Pat Buchanan’s take on the McChrystal firing is that it puts Obama in a no win box.
Archive for June, 2010
Today the Supreme Court ruled that Hastings College can exclude a Christian club because they will not admit non-Christians or people practicing sexual immorality. Here is my parody:
Once upon a time there was a small law school in Hastings, California. At this college there were two clubs. One was the “Cussing Club” organized by students who liked to cuss. The other was the “No Cussing Club,” organized by students who did not like to cuss. They didn’t even like to listen to other students cuss.
For a while, this suited everyone just fine. Students who liked cussing could join the Cussing Club, and students who didn’t like cussing could join the No Cussing Club. Then one day, Clay Custer, a member of the Cussing Club, decided he didn’t like the people in the No Cussing Club. If the truth were known, he hated them. Their “holier than thou” no cussing policy made it look like there was something wrong with cussing. He figured the only reason they existed was to make him feel uncomfortable about cussing. So he made a plan.
The college had a policy. This policy said that all clubs had to be open to all students. So he applied to join the No Cussing Club. He even got a number of his fellow cussers to do the same.
“You can’t join our No Cussing Club,” said Peter Puritan, the club president. “Why not?” said Clay. “Because then it wouldn’t be a no cussing club!” replied Peter. “You would be cussing all the time!” “That may be,” replied Clay. “But college policy says you have to admit everyone.”
So they went to the college administration, and sure enough, the administration said their policy required the No Cussing Club to admit cussers. In fact, most people in the administration liked cussing themselves and also resented the No Cussing Club.
So this being America, the dispute went to court. In fact it even went to the Supreme Court! There, the final verdict was read by the distinguished jurist Ruth “Bad Ass” Ginsburg:
“We uphold the college policy requiring the No Cussing Club to admit cussing members. Since the policy applies to everyone evenly, it’s fair. If the members of the No Cussing Club don’t like it, they are free to join the Cussing Club just like the cussers can join their club. So we are being fair and even to everyone.”
All America marveled at the Supreme Court’s wisdom. Soon, there were no more No Cussing Clubs on any campuses in the nation. Discrimination was banished and everyone could join any @#$% club they wanted to.
This article in Petroleum World contains informed speculation that the BP oil leak may get much much worse. (Other experts apparently disagree, and I have no way of knowing.) The writer suggests the massive methane pocket could explode like an underseas Mt. St. Hellens, spewing toxic gas and sending tsunami destruction around the gulf. You may wish to put off any plans to visit the area.
What do you think? (1) Hillary has graciously accepted the decision of the voters and is quietly serving as Barak’s Secretary of State like the good soldier she is, or (2) Hillary took the Secretary of State job so she could be in striking distance of the Oval Office when the man-child self destructs on the job?
Here is a website devoted to Hillary worship with an interesting take on the McCrystal flareup, arguing that Hillary is behind the whole thing.
T.H. White’s statement that “Whatever is not forbidden is mandatory” came to mind as characterizing our age while I was reading about a situation in Spain today. It seems the Spanish government is investigating a clinic in Barcelona that is offering treatments to cure homosexuality. Homosexual behavior was legalized in Spain in 1979, and same-sex marriage was legalized in 2005. Now, individuals with homosexual urges seeking to overcome them with the help of clinical professionals will not be allowed to do so. So much for live and let live.
When man casts off God as master of his life he thinks he attains greater freedom. But nature abhors a vacuum, and almost immediately the government expands to fill the void left by God. Today, our governments deny that the Constitution limits them in any way, but insist that no private individual can do anything without a permit. Individual anarchy leads to collective tyranny almost immediately.
We may hold “Tea Parties” and protest the rise of tyranny, but until we repent of our anarchy and return to God’s Law as our standard we will get no help from heaven.
1.) Asked by ABC’s Diane Sawyer if science and religion could be reconciled, famed physicist Steven Hawking stated “There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.” By “science” Hawking means atheistic materialism and by “religion” he means belief in God. But wasn’t the whole point of this interview to invoke Steven Hawking’s authority on this question? So who is relying on authority now?
2.) “Just as Einstein’s ideas would baffle a chimpanzee,” said President of the Royal Society Lord Martin Rees, gaining a full understanding of how the universe works might not be possible “simply because they’re beyond human brains.” Lord Rees points out that a fish swimming in the water lacks the ability to understand what water is, and speculates that man may be similarly limited in his ability to understand the universe. Brilliant scientists have been trying to reconcile the theories of Special Relativity (dealing with really big things) and Quantum Theory (dealing with really small things) for decades with zero progress. Extrapolating, we might expect to solve this riddle…never.
The quest for God-like knowledge and a “theory of everything” is folly. As God’s creature, man is granted limited but real understanding and knowledge of the world sufficient to do good things and in so doing, honor his Creator. Efforts to “be as God, knowing good and evil” lead only to mischief.
Don’t Change Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
Is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, a patriot? Not according to George Washington. In his farewell address, Washington famously said, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.” Admiral Mullen advocates overturning the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy and legalizing homosexual acts for its members. What is this if not a direct assault on Washington’s pillars of religion and morality?
DADT is not an issue of discrimination. While membership in a particular race or ethnic group is a morally neutral fact of biology, there is no “gay gene.” Participation in homosexual acts is not morally neutral and does not make one a member of a minority group needing protection. Whether a particular behavior should be honored or condemned should be based on the merits of the behavior.
Homosexual acts, even between consenting adults in private, transgress an important moral boundary and have always been seen as illegitimate. Such behavior violates the design purpose of God which is obvious in nature and explicit in scripture. This activity has numerous negative consequences for the individuals involved, their family members and the larger society. The proliferation of homosexual behavior has always marked societies in decline.
Repealing DADT means far more than some “live and let live” fantasy. It will come with mandatory brainwashing sessions and punishment of dissenting members. It will require persecuting Christians in the military, which may be the true motivation. It will not be pretty or painless. And it will not be reversible.
DADT is a pragmatic compromise that allows people involved in homosexual behavior to serve if they keep private matters to themselves. By not forcing the issue, this discretion also allows others to keep their moral views to themselves. Ideologues pushing the homosexual political agenda, however, will accept no compromise. They insist on forcing the issue, consequences be damned. Anyone opposing their immoral and anti-religious agenda must be crushed with the full force of law. Adverse effects on national defense or national unity areof no concern to them.
Individuals who have served honorably while “being gay” are often cited as a reason for legalizing homosexual behavior in the military. But others who have served just as honorably have committed adultery. Is that an argument for legalizing adultery in the military? This is a non-sequitur.
Other nations which have legalized homosexual behavior in their armed forces are often cited as an argument for our doing the same. The decision of fading nations to move further away from biblical morality is no reason for us to join them in moral, economic, and military suicide. These other nations do not deploy large numbers of personnel overseas for lengthy combat commitments, and do not draw their members from a population as religious as ours. Their changes are recent and have not stood the test of time. They provide us with no useful guidance.
DADT is admittedly a compromise, but it is one that has worked reasonably well. There is no compelling reason to abandon it in the middle of two hot wars. The members of our military are too important to be used as guinea pigs in a radical social experiment. For many of them this will be seen as a knife in the back from the country they have served. Members of the military have to follow orders, but it is an abuse of power to order them to change their most deeply held religious and moral convictions just to conform to those of the radical homosexual lobby.
Admiral Mullen may see this as a matter of “leadership.” Others see it as betrayal.