Barbara Boxer: “Re-elect me! I’m a babykiller!”

Of course, that is not actually what Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is saying as she campaigns for re-election. But it might as well be. For the fact that she is extremely “pro-choice” and her opponent Carly Fiorina is not so much has become one of her major selling points.

But there are two problems with that strategy. First, it hasn’t been working very well lately. In major elections this year so far in New Jersey, Virginia, and even Massachusetts, Democrats tried to play the abortion card against their opponents with dismal (for them) results.

And that makes sense, especially in this current environment. I cannot see many deciding to vote Democrat because of their wonderful pro-abortion views (unless said voters are already firmly in the Demorat camp already).

Second, Boxer’s abortion stance is so extreme that it is virtually pro-infanticide. And before you think I’ve gone over the top here and waste electrons excoriating me and the above punchy headline for the same, calmer voices agree, namely George Will:

Fiorina’s right-to-life stance may not matter much this year because economic anxieties have largely eclipsed other issues. Besides, it is theoretically impossible to fashion an abortion position significantly more extreme than Boxer’s, which is slightly modified infanticide. She supports “partial birth” abortion—the baby, delivered feet first, is pulled out as far as the neck, then is killed. And when asked during a Senate debate whether the baby has a right to life if it slips entirely out of the birth canal before being killed, she replied that the baby acquires that right when it leaves the hospital: “When you bring your baby home.”

So if Boxer really wants to campaign on abortion, that could be made to backfire, even in Californicate.

By the way, Planned Parenthood plans to spend a cool million to get Boxer re-elected, while it continues to receive your taxdollars, of course.

Other rabid pro-aborts are in close races as well. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) comes to mind (and raises my blood pressure). As we watch with interest, let us pray such finally get their just political deserts no matter how much Planned Parenthood and their ilk spends.

Contacting friends who can vote in said races would also be commendable.

Priorities

A look at Obama’s schedule reveals Our Dear Leader might need a little work on his priorities.

He will not appear (except via videotape and teleprompter) at the Boy Scout 100th Anniversary Jamboree even though Bush the elder, Clinton, and Dubya appeared in person at the event. The jamboree occurs every four years, i.e. only once in a presidential term. So this is (hopefully) Obama’s only chance to appear. What will Obama do instead that is so important as to skip this event?

Go to New York City to do a taping with the lovely Lefty ladies of “The View.”

Silly Presbyterians

Mainline Presbyterians have gone apostate. How can I say that with such blunt confidence? Because they are so apostate, they have become silly.



Didn’t someone say that whom God destroys he first makes silly? I consider it part of the blindness of libchurchers that they do not realize how truly silly they appear. Personally, when the giant “Puppet of Doom” appeared, I nearly busted a gut laughing.

I think the unfortunate youth towards the end of the procession realized how silly it all was. They look about as enthusiastic as when kissed by mom in front of the cool crowd.

And, is it just me, or does the procession seem slightly more pagan than Christian?

And don’t write this off as the product of some goofball church in, say, San Francisco. This is the opening of this year’s General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

Thanks be to God I am a former mainline Presbyterian. And thanks to Christopher Johnson for posting the video.

Georgetown Appoints Union Thug Andy Stern

I admit right off the top I have never been a fan of Georgetown. I lived next to it during a summer internship in 1981 and was unimpressed. I’ve been unimpressed with their frequent betrayals of catholic values. I was angered by their suspension of InterVarsity, even after the university backed down. Yes, I even hate their basketball team, too. Its thuggish style is bad for the game. My personal nickname for the team is Goontown.


Now it seems Georgetown likes thugs as fellows as well. For some reason, they have appointed Andy Stern, the past president SEIU to a senior research fellowship. For those not familiar with SEIU, it is a union with a well-earned reputation for both political and physical thuggery. Among other things, their goons have roughed up a number of tea party activists.


Yep, I think the name Goontown fits well. Jesuits at their worst.

Senate Funds Lawsuit Against Arizona

If Democrats think they can run from Obama’s outrageous and unpopular lawsuit against Arizona, they had better think again, thanks to the U. S. Senate. Sen. Jim DeMint offered an amendment to cut off funds for that lawsuit. The Senate voted down that amendment, mostly along party lines. Here is the roll call.

Thus the suit against Arizona belongs not only to Obama, but to the Democrat Party.

Let the political bloodbath begin.

Afterthought: Is it just me, or is the “mainstream” news media rather quiet about this amendment? I wonder why.

Lefty Journalists Suggest Feds Shut Down Fox News

The Daily Caller is exposing more of the Lefty news media plotting from the Journolist archive. The latest revelation is chilling. The list members in all seriousness talked among themselves about how the feds could shut down a rival news organization, namely Fox News:

“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.” . . .

Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “I hate to open this can of worms,” he wrote, “but is there any reason why the FCC couldn’t simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?”

It seems among some journalists, Freedom of the Press means Freedom of the Left-of-center Press. Freedom of speech is for them, not for those evil conservatives.

And given their invective against conservatives . . .

“You know, at the risk of violating Godwin’s law, is anyone starting to see parallels here between the teabaggers and their tactics and the rise of the Brownshirts?” asked Bloomberg’s Ryan Donmoyer. “Esp. Now that it’s getting violent? Reminds me of the Beer Hall fracases of the 1920s.”

Richard Yeselson, a researcher for an organized labor group who also writes for liberal magazines, agreed. “They want a deficit driven militarist/heterosexist/herrenvolk state,” Yeselson wrote. “This is core of the Bush/Cheney base transmorgrified into an even more explicitly racialized/anti-cosmopolitan constituency. Why? Um, because the president is a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama. But it’s all the same old nuts in the same old bins with some new labels: the gun nuts, the anti tax nuts, the religious nuts, the homophobes, the anti-feminists, the anti-abortion lunatics, the racist/confederate crackpots, the anti-immigration whackos (who feel Bush betrayed them) the pathological government haters (which subsumes some of the othercategories, like the gun nuts and the anti-tax nuts).”

. . . it would not surprise me if some of them would like to have conservatives and libertarians silenced.

Like I said, chilling stuff.

Update: Obama Sends Berwick Nomination to Senate

Interesting. As excoriated here, Obama recess-appointed Socialist Donald Berwick to a key Obamacare post. I thought it was to avoid the messiness of hearings and votes – inconvenient democracy, you know.

But now Obama is sending the nomination to the Senate as well. Perhaps he saw that the next more Republican Senate might kill the appointment. But whatever the reasons, this shift may make for *interesting* hearings in an election season.

Documents Reveal 2008 Media Pro-Obama Plotting

The Daily Caller has blown the lid off of plotting by lefty journalists to protect Obama during the 2008 campaign. An examination of the now infamous Journolist listserv reveals journalists in action – to help bring about the election of Obama instead of doing good journalism.

The Daily Caller story focuses on the list’s reactions to Obama’s (then) pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s outrageous statements finally becoming an issue in the mainstream media. It suffices to say the journalists were not happy about that. They wanted those inconvenient utterings ignored.

How to bury the story? One journalist advised using the race card:

Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

Others advocated an attack on journalists who dared to ask Obama about the Rev. Wright’s statements and his slowness to disavow those statements. And that is exactly what they did in an open letter.

The tenor of many posts from the journalists was that they considered their role was to further the election of Obama more than to get the facts out. Spencer Ackerman again (And, admittedly, this may be a bit extreme, even for the list.):

What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.

And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country?

And is this not what we often see played out in the news media?

Read the whole story. It is revealing indeed.

I have long stated that the “mainstream” news media has a lot to answer for in not vetting Obama in 2008. And I have long maintained that the MNM is biased. But I have more or less dismissed that there is conspiracy involved.

Now I am not so sure.

“Alleluia! Sin to Jesus!”

On this Seventh Sunday after Trinity, the Recessional Hymn for Holy Communion at my home parish as listed in the bulletin:

Alleluia! Sin to Jesus! . . . No. 347

The Bishop of Oxford, Fence-sitting in Action

If you want to see a walking stereotype of the spineless bishop, I present to you the Bishop of Oxford:

Dear Brother/Sister in Christ

So, General Synod has voted to send the draft legislation on women bishops to the dioceses. Any debating chamber anywhere would have been proud of the consistently high level of debate over two long, hot days (and discussions that went on well into the night). I was bobbing up and down all one morning trying to get called to speak!

Me, too! Me, too! I want to be liberal, too!

Some of the votes were very close; some were very definite. For example, the vote on the Archbishops’ amendment was only lost in the House of Clergy, and that by just 5 votes, but the final vote on clause 2 which laid a duty on diocesan bishops to make arrangements for the care of those opposed to the legislation, was a decisive 373 to 13.

The outcome is that General Synod is now inviting the dioceses to join them in discerning God’s will for the consecration of women as bishops and the care of those who cannot accept their episcopal ministry. We are therefore another step along the way but the process goes on. To those who are delighted with this decision, I want to say: ‘I share your pleasure; the gifts of women to every order of the Church are a step closer to being recognised’. To those who are deeply disturbed by this development, I want to say: ‘Please don’t panic - there’s still a process going on and we still want you.’

Yes, please stick around so we can string you along with false promises, then stick it to you in the end . . . in Christ’s love.

For the record, I voted for the draft Measure and against the Archbishops’ amendment.

That is a rather strange way of saying you want traditionalists to stick around, sir.

+Rowan specifically said they did not want their amendment to be a test of loyalty (although I suspect that many people probably saw it that way). I voted against it for a variety of theological reasons: I believed it would entrench two sorts of bishop in the Church’s life; I saw it as creating an even stronger variety of ‘flying bishop’; it seemed to be ‘transfer of jurisdiction’ by any other name, ‘when is a bishop not a bishop?’ and so on.

“And so on.” Yes, my reasoning doesn’t really matter. Actually my real reason is I didn’t want to catch hell from all those liberals in my diocese or lose my cred among them.

I also want to affirm in the strongest possible terms the quality of ministry that women priests are offering to the Church, particularly in this diocese.

Yes, one recently residing in my diocese cannot even bring herself to say “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” What a lovely woman.

But I recognise that the vote at this point was ambiguous and that if the voting had not been by Houses, the amendment would have been passed. It’s clear therefore that many people were looking for a way through which both affirmed women in the episcopate but also made space for traditional catholics and conservative evangelicals which went beyond the Code of Practice. Given that voting, I have to think therefore in terms not just of what is desirable but also of what is possible. I want to be pragmatic as well as idealistic in what we do now.

I want to be liberal, yet conservative. Orthodox, yet revisionist. Catholic, yet . . . .

Sue Booys used a vivid image. She said that the conscience of those in favour allowed them to get to a certain point, and the conscience of those opposed to the legislation enabled them to get to another point – and these lines are only ten yards apart, but the chasm between them is very deep and full of sharks. The task therefore is to see if we can yet close that gap. To develop the image, we might not attempt to leap over a ten yard gap, but we might be prepared to try three.

Of if there is a nice fence in the gap, we can sit on it.

Perhaps we should try to get behind the rhetoric and focus entirely on what makes up those ten yards and what might close that gap. It might be impossible; the gap may be too deep and the sharks too hungry,

And us too cowardly.

but it might just be achievable, and that’s why we need to look in a number of directions.

Firstly, we need to look to the Code of Practice which the House of Bishops has now to start drawing up. Although a Code can only be approved by General Synod after the Measure has been passed, it will still be important that the dioceses know what kind of opportunities and constraints the Code might contain in order to judge whether the whole package seems fair. The Code will need to be robust and imaginative and the House will get on with it in September.

Of course, those pesky Pusey House papists have told us again and again that “a Code of Practice will not do." But never mind them.

Secondly, we need to trust the wisdom of the wider Church, speaking through deanery and diocesan synods.

But don’t listen to those Cartholicks, Orthodox, or to the church of the past 2000 years for that matter. And scripture is right out (unless you use a bastardized liberal lectionary and translation, of course).

They will have before them the draft Measure from General Synod (together with headings for the Code of Practice), and they will simply be asked to vote on that legislation. However, dioceses can come up with ‘following motions’ to go through to General Synod and those might have some very helpful thinking in them.

Thirdly, it isn’t over until the fat lady sings,

Just miiight not be the best analogy when discussing women bishops.

and the archbishops may yet do more work on their thinking. Their amendment had not been seen before Synod by either the Revision Committee or the House of Bishops and they might now want to develop it differently.

It’s inevitable that the coming elections for a new General Synod will have this important issue as a major backdrop. I very much hope, however, that they will not be ‘single issue’ elections.

In other words, please don’t elect anyone with enough backbone to say no to the womyn and to protect the traditionalists.

We need the most spineless thoughtful, Christ-centred people standing for election in order to tackle the whole range of issues facing the Church in our time. Please consider standing if you are in a position to do so and feel you have something to contribute, and encourage others to do the same.

What I very much recognise, however, is that the Body of Christ is both rejoicing and hurting. It’s very important that women priests should not feel any blame over this.

Yes, Christina Rees et al had nothing to do with this.

It was Synod that made this decision. In any case, women priests have borne their cross of ambivalence and prejudice very graciously for a long time.

Ah, yes. The liberal victimhood card. That excuses anything the womyn priests do today.

But other parts of the Body are hurting now and that has to be recognised with sorrow as well.

Not that we give enough of a damn to do anything about it.

Many in the Body are wounded. As Archbishop Rowan said, ‘It’s that kind of Body.’ He also asked us to see the way ahead as an opportunity to serve one another. Mutual recrimination is not a helpful way of being Christian.

So don’t hold me accountable for my spineless betrayal of traditionalists.

Supporting and serving one another as we examine that ten yard gap is a much better way. We need to remember that conscience matters deeply to people on both/all ‘sides’.

But promises made years ago to traditionalists don’t mean squat.

I and other members of the Bishop’s Staff are available at any time to discuss these things, so do keep in touch.

Brothers and sisters, pray on. And think.

But don’t be too hasty to do the right thing or to take a real stand. No. Mustn’t do that.

With lukewarm good wishes in Christ,
+John

Taxpayer-funded Abortions Already Approved Under Obamacare

Remember when Obama assured us Obamacare would not fund abortions?

It was a lie:

The Obama administration has officially approved the first instance of taxpayer funded abortions under the new national government-run health care program. This is the kind of abortion funding the pro-life movement warned the kind of abortion funding the pro-life movement warned about when Congress considered the bill.

The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new “high-risk” insurance program under a provision of the federal health care legislation enacted in March.

It has quietly approved a plan submitted by an appointee of pro-abortion Governor Edward Rendell under which the new program will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania.

Of course, as a commenter at the above link points out, Obama – or anyone so morally bankrupt as to support taxpayer-funded abortion – telling a lie is not exactly a surprise.

It is sad we have a president this sorry.

CofE Synod: Will the “inclusive” scorched parish strategy backfire?

I have little profound to add to what has been already said about this weekend’s Church of England Synod and its approval of women bishops with little provision for objectors. (And, no, I haven’t been ignoring the subject. I’ve been in one of my unsharp times. Anything I would have written would have been scarcely worth the electrons, much less my readers’ attention.)

However, I am again provoked by how uninclusive the inclusive crowd gets when they think they have the power to do so. Objectors did not ask to stop women bishops. They, along with the Archbishops of Canterbury and York for God’s sake, only asked that those who cannot faithfully submit to women bishops be given adequate provision. And I am glad to note a majority of Synod agreed to that. The Archbishops’ effort was shot down only among the clergy, and that by only five votes.

But not only does the inclusive crowd oppose provision for those who cannot ride on the inclusive train, they dare to call it a “compromise” when they get their way. That’s the word WATCH used to describe what transpired. Compromise? I guess if I’m mugged and the mugger beats me with a baseball bat but does not shoot me, I should be thankful for compromise. The way of Libchurchers with the English language astounds.

On a happier note: again, a majority of Synod did vote for provision for objectors. As the Anglican Curmudgeon, among others, notes, that gives hope to stop this particular inclusive train altogether:

All may not yet be lost. After the measure comes back from the dioceses, it will have to pass each House of the General Synod by a two-thirds majority in order to become law, and that is a tall order.

Thus the irony is that the so far successful scorched parish strategy of the inclusive crowd in the Church of England may delay their precious women bishops for years.

You might be having a bad election year if . . . (UPDATED)

. . . you cut prices for a fundraiser . . . at which the President of the United States will appear. And that is no joke.

Demand was so low for a fundraiser for Missouri Democrat Robin Carnahan’s run for Senate that prices were cut. And that even though (or because of?) Obama will appear:

Carnahan's campaign wasn't able to completely sell out the Folly Theater, where Obama will appear for a grassroots (editor: SNORT!) event on Carnahan's behalf, at the prices they wanted. Tickets once priced at $250 are now going for $99, while $35 tickets are half off.

Heck, they might as well sell $5 tickets to hecklers.


UPDATE:
Now it can be told!

The REAL reason for Obama and Carnahan’s fundraising flop is . . .

George W. Bush.

Report: Jeffery John will not be Bishop of Southwark. (Thanks be to God.)

After earlier reports that Jeffery John was likely the next Bishop of Southwark, the Telegraph reports he will not be receiving a mitre anytime soon. Yes, some skepticism about the news media is in order.

I hope that report is accurate, and not so much because he is gay. He claims to be celibate, and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that even though he lives with his partner. Yes, I can be very generous on occasion. Enjoy it while you can.

However, I do not think anyone who teaches what he does should be made bishop. Also, I still want the Church of England and the Anglican Communion to succeed somehow somewhat within the bounds of the faith. And the appointment of Jeffery John would have been extremely divisive and repellent to many orthodox. Right now the CofE and the Communion need something like that like a hole in the head.

Kudos to Rowan Williams for seeing that and putting the unity of the church before his own personal views.

So, yes, I am relieved it apparently will not happen at this time at least.

Of course, that does not mean there is not wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Obama, Dictator and Coward (UPDATE: and Liar)

What does Obama do when a appointee he desires to oversee Obamacare is slightly controversial and not-so-slightly way out Left? He goes over the heads of Congress and gives him a recess appointment.

And the appointment of Donald Berwick is not just any recess appointment as even the New York Times notes:

The recess appointment was somewhat unusual because the Senate is in recess for less than two weeks and senators were still waiting for Dr. Berwick to submit responses to some of their requests for information. No confirmation hearing has been held or scheduled.

In other words, there was no effort by Obama or his Demorat allies in the Senate to have a proper hearing or much vetting at all. Hmmmm, I wonder why?



So here we have in Berwick a Socialist who just loves the UK’s NHS and openly praises healthcare rationing and heathcare as income redistribution. That would make for interesting hearings, would it not? But the hearings would be too interesting for Obama, especially in an election season. He’d rather opposition be silenced and “get out of the way” of Obamacare and of this appointment. So he bypasses basic vetting, as well as democracy, and recess appoints this Socialist to avoid even a single confirmation hearing.

Obama not only has a totalitarian streak, he has a yellow streak as well.


MORE: Obama’s line blaming those obstructionist Republicans – it’s a lie. In fact, Republicans were eager for the confirmation process . . . which was the problem. From Jake Tapper, ABC:

Republicans were not delaying or stalling Berwick’s nomination. Indeed, they were eager for his hearing, hoping to assail Berwick’s past statements about health care rationing and his praise for the British health care system.

“The nomination hasn’t been held up by Republicans in Congress and to say otherwise is misleading,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, which would have held Berwick’s hearing. Grassley said that he “requested that a hearing take place two weeks ago, before this recess.”

Berwick’s nomination was sent to the Senate in April, and his hearing had not been scheduled because he was participating in the “standard vetting process,” a Democratic aide on the Senate Finance Committee told ABC News.

But speaking not for attribution, Democratic officials say that neither Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., nor Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, were eager for an ugly confirmation fight four months before the midterm elections.

Nor was Obama. Who needs democracy when you can chicken out and be a dictator.

Arizona Sheriff Receives Death Threats from Mexican Mafia While Obama Fiddles UPDATED

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu has received death threats from the Mexican Mafia.

Meanwhile, Obama tells us “the border is as safe as it ever has been” and prepares to sue Arizona for trying to defend itself from predations across that oh-so-safe border.

UPDATE: It’s official. Obama’s Justice Department is suing Arizona.

Obama and “Freedom of Worship”

The Obama Administration is endorsing “freedom of worship” rather than “freedom of religion” in its pronouncements. And many concerned about religious freedom are beginning to get alarmed about this.

Now, in case one thinks this a bit paranoid, I point out two things. First, it’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you. Second, there is an established pattern of the Obama regime avoiding saying “freedom of religion” and saying instead “freedom of worship.”

Of course, the reason this alarms is that genuine freedom of religion includes much more than the freedom to worship in one’s church, synagogue or home. It includes the freedom to live according to one’s religion (without unduly impinging on someone else’s freedom). For real freedom of religion, mere “freedom of worship” will not do.

Those who wish to push religion and freedom of religion out of the public square and into the private shadows would love a shift of U. S. policy toward such “freedom of worship.” Is the Obama regime among them?

To their credit, First Things was on to this before most. This is indeed something to watch carefully. One scholar put it very well:

As Tom Farr, Professor of Religion and World Affairs at Georgetown University and the former head of the State Department’s International Religious Freedom Office, stated at a recent congressional hearing forecasting international religious freedom issues to watch in 2010, “Those of us in the business of sniffing out rats know that this is a rhetorical shift to watch.”

Benedict XVI and Celestine V

Pope Benedict appears to have become quite a fan of Pope Celestine V. He has left his pallium on Celestine’s tomb and this Sunday is scheduled to pray before his relics for the second time in 15 months.

Celestine V is a unique pope. Chosen by a long deadlocked conclave in 1294, he was a saintly old monk (in a time of rather unsaintly popes) with neither desire nor talent for Vatican politics and administration. Overwhelmed, he resigned after only five months, the only pope to ever resign.

He hoped to end his life in peace far from Vatican politics. But his nasty successor, Boniface VIII, who not-so-by-the-way had encouraged him to resign, soon had him imprisoned. The old monk-pope died under Boniface’s imprisonment near the age of 90.

I am not going to read too much into Benedict’s veneration of Celestine. One reason for this Sunday’s event is the celebration of Celestine’s 800th birthday. But Benedict’s reverence for this particular pope is interesting indeed.

About Historians

A Siena poll of academic historians rating the presidents reminds me of why I don’t trust historians . . . and why you shouldn’t either. In it, Obama is ranked the 15th best president . . . three spots ahead of Ronald Reagan.

Yes, utterly absurd, to put it charitably. (And apologies if you spewed coffee on your keyboard.)

This sort of ideological bias among historians is nothing new. I remember seeing such rankings of presidents as a child. And even then, I thought they were rubbish. (Yes, I was slightly precocious. And the bias among historians is that obvious.)

Let’s look at another area. All my life I have seen numerous documentaries on the atrocities of the Nazis. And that is as it should be. It is important that we never forget the lessons of that dark time.

It is now over twenty years after the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe. Where, pray tell, are all the documentaries on the atrocities of Communism? For that matter, where are all the documentaries on the atrocities of Stalin and the Bolsheviks before him? They murdered far more people than Hitler. Why do we see and hear so little about that?

Such bias is disturbing; for how we think of the past will effect how we act in the future. If we are ignorant of the predations of the Left, we are more likely to fall for them again. If we are ignorant of the principles behind the founding of our nation (And such ignorance is practically encouraged in our public schools.), we will be less likely to defend them. And no telling what will be the result of such idiocy as considering Obama a better president than Reagan. (And that idiocy is more widespread than you might think.)

In short, history is too important to entrust to academic historians.

And academic historians, as a group, have again and again shown themselves to unworthy of trust.

Pray for Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens has announced that he has esophageal cancer, a particularly difficult form of cancer. His prognosis is not known, but it is usually not good for this disease.

In spite of his several outrages, I have long respected the man for actually thinking, unlike many of the Left. Predictable and knee-jerk he is not. But regardless of what you may think of him, please join me in praying for him.

I trust that would not annoy Mr. Hitchens too much.