on what he believed to be a slight bias on the part of the media.

One of the best examples of hypersensitivity was the reaction to a brief speech made by Trent Lott at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party in 2002. The senator from Mississippi said, "I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." Everyone was in an uproar. The general consensus was that since Strom Thurmond ran for president as a member of a party that had a segregationist platform, it was relatively easy to determine what Lott meant by "these problems."

The ensuing shockwave rattled the highest levels of the minority community. Kweisi Mfume, president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (yes, the organization still uses the term "colored"), called Lott's remarks "hateful bigotry that has no place in the halls of the Congress." Shortly afterward, Republicans began distancing themselves from Lott, essentially sacrificing him on the altar of tolerance to appease the god of political correctness.

If the Trent Lott fiasco proved anything, it is that one can be a racist without uttering a single word about race or ethnicity. It also demonstrated that even the slightest, most minute impression of the possibility of racial intolerance is considered an unpardonable crime against humanity.

Naturally, a topic like this cannot be discussed without addressing anti-Semitism, racism's ugly sister. Anti-Semitism is another one of those charges that are bandied about with little forethought or debate. In fact, most of those employing the term are unable to explain what it actually means. By today's standards, anti-Semitism includes everything from jokes about ham to the horrible genocide carried out by the Nazis in the '30s and '40s. Talk about a huge disparity!

Just look at the controversy surrounding Mel Gibson's new film, The Passion of the Christ. In a Feb. 6 speech to the Anti-Defamation League National Executive Committee, ADL Director Abraham Foxman said, "For almost 2,000 years in Western civilization, four words legitimized, rationalized, and fueled anti-Semitism: 'The Jews killed Christ'...For hundreds of years those four words - acted out, spoken out, sermonized out - inspired and legitimized pogroms, inquisitions and expulsions." Foxman believes that Gibson's film portrays Jews as a bloodthirsty mob of Christ-killers and fears that it may spark an increase in anti-Semitic behavior around the world.

Many who have attended advance screenings of the movie have noted Gibson's great care in staying faithful to the accounts found in the New Testament - and that, I think, is the problem. Scripture records that the multitude of Jews who had gathered before Pontius Pilate demanded that Jesus be crucified (Matt. 27:22). They even cried out, "His blood be on us and on our children" (Matt. 27:25). My suspicion is that the ADL simply has a problem with the gospel itself.

Gibson recently removed the blood curse line from the film's dialog, but that doesn't seem to matter. The controversy is now centering on Mel's father. In an interview scheduled to air on Monday, Feb. 23, Hutton Gibson is quoted as saying that the Holocaust is "maybe not all fiction - but most of it is." Foxman has already made the claim that the elder Gibson is "a classical anti-Semite who is full of conspiracy theories and hate and perversion," so I don't think members of the ADL will be changing their position anytime soon. They certainly won't seek to judge the movie objectively based on its artistic merits. Mel's father is anti-Semitic, which means Mel must be anti-Semitic, which means anyone going to see the movie must also be anti-Semitic.

I cannot help but wonder how we ended up as a nation of hypersensitive, maladjusted, intellectual weaklings. Is it because we have grown so completely bored that we actually have to create problems where they don’t exist just to keep life interesting? Are we so dissatisfied with our own lives that we feel we must destroy the lives of others?

Indeed, when it comes to volatile issues like racism and anti-Semitism, there are real dragons we need to slay. But how can we do that while focusing all of our energy on those areas where none exist?

In an ironic twist, our unhealthy obsession with "tolerance" has only made us more intolerant, and the wedges we claim to be removing from between diverse groups are only being driven deeper. We are even lectured by public service announcements on television and radio that telling a joke referencing someone's race or sexual orientation is tantamount to committing an act of violence.

What kind of future can we hope to have if this continues? How long will it be before we begin to criminalize thought? With as much attention as we pay to the color of our skin, one would think we might notice how thin it has become.

In Defense of Janet Jackson...Sort Of

Everyone is upset with Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake - and with good reason. But am I supposed to pretend that the sight of some punk kid groping an older woman was the worst thing I saw on television last Sunday?...

(Full commentary here.)