December
7, 2005 Doth
Iron Hugh protest too much?
About the Gilchrist challenge to John Campbell, that is. Protest
that it was nothing? I think Hugh has it wrong. Hugh links to the
vote
totals and to the vote totals I went.
Here is what I see.
Taken together, Senator Campbell and Jim Gilchrist received 69.8%
of the vote. Mr. Gilchrist received 36% of the total votes cast
for Sen. Campbell and Mr. Gilchrist. Mr. Gilchrist's vote total
was 56% of Sen. Campbell's. That means for every vote Sen. Campbell
received, Mr. Gilchrist received .56 of a vote. If the
district had been a less safe district, Mr. Gilchrist might have
been a spoiler.
Mr.
Gilchrist is likely an example of the Peter Principle - that an
individual will eventually rise to his level of incompetence. Mr.
Gilchrist, at least in the Hewitt interview, didn't come off well.
His skipping the debate on Medved's and Hewitt's shows, after saying
he would be present, didn't bode well for him. Sen. Campbell, a
likeable Reagan Republican, is no RINO. Had he been of the stripe
of a Sen. Specter, there is no telling what the outcome would have
been.
Congratulations
to now Congressman Campbell. He will be a good addition to the Congress.
I would have voted for him had I lived in his district. Hugh does
recognize the border is a hot issue. But to downplay the vote percentages
in his blog, and Hugh might have backtracked from that downplaying
at the top of his show today, and to continually hammer John and
Ken, doesn't help unite the base with the party. Much of that base
passed by Tom McClintock to vote for Arnold, just as Hugh recommended.
Hugh ought to remember that more.
November
25 , 2005 The
solution to the trade deficit with China may have just surfaced.
The double happiness, to borrow a Chinese phrase, is that it is
an export that once we got rid of it we would prosper all the more
here - lawsuit attorneys. My Google
top stories wire is reporting the story of a Chinese
citizen who is suing the chemical company that caused the recent
river spill in China.
Upon
first hearing of the lawsuit I thought there is hope for China yet.
Surely it must be indicative of unenlightened materialism's successful
spread into China that one of its worst byproducts has taken root
- the lawsuit. But then I learned more. The amount the Chinese citizen
was suing for was 15 yuan and a formal apology. This is where the
Chinese could learn something from us. For 15 yuan converted to
US currency is the whopping sum of $2. They clearly aren't thinking
big enough.
October
14, 2005 Hugh
Hewitt has been nagging his listeners over the Harriet Miers
nomination. It is possible for one to be right about something but
to still be a nag. And, I think Hugh is right. And, I think he oftens
nags.
This
is no more apparent then when Hugh brings out the "What this
will do to the next election!" rolling pin he is fond of waving
at his listeners. Or, when he, after haranguing about how joining
the Gang of 14 hurt Senator
Graham with the base and torpedoed Senator McCain's chances
of winning the Republican nomination in '08, lectures his audience
on the possibility of an impending filibuster over any other nominee
and the possibility of the chance - known, of course, by Karl Rove
- that Republicans would fail with the nuclear option.
Which
is it? Have Senators McCain and Graham won or lost? If a Luttig
or McConnell fall into the Left's "extraordinary circumstances"
column with the backing of 5 Republican Senators, then McCain and
Graham have won. If President Bush can't get Luttig or McConnell,
or a host of others, through the nuclear fallout then the nuclear
option was never a good idea. But methinks Hugh was a strong proponent
of it before the Gang of 14 deal, and after it.
Hugh
gets out another rolling pin when Alberto Gonzales is publicly questioned
as to his bonafides in being the one to help to constitutionally
defend the pre-born. See Hugh's archives July
5 and July
10.
Michael
Medved also tipped his hand the other day when he said something
to the effect of if conservatives succeed in defeating the Miers
nomination President Bush might react by nominating a real moderate.
This is another variation on the above theme by Hugh.
What
does that say about what Michael believes about the President? Michael
knows that were he the President he would never, under any circumstances,
nominate a real moderate. He would know how disastrous that would
be for the future of the country. That he would posit it as a possible
action by President Bush makes one conjecture that Michael believes
deep down that President Bush is not as conservative as he should
be.
September
1, 2005 One
can only applaud the relief efforts going on around the nation,
including those spearheaded by Salem Radio through such shows as
Dennis Prager's, Michael Medved's, and Hugh Hewitt's. Each of them
has focused on the Katrina story from a different angle and are
to be commended for their work.
But
there is one nagging habit that Michael and Hugh continually vex
their audiences with that needs to be addressed. It is the belief
that gasoline prices are destined to rise and even more because
of Katrina; that the rising is only a factor of the free market;
and that oil companies executives are not dirty, rotten scoundrels
but happy proponents of free markets and capitalism.
Hugh,
on Tuesday's show, I believe, was almost apocalyptic
with his predictions. "Don't even think of building a new home
anywhere in the United States because all the wood is going to the
Gulf coast region."(paraphrase) And then the clarion call of,
what was it, $4 a gallon gas prices because of the disruption. I
grimaced and groaned as Hugh issued what no press release from the
American Petroleum Institute could accomplish.
Questions
for Hugh to ask himself:
1.
How many cars, trucks, and other vehicles were lost or stranded,
that are not filling up their tanks today, and won't be filling
up for some time? And does this result in more gasoline or less
in the supply chain?
2. How
many tens of thousands of commuters, tourists, workers, and shoppers
will not be on the road burning gasoline because there is no place
to go and few roads to drive on even if there were places to go? Does
this result in more gasoline or less in the supply? What business
do you know that after losing up to 1,000,000 or more of its customers
in one day could raise prices with a straight face?
3. If
you were a trader, what would you rather lose - the wholesale price
for the few days lost production in the Gulf or the wholesale price
and retail mark-up for all the cars, trucks, and vehicles that won't
be buying gas in the Gulf area for months to come.
For
an analogy, look at the present electricity market in the Gulf area.
Are they selling electricity? No. Are the plants that produce electricity
still burning as much coal or natural gas as they were before Katrina?
No, not to produce electricity to sell to the Gulf area affected,
anyway. This results in excess electricity (if they keep the plants
running), or excess coal and natural gas, to sell to other areas of
the country, thereby lowering prices.
Why
not the same for gasoline? Because the oil industry wants us to focus
only on the present production that is being disrupted,
not on the demand that has just taken a drastic downturn.
And because both the old media and the new media, for some reason
which I can't entirely understand, are hypnotized by the mantra that
gasoline is in short supply and prices must go up and up and are telling
their viewers, listeners, and readers nothing to counter this mantra.
"China is buying more and more, don't you know." "There
was a fire in a Texas refinery today, don't you know." "OPEC
is meeting next month and is expected to cut production, don't you
know." And now Katrina.
Message
to Michael and Hugh and any other conservative - the oil industry
has no shortage of scoundrels who would sell the economy down the
drain - look what they are doing to the airline industry - as they
squeeze more and more out of us. I can just hear Michael now, "Well,
if that were true who would they sell gasoline to if the economy goes
down the drain."
Happily,
in answer to prayer, Dennis Prager had on for a segment today Raymond
Learsy, author of Over
a Barrel, Breaking the Middle East Cartel. Mr. Learsy said more
in ten minutes to counter the belief that it is inevitable that gasoline
prices will rise than has been said in the past five years on talk
radio. To paraphrase, here are some gems:
1. The
oil companies are cheering on OPEC's strength and increased prices.
In essence, a prosperous OPEC means prosperous U.S. oil companies.
If you thought they shared the disdain for OPEC most Americans feel
you were wrong.
2. The conversation over oil policy should be among the public but
it is among the oil companies and the political structure. The latter
two institutions are telling us what to think rather than engaging
us in a conversation.
3. Change will only come from the bottom up not the top down. I.e.,
Don't wait for Congress to do anything.
4. That, I think I remember the figures correctly, there are 350 million
gallons in storage and 700 million gallons in the strategic reserve.
What does a few million barrels a day of lost production really mean
in relation to those numbers?
Mr.
Learsy was very eloquent. I am not doing his argument justice. I look
forward to Dennis having him back again when Dennis has more time.
July
29, 2005 Strike
that first sentence of the July 26 blog. Hugh hasn't washed his
hands of Tancredo after all. He brought him up again with Mark Steyn.
But Hugh made the question to Mr. Steyn sound as if Tancredo was
talking about a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Tancredo never mentioned
nuke and he certainly wasn't speaking about a pre-emptive strike.
But
Hugh is rightly on target about embryonic stem cell research and
is to be commended for not going along with those politicos who
are intimidated by the "woe is me" lobby. I know Senator
Frist is tougher than Nancy Reagan on the issue and would draw the
line closer to Senators Brownbacks and Santorum. But we need to
get rid of the notion that embryoes that are going to be destroyed
anyway should be used for research. Where does this line of reasoning
lead one? To more and more embryoes that are going to be destroyed
anyway!?
Hugh
got a call from a Wesley J. Smith on the disaster of embryonic stem
cell research. Mr. Smith has written Consumer's
Guide to a Brave New World. Mr. Smith also runs a blog.
He was a great caller. He has an impressive bio.
July
26, 2005 Well,
Hugh has washed his hands
of Tancredo and consigned his supporters to oblivion. Of course,
it is only a very small portion of Hugh's listenership. You understand,
it's not even a very small portion, really, but only a wee bit of
Hugh's overall audience bombarding him with emails and phone calls.
So,
Hugh took to the larger issue of getting Governor Romney back on
track, especially after the disastrous Ruffini
poll showing Gov. Romney finishing third behind Senator Allen and
Mayor Guliani. Hugh's own blog readers put Allen 26.4% ahead of
Romney with the Mayor in between. So Hugh has his work cut out for
him.
Governor
Romney vetoed a bill in Massachusetts (that half of America would
have also vetoed) and wrote a guest editorial for his local
newspaper. Hugh interviewed him - played the tape - and Duane
has posted the transcript. Governor Romney is now pro-life again.
Governor
Romney is resolutely in favor of letting the states decide the abortion
debate. That's rich. That's the way to fight. Leave it up to the
states who elected Theodore Kennedy, Barabara Boxer, Ms. Mikulski,
etal. I can just hear the fetuses breathing a sigh of relief that
a President Romney would campaign hard on that platform. He is in
good company, though. For that seems to be the "throwing in
the towel", "feeding the base a bone" line coming
from such commentators as Michael Medved.
How
hard is it to make the case that we are endowed with the inalienable
right to life and that it can't be taken away without due process.
And that a fetus, Latin for baby, is a living human being. Due process
implies a trial to determine guilt. It can't be stretched to mean
giving the decision on whether a 1 day or 8 month old fetus lives
to 51% of the voters of California.
I
once heard Mr. Medved
tell a caller that the inalienable right to life is not in the Constitution,
that it is in the Declaration, so ... you see, a clever trick to
get the base happy with states rights as opposed to a Pro-Life amendment
to the Constitution.
Somehow
I don't think the logic would work with God. Let's see, I endowed
you with an inalienable right to Life but that Barbara Mikulski
is a force to be reckoned with. You better not press the issue.
Let's just leave it to the states.
July
25, 2005 Hugh
Hewitt is to be commended. He kept up his coverage of the Tancredo
debate, not as the trained lawyer who only asks questions he knows
the answers to, but as someone who wants to get at the root of something,
even if he is straying and is beginning to see his destination is
changing.
Today
he had on a spokesman from CAIR, always an unpredictable thing.
You can count on a Muslim spokesman to give away to the Right what
he has gained with the Left. They just can't help but be tripped
up by the Israel problem. What to do with little Israel, the size
of New Jersey. You see it has to continue to be the source of all
their problems. If they acknowledge its right to exist, then they
will have to focus on their own conditions.
Question
to Hugh: if we are to shape our policy based on the supposed peacefulness
of the majority of Muslims worldwide, how is it that they can't
even muster up the will to allow Israel its place in the sun. Stated
another way - if Islam can't allow Israel to live, how can it allow
America? If Islam can't be tolerant of Israel, as they want us to
be tolerant of Islam, how can we trust them?
Dennis
Prager, on his show today, mentioned the tribal aspects of Islam.
It isn't a matter of good vs. evil with them so much as it is a
matter of tribalism. This serves to explain what Hugh Hewitt might
be missing. We imagine that the majority of Islam is motivated by
the same virtues we are. We project our thinking on them and think
they are mirroring it back. But what if they mostly think in terms
of tribe. Then there really is no melting into America. Wherever
they live they will always be a tribe - opposed ultimately to the
other tribes.
Hugh
also had on Robert
Morey, a capable explainer of the threat of Islam. I would like
to see Dr. Morey on again, by himself with Hugh, so that Hugh could
delve into things without the need to get a response from an Islamic
spokesman.
Even
Yoni didn't seem to permit
Hugh a safe escape back to the land of pretend thinking. The picture
of Hugh, richly decorated with Ivy League reasonings, trying to
nudge Yoni, with his Middle East battle scars, into the certain
view that we are not at war with Islam, was quite a contrast.
I
am not so sure that Frank
Gaffney will offer Hugh the cover he will need to keep up the
volleys against Tancredo. Mr. Gaffney is a serious sort of person,
moved more by things as they are than as we would want them to be.
One
final point. Hugh asked Dr. Morey if one general or one politician
has ever expressed agreement with Dr. Morey that Mecca should be
on the table as a strategic target. Would you expect strategic planners
to discuss such a strategy openly, when behind the scenes threats
to key players would serve so much better? Look at the secrecy over
the bombing of Hiroshima. Yes, the atomic bomb was brand new, but
there was no broadcasting of even its potential use.
Remember
that one general who was a bit too Christian in his expressions
for the taste of the MSM? And wasn't there another general or colonel
who gloried as to how he liked killing the bad guys? Very few can
get away with being frank.
And
here is a question to Hugh. There are many believers in Congress
who hold that Christ is the only way to eternal life. Hugh knows
the same truth. Yet how many congressmen has he heard proclaim what
they believe and risk the backlash. You say it is not their job
to instruct on matters theological. Well, it is not the position
of strategy planners to broadcast their ultimate strategies.
If
even the late Pope John Paul II and Billy Graham speak with nuance
on such an issue as Christ and eternal life, how can we marvel that
there are few who can speak to America things that are hard to hear.
It may be that it is time to hear.
July
24, 2005 5:30 pm
Congratulations to Hugh Hewitt
on the new design of his blog. It's clean and crisp. It reads easier.
His designer has also introduced a fresh element of enclosing quotes
from others in a shaded box with borders on top and bottom. Kudos
to the design team.
But
Hugh has begun his pummelling
of Congressman Tancredo again after Mr. Tancredo's article in Sunday's
Denver Post. Methinks Hugh is stooping to ad
hominem attacks on Mr. T. Here are several:
1.
"..on his absurd insistence..";
*
2. "No serious politician ...";
*
3. "I have not seen any credible
authority on war or religion endorse this foolishness.
No serious Christian theologian can
endorse what is obviously an immoral
threat against another faith."; *
4. "Tancredo's ego is really
astonishing..."; *
5. "Tancredo makes absurd leaps
of logic in an effort.."; *
6. "Tancredo is preoccupied with attention-getting
statements that play to the frustrated edge.."; *
7. "The jump Tancredo makes from Americans disgusted
with his foolishness to al Qaeda's reactions to
American outrage is incoherent. Really,
incoherent."*
8. Serious leaders in the West refuse to indulge the hatred
for a different religion that is implicit in Tancredo's
frothings. *
9. "...Tancredo's absurd hypotheticals.."
*
10. "handicapped by a publicity-seeking
Congressman is my worry." *
11. "Tancredo made all of their jobs more difficult, and
ours as well, by sounding exactly like a Christian
jihadist would sound,.." *
12. "his attempt to camouflage his inanity
in a variety of ways does nothing but highlight again and again
why he doesn't deserve invitations to GOP events or leadership
positions in Washington." *
13. "They are interested in the national security and victory
in the GWOT. Congressman Tancredo is interested
in, well, Congressman Tancredo." *
* [emphasis added]
Hugh
states, "I am sure I will hear --again-- from all the "realists"
who want to quote the Koran to me and instruct me on how blind I
am to the threat of Islam. Look, feel free to write me, but try
and find at least one quote from a serious conservative on the American
or world stage to back you up."
How
about this quote? It is from a serious conservative formerly on
the world stage whom Hugh has the utmost respect for. Many have
heard it. Here it is:
Quotation
of the Decade?
Gregory Smith offers this Churchill comment on that great religion
we are not fighting against, from The River War, first edition,
Vol. II, pages 248 50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).
"How
dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its
votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous
in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic
apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident
habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce,
and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet
rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace
and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that
in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute
property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay
the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased
to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid
qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the
Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses
the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde
force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism
is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout
Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were
it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science-
the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation
of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient
Rome."
Hard
for the 21st Century ear to hear, I know. Men were more frank then
- frank as the actions around them.
Let
me deal with one point Hugh makes:
He
first quotes Australian P.M.'s John Howard as one whom Tancredo
should not look to for justification:
"[T]his
is about the perverted use of the principles of a great world religion,
that at its root preaches peace and cooperation, and I think we
lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see
these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather
than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their
murder."
Islam,
at its root preaches peace and cooperation? Does Hugh really believe
that? Prime Minister Howard is a courageous man. May his government
flourish. But to say that Islam at its root preaches peace and cooperation
begs the question: to whom. Try bringing a Christian bible into
Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca. Peace and cooperation is what you
will not get. Try being a Christian in the Sudan. Fear for your
life. One could go on and on.
What
is very convenient for the Islamic rulers is how we let them have
it both ways. When sovereign Islamic nations attack Israel the West's
Left says they are acting in self-defense not in the name of Allah.
When supposed radicals coming out from a sovereign nation (Syria,
Saudia Arabia, Algeria) attack us the West's Left and others say
the radicals do not act in the name of the country they come form
or in the name of Allah.
These
countries can tell people what they will wear, what they will read
and not read, what they will believe or die not believing, but they
have no control over their radicals? There are elites, according
to Hugh, in Saudi Arabia who want radical Islam to destroy Israel
and America, but we are to not judge Saudia Arabia yet because Saudia
Arabia is cooperating now and must be diplomatic with the elites
who want us dead. It seems we are always to be excusing these Islamic
countries. How it that such a religion of peace and cooperation
has not done better in structuring order and growth where it has
been in power for so long?
Hugh
also gives two different quotes of the amount of Muslim soldiers
serving in the U.S. military. First he says 5,000 to 10,000; then
later, in what looks like either an unreferenced source, he lists
10,000 - 20,000. The difference between the smallest and largest
number is 400%.
In
the same reference Hugh lists this:
"In
the United States, Islam is the fastest growing religion, a trend
fueled mostly by immigration. There are 5 million to 7 million Muslims
in the United States."
"...fueled
mostly by immigration."?. That's the point! 5-7 million Muslims
in the United States? I will check with Michael
Medved's website
on that number. Earlier in his blog Hugh says a few million. If
Hugh thinks numbers of adherents amongst us gives Islam credibility,
or should check our resolve to condemn Islam if Islam is the culprit,
he is desperately mistaken.
July
21, 2005 11:20 am Amidst
the understandable fanfare for the Judge Roberts nomination - participated
in by myself, too - I have a slight nagging feeling. It is this
- what have we come to in this country when such an alignment of
factors is necessary to just hope for good change. The alignment
of factors is this - a reasonably conservative President, a majority
of Republican senators safe from the usual defection of one or two
renegades, a burgeoning new media of talk show hosts and bloggers
to keep the MSM at bay, and the stepping down of one of the Supreme
Court justices.
The
"just hoping for good change" is the waiting for the confirmation
of Judge Roberts, the seating of him, and the waiting of the right
court cases to be presented. The howling from the Left before, during
and after will be fierce and loud, causing what kinds of timidity
in the participants for change one can only speculate.
Judge
Roberts seems like a fine man, capable of resisting pressure from
the Left. But why is it necessary that we have to put so much hope
in one man, and the next, and the next, in order to realize good.
Perhaps it is time, in addition to getting good men and women on
the Court, to debate the idea of term limits for the Justices. Judge
Roberts looks like a humble and grateful man, one likely to resist
the pride that can come from such a promotion. But, the accountability
to the rightful owners of the country - We the People - seems a
bit too stretched by this process of electing Senators and a President,
waiting for vacancies, nominating what is always in some respects
a mystery, and then patience upon patience.
One
could think of interpreting as to explain what was meant by the
original when the original is called into play. Or, as someone explaining
what a Russian speaker is saying to an American listener. The interpreter
must convey the meaning of the Russian speaker not change the meaning
to suit his own agenda or to give a meaning to the American listener
that the listener would prefer. I.e., there is a reasonably clear
meaning intended by the Russian speaker. If it isn't clear it is
the job of the interpreter to ask the Russian for clarity, not ask
himself. One can also think of it as to apply original meaning to
new circumstances while keeping true to the original meaning.
Republicans
and conservatives should educate the American public on what it
properly means to interpret. They should give clear examples of
proper interpretation.
July
20, 2005 President
Bush has made a wise decision in nominating Judge John Roberts to
the vacant seat at the Supreme Court. His qualifications are being
amply covered by Fox News and the blogosphere. I point the reader
to Hugh Hewitt's website
which should be everyone's portal for the unfolding of the confirmation
process.
And
Dennis Prager, on today's show (Wednesday), looks like he is dedicating
the whole show to the issue. He has drawn out some of the talking
points the Democratic senators will be using - particularly the
use of their seeking to see if Judge Roberts exhibits "fairness".
Dennis points out that it is the task of the judiciary to issue
justice not fairness. It is the task of the legislature to address
issues of fairness, if it is their desire. An attorney caller brought
up the lawyerly definition of fairness as equated with impartiality
as in choosing a jury. Dennis agreed but told the attorney that
definition of fairness is not the one used by Senators Leahy, Clinton,
etal.
I
would like to point out another hint of the Left's strategy. It
came from Senator Schumer's comments immediately following President
Bush's introduction of Judge Roberts. He used the phrase "settled
law" and asked what was Judge Roberts's view of it. It is a
guarantee that Senator Schumer will attempt to get Judge Roberts
to confirm that Roe v. Wade is now "settled law". It has
always struck me as unfortunate that nominees before the Senate
Judiciary Committee are not more prepared for the steamrolling techniques
of the likes of Senator Schumer. A couple of stiff rebukes are in
order now and then to back off the steamroller. I learned this from
Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason.
Here
is how he describes Taking the Roof off - "It's a tactic called
taking the roof off. It's adopting the other person's point of view
for the sake of argument and carrying it out to it's logical conclusion.
It's forcing people to live in the moral world they created. It
shows them that they can't live in that world. It doesn't work."
July
18, 2005 Michael
Medved and Hugh Hewitt
both pummelled Congressman
Tancredo today for his comments about a possible leveling of
Mecca should several American cities be attacked with nuclear weapons
by Muslim extremists. Hugh Hewitt, tipping his hat to Tancredo's
relentless border control efforts, spent the full 3 hour show calling
down horror upon horror on Mr. Tancredo's head and anyone silly
enough to applaud him.
Bad
strategy it would be. Would get the entire Muslim world against
us. Would be like Hitler attacking
Stalin. We are not fighting against Islam but against what Mr.
Hewitt once referred to today as a cadre. Mr. Hewitt gave his leave
for the bombing of Damascus, the overthrow of the House of Saad,
and taking out every nuclear facility in Iran. But not Mecca.
Let's
follow Mr. Hewitt's reasoning. There are attacks on American cities
greater than 9/11 and Pearl Harbor combined. The President orders
counter attacks on Damascus, orders the overthrow of the House of
Saad and pinpoint attacks on nuclear facilities in Iran. The Muslim
world in Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt and Indonesia breathes a sigh of
relief and says Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran deserved it. We side
with America. The Arab street finally falls silent and sues for
eternal peace. They even offer to finish the fence for the Israelis.
Mr.
Hewitt even put out the call to the Muslim soldier serving in the
American military to call in to the show. No takers to my knowledge.
But Mr. Tancredo should apologize to every Muslim soldier serving
in the American military, says Hugh.
I
emailed Mr. Hewitt about the proposition voiced by Victor
Mordecai that the Muslim world itself views the respective real
estate of Mecca and Jerusalem as the top prizes. Mr. Mordecai offers
the idea that the Muslim believes that if Mecca is destroyed it
would be an utter and complete defeat; that they would even convert
to Christianity. This is why they also believe the destruction of
Jerusalem would be a similar defeat for Christianity or, at least
Israel. While that might seem wild to the western, Christian mind,
is it not plausible that it makes sense to the Islamic mind? Can
not Allah defend his most holy site, they would ask? Whether this
is true, I don't know. But it is at least worthy of debate and a
place at the strategy table.
One
or two callers to Hugh's show echoed this point. Hugh asked one
caller if a destruction of Vatican City would result in the defeat
of Catholicism. Mr. Hewitt fails to differentiate between the two
mindsets. The Catholic knows his faith does not reside in the Vatican
but in Christ. A great loss it would be to lose the Vatican. But
few Christians, if any, would view it as the conquest of Christianity.
Not so, goes the theory, that a similar destruction of Islam's most
holy site would represent. It is not what you or I think, it is
what the Islamic mind thinks.
Mr.
Hewitt may be rooting for the reform of Islam but he shouldn't be
leading the reform himself with a politically correct revisionism.
Has Mr. Hewitt so mastered his own religion that he has now taken
upon the practice of Islam as it should be practiced?
It
is tempting to good hearted people to view a weaker and disorganized
enemy as someone who shouldn't be crushed. We should only fight
one notch above the level of our enemy, this theory seems to say.
Thus, those who are sent out by the Imams are to be stopped but
not the Imams. Those who cross the border from Syria into Iraq are
to defeated but not Syria itself. Yet let the enemy declare itself
as a sovereign state and we can crush it fully. Is it not possible
that the Islamists, unlike the Nazis, know that using states would
bring quick defeat. So they count on our political correctness,
our pity on the weak, our love of religious freedom, to lull us
into error.
The
idea of even one homocide bomber getting on an American bus or train
to blow up innocents should so incense the good people of America
that rhetoric like Congressman Tancredo's should be coming out of
every congressional district. That it isn't, that Mr. Hewitt's measured
response is the norm, should alert one to just how far political
correctness has won the day, even with such good commentators like
Mr. Hewitt.
I
thought it heartening that Frank
Gaffney didn't echo Mr. Hewitt's flippancy but gave a reasonable
reply to the issue, though he thought Mr. Tancredo's strategy not
the right one. I am tempted to speculate that Mr. Hewitt's next
request for a title from Governor Owens of Colorado might be to
make him Grand Mufti of Colorado so that he can issue a fatwah on
Congressman Tancredo. But not a fatwah like that placed on Mr. Rushdie.
A pretend, radio fatwah to try to bring an errant Congressman who
loves his country into line with the dominant, Washington, pretend
think - that Islam is a religion of peace, that we are not at war
with Islam. I am tempted, but I shall resist it. Repeat after me
class, "We are not at war with Islam, we are not at war with
Islam."
June
29, 2005 Logan
Darrow Clements, CEO of Freestar
Media, LLC, has
faxed Chip Meany, Code Enforcement Officer of the Town of Weare,
NH, a letter asking Mr. Meany to advise Mr. Clements what the procedure
would be to clear the way for Mr. Clements to build a hotel at the
sight of Supreme Court Justice David Souter's home in Weare. Justice
Souter and four of his fellow justices cleared the way this week
in saying it was constitutional for the City
of New London to seize land for a private development that would
provide jobs and increased tax revenue. As Mr. Clements's project
would provide jobs and increased tax revenue, Mr. Clements is asking
for the five Selectmen at the town board of Weare to consider such
a project. Mr. Clements's proposed name for the hotel is Hotel Lost
Liberty.
Thrust
& Parry emailed Mr. Clements today suggesting a smaller project,
such as a Bed and Breakfast, or a simple museum, should the Selectmen
like the idea of increased tax revenue but not want to punish the
neighbors of Justice Souter's who didn't participate in or condone
the decision reached by Justice Souter. As about $3000 is the total
yearly tax revenue from the property it shouldn't need to be such
a grand project as a hotel to beat that amount. A simple Bed and
Breakfast would fit into the neighborhood better, I would guess,
while still fulfilling the goal of Mr. Clements.
Hugh
Hewitt picked up on Mr. Clements's idea on yesterday's show
and might ask Mark Steyn
about it on today's show. Rush
Limbaugh also carried a link on his website. Here is the fax
Mr. Clements sent to Mr. Meany at the Town of Weare.
Here is Mr. Clements's press release regarding the project.
Thrust & Parry also asked Mr. Clements not to pick on the Gideon
Bible, as without the evangelical Christians our freedom would be
at an even greater loss. Mr. Clements had said his hotel would have
a copy of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged in each room instead of a Gideon
Bible.
June
20, 2005
On this Monday's show, and in his blog, Hugh
Hewitt rightly stays on the case of Senator Durbin. Yes, a censure
by the Senate is called for. I don't know if Hugh saw today's Financial
Times where former President Clinton, in an June 17th interview,
called for Guantanamo Bay "to be closed down or cleaned up".
Here
is the transcript of the interview. After reading
Mr. Clinton's comment about Barbara Bush calling Mr. Clinton "son",
one has to wonder about the wisdom of Bush 41 and Mrs. Bush getting
close to Mr. Clinton. Or is Mr. Clinton making the whole thing up?
Bush
43 can end this Guantanamo saga with one dramatic gesture. He should
travel to Guantanamo, not to see things for himself, but to give
the Left in this country, and the World in general, a loud message
- "I, the President of the United States, stand fully by the
men and women serving their nation here at Guantanamo Bay! I will
fight anyone who does not stand by these men and women stationed
here, or who attempts to dishonor them!"
On
Dennis Prager today, Dennis covered a story about the Seminole Indians
saying they had no problem with their name being used by sport's
teams. Dennis said the Seminole statement wouldn't matter to the
NCAA, or to the Left if every Indian group in the nation said it
was okay. He said those on the Left aren't in this to protect the
Indians, but to tear down the traditions that reflect America. Well
put!
June
18, 2995 7:20pm
On Friday's Hugh Hewitt
show, Hugh interviewed Governor Mitt Romney. He asked him about
Senator Durbin's comments. Governor Romney gave a very good response,
transcripted at Hugh's blog.
I have a concern that Gov. Romney is one of Hugh's favorites. Hugh
has already rightly disclosed there is a family connection - Hugh's
wife's sister is connected some way or the other. Hugh has said
he doesn't have a favorite yet. But I remember months ago Hugh floating
a Romney-Bush (as in Jeb) ticket. I immediately put my antennae
up. It was bad enough that Romney was at the head of the ticket
- but to add Gov. Jeb Bush in as the V.P. was a bit too much.
Republicans
would make a big mistake in nominating Romney. First of all he is
not pro-life. One only need do a Google search under Romney Abortion.
Here
is what you will get! (This includes the latest Romney aide comments
and backlash, which I was unaware of until I ran the search again
and got the latest news!) Here
is what I think is a non-partisan site that details Romney's position
on abortion. Here
is another good summary of Romney's position on abortion based on
his recent response to his aide's comments.
I
hope Hugh isn't trying to do some damage control on the recent Romney
aide flap. The show segment on Terry Eastland's article about whether
America is ready for a Mormon president and the comparison to JFK's
Catholicism was a bit of a stretch to me. The article itself, In
2008, Will it Be Mormon in America? is a well written article
covering many debates that historic Christianity has with Mormonism.
This June 6 article must have gone to press before the Romney aide,
quoted on other subjects in the Standard article, caused the furor.
With
so many good candidates to choose from - with George Allen highest
on the list - we don't need to contort over Gov. Romney's positions.
At some point, one has to pay for one's positions. He was able to
gain the governorship of Massachusetts. Let us have him stop there
and wonder what might have been had he been pro-life through and
through. We don't owe his ambition anything. Let the base start
picking rather than the insiders telling us who we should consider.
June
18, 2005
On Thursday's
second hour Dennis Prager
had on Paul
Johnson, an eminent writer and historian, and Prager favorite,
talking about Mr. Johnson's newest book, George
Washington: The Founding Father. Mr. Johnson, a man I am sure
I would agree with most of the time, did make one comment I wanted
to branch out on. He noted Washington saying he would go back to
his estates after the war and how this was different than Oliver
Cromwell who went on to be somewhat of a dictator (I hope I
have paraphrased Mr. Johnson correctly).
As
Cromwell is one of my favorites, I didn't want this to pass lightly
by. Cromwell was rebelling (reluctantly at first) in England itself
under a king (Charles
I) who was more tyrannical than Washington's King
George III. It was an earlier era, too. Mr. Johnson stated how
self-government had become a long habit for the Colonialists. Overthrowing
a tyrant living across an ocean allowed for the continuation of
relative, successful, self-government. Cromwell, after having distinguished
himself in battle, with the love and trust of his New
Model Army, and succeeding in removing King Charles I, was about
to see all his work and his men's trust shattered by the corruption
of the Parliament.
It
would be as if Ben Franklin, John Adams and all the others said
to General Washington, "Thank you very much, sir. Now go back
to Mount Vernon. We will take over.", and proceeded to vote
themselves the very opposite of what Washington fought for.
A
wonderful discussion would be - "Could the American Revolution
have taken place without the Great
English Civil War led by Oliver Cromwell?" Even though
the English asked King
Charles I's son, King
Charles II, to rule them after the Lord Protector Cromwell died,
I believe Cromwell and his New
Model Army contributed greatly to an English freedom and self-rule
that would spark the American Revolution over a hundred years later.
Oliver Cromwell is enjoying renewed esteem, particularly among Protestants.
The American conservative Christian would do well to study Cromwell.
Antonia Fraser's, Cromwell:
The Lord Protector, is a very good start.
June
15, 2005 Yesterday,
Dennis Prager interviewed Michael Downing, author or Spring
Forward: The Annual Madness of Daylight Savings Time. A good
and fun interview. Do we get rid of Daylight Savings Time altogether,
as Dennis would seem to endorse? Or do we increase it by two more
months? Author Downing reports the House of Reps just passed a bill
with that aim.
What
struck me is that we might finally have one issue over which the
country could debate without clearly having conservative and liberal
sides? That would be refreshing, if only for a brief time.
Michael
Medved, on yesterday's show, in covering the subject of earlier
and earlier sex education in the elementary schools, and clearly
expressing his disdain for it, reminded me of a comment he made
on a show a couple of weeks ago. It was his point that rather than
having parents go into the schools to review the materials to see
if they approve have the materials sent home for their approval.
Busy
parents have a tough time making it in during the day. Yes, we all
should walk over glass on these issues, but we aren't. We have the
right to make the approval process convenient for us. I would like
to go Michael one better. All materials should be posted
on the Internet for parental viewing with multiple requests made
for parental approval. Any school boards out there willing
to make that a policy? Any grass roots activists wanting to put
this on the ballot?
June
11, 2005
Thrust
& Parry welcomes Hugh Hewitt
to the realization that NEA teachers might not be teaching our children
the truth about American History and Current Events. Hugh spent
many minutes of Friday's show with a self-identified high school
history teacher in the Phoenix area who could have gotten his talking
points from Michael Moore. Hugh doubted the caller was an actual
history teacher. A
later caller, also I believe in the teaching profession, but on
the side of the good guys, said the real surprise is that Hugh was
not aware that this type of teacher is common all across America.
Dennis Prager has been
wise to the teaching profession for a long time, as has David
Horowitz.
To
be fair to Hugh, most of trouble is found in the colleges but there
is plenty of PC going on in the high and middle schools. We are
glad that Hugh is now on the trail!It seems whenever many commentators
rightfully criticize the NEA they feel obliged to qualify their
arguments by saying they know many fine teachers. Yes, we all know
many fine teachers. But perhaps it is time for those fine teachers
to break away from the grip of the NEA by putting their own beliefs,
and the minds of our children, ahead of the interests of the NEA.
At what point does one become complicit in the mischief engendered
by one's representatives?
|
|
Gladiator
CD contains "The Battle" -
The Dennis Prager Show's Theme Song
|
