Townhall.com - A Voice in the Wilderness

Featured Posts

Do Christians need to apologize to Muslims?

Posted by Mr. Ecko on Monday, January 07, 2008 12:14:49 PM

Here is my critique of both the open letter to Muslims which Yale's Center for Faith and Culture conceived, and of a fellow Taylor alum's (Brent Maher) decision to endorse it. If you haven't yet, please read Brent's initial letter of explanation click here.

Dear Brent,

I appreciate your thoughtful defense of why you chose to sign the Yale Center for Faith and Culture’s 2007 open letter entitled “Loving God and Neighbor.” My purposes here today are to flesh out some of the important ideas that divide America's people at large, and more specifically, her Christian population (i.e. how to best interact with and reach out to Muslim moderates, theological differences inside the Church and in relation to other religions such as Islam, etc.), which both Yale's letter and your defense of it lend themselves to the discussion of.

For the sake of full disclosure, I present myself as a Christian-American-Conservative-Cubs Fan, whose politics are best represented by those of Ronald Reagan, and whose theology is most in line with C.S. Lewis. I attend an Evangelical Free Church in Chicago, and have yet to find a Democrat at any level I would feel comfortable voting for. I believe that America, despite its numerous mistakes, has been an unparalleled force for Good in the world since its inception. I furthermore believe that the two greatest current threats to the United States are radical Islam (and the leaders and nations who sponsor them), and the pluralistic relativism that now permeates our culture, and in some cases, my faith.

With my worldview now more clearly revealed, Brent, I must say that I found the letter you signed your name to and the name of our Alma mater (Taylor University) to be misguided and naive. While you were correct to admit that “Loving God and Neighbor” is nothing more than words on a page, written (at least on your part) from worthy motives, this does not make it any more worthwhile or prudent in its content or impact. It is possible for us to be sincere and at the same time be sincerely wrong.

You acknowledge that little practical good has come of the letter, including no known lines of dialogue opened between the two religions nor any measurable decrease in violence. I would point out that the only positive sign of a reduction in violence in the Muslim world has occurred in Iraq, where General David Petraeus’ “surge” has helped reduce violent acts some 80% since April of 2007.

Results, like facts, are stubborn things to ignore, and “Loving God and Neighbor” has failed to produce any tangible success. I am disappointed that those who signed their name to it did not see this failed result ahead of time. Any attempt to find meaningful common core theological ground – when none in reality exists -- can only end in frustration. Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God, and this was never clearly asserted in Yale’s letter that you signed. It seems to me to be a fairly important point to raise, or at the very least, acknowledge.

You cited the Old Testament Covenant between God and His chosen people, the nation of Israel, as proof we should be a blessing to our hostile neighbors. Yet, you should have included the very next verse: “I bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse.” (Genesis 12:3) God’s ultimate blessing through Israel was reserved for Christ a few thousand years later, and until that time, Yahweh commanded the Hebrew people to consecrate themselves to the land and to Him. While they were to engage in missions they were to do so from a position of holiness and uniqueness, not accommodation and syncretism. That in some cases required them to keep their distance from the practices and beliefs of the surrounding cultures and peoples (many of whom make up their Arab-Muslim enemies today). Under the Old Covenant, God, in some cases, even insisted that the Jews decimate entire towns inhabited by those same then-pagan neighbors (e.g. Jericho) to maintain their own spiritual uniqueness and separateness. As uncomfortable as this may make some people in our current politically correct culture, it is a reality we must wrestle with if we are to fully appreciate our God and His immeasurable attributes.

When Abraham sired a son named Ishmael (ancestor of certain Muslim groups today) with his wife’s maidservant Haggar, God warned him that his legitimate son, Isaac, would be in conflict with his half-brother until the end of time. It would be safe to say this prophecy has held up to this day. Here in America, we think it’s been tough having radical Muslims as our enemies for six years while Jews have withstood this assault for nearly four thousand years. While this enmity is regrettable, ultimately Scripture teaches it can only be solved by the exaltation of Christ and the preaching of the Gospel to all the nations of the earth, and not through theological accommodation under the guise of “dialogue.” Our fight is not with Islam, but with the irreconcilable wings inside it.

I also found the misapplication of New Testament theology in your letter. Again, we do not worship the same God as all other religions, save Judaism, and even then the “stumbling block” remains the Person and work of Jesus Christ. His Name and deity is the most important aspect of our faith. The Muslims are fervently devoted to Allah and his Prophet Muhammad and they saw fit to remind us of this fact at the very top of their original letter to Pope Benedict. Why would a group of Christians -- intent on opening honest dialogue with a people group they claim to care so deeply about -- fail to mention that Jesus Christ and His finished work on the Cross alone is the only hope for the salvation of mankind?

If we really do love moderate Muslims, do we do them any favor by avoiding the “offense” of the Gospel? The Apostle Paul said if his goal was to please men (perhaps by opening a dialogue that avoids controversial truth) would he still be suffering for the Cross? If we avoid the very doctrines that make us who we are how can we expect “good” to come of it? Yes, we are to be peacemakers but at the same time that involves being bearers of the truth and light. If we compromise that truth for short-term social-political objectives will we shine bright enough to ever be useful?

The current conflict with the radical strains of Islam that America and Israel are facing will not be resolved by pretending that we all worship the same God. I realize Yale's letter was an attempt to reach out to the more moderate elements of Islam. However, it would be safe to say that even among this group there are fundamental disagreements with Christianity on all major points of doctrine (even their “one God” does not allow for a Trinity). Other than appealing for a practice of mutual tolerance and respect toward one another what other “common” theological ground exists?

While it is commendable for us to do what we can to create harmony among diverse religious communities, I find it curious that the only places on earth where Muslims truly live in peaceful co-existence with their non-Muslim neighbors are nations where Islam is not the dominant religion (most often “Christian” nations). Their record of reciprocating true religious tolerance is an unmitigated failure to date.

In the Yale letter you collectively apologize for the “excesses of the War on Terror.” Only modern liberalism could possibly discover moral equivalency between making Iraqi prisoners pose for a “naked pyramid” at Abu Grahib (which led to the swift and immediate punishment for the guilty) and the thousands of car bombings, IED attacks, and beheadings posted on the Internet while Muslim jihadists proudly chant “God is great!” It would be likened unto claiming we deserved everything we got at Pearl Harbor because we refused to sell oil to the militant Japanese in 1941.

You furthermore make the assertion that we’ve confused liberation for colonization in Iraq. Where’s the proof? I find quite the opposite to be true. Fifty million people are now free from tyrannical governments and dictators in Afghanistan and Iraq. The recent NIE report says that Iran halted its clandestine nuclear program in 2003 because of pressure from U.S. and Coalition troops on the ground that surrounds that nation. Iraqi and Afghani girls are now allowed to vote and go to school, newspapers in those countries are now free to print what they believe, and as a result of our War on Terror we have not been attacked since 9/11. Iraqi provinces are being turned over one after another to local indigenous authorities and police forces as they reach the required level of training and professionalism needed. This is colonization?

While there is value in honestly admitting and apologizing for our mistakes, it is both a failure of logic, history, and theology to assume a moral equivalency between those who believe and practice freedom of religion (America) and those who jail, imprison, and even execute the infidel (in virtually every Muslim nation). We in the West believe in the freedom and tolerance of other faiths that Sharia Law-dominated nations do not. Something I cannot get over is how frustrating it is to see so many Christian scholars and intellectuals wasting their time on something that fails theologically, as well as politically, and does little good in any tangible or even existential way.

If we continue this self-defeating and theologically irresponsible line of thinking -- hoping that writing irenic letters that obscure our key doctrines will somehow win the hearts and minds of the moderate Muslims – we are destined for failure. Because if the Muslim clerics don’t already know it, we have nothing in common when it comes to core theological truth, and our societies and governments embody immensely different ideals and values. By trying to convince them we are just like them when we are not is spiritual and intellectual fraudulence.

For the moderate Muslims, as I imagine most of those original 138 scholars are, they are more than welcome to embrace and enjoy the freedom and autonomy and prosperity that democracy and the free market afford. I will attempt to live and act peaceably toward Muslims and members of all other divergent faith groups. Yet I will not keep quiet in my condemnation of their religion’s obvious and flagrant problems, ongoing persecutions, and record of religious violence anymore than I would keep silent if my Christian brother or sister were to fall of the “straight and narrow.”

If this is the best those who claim to represent my faith in the academic and intellectual community can come up with, my hope and suggestion would be that they turn their attentions to a better learning and preaching of the Gospel message rather than the writing of misguided puff pieces that do little more than give the illusion of genuine spiritual and geo-political progress.

We’re all better than this.

-RJM

Is the divide in America really that close?

Posted by Mr. Ecko on Tuesday, December 18, 2007 2:25:07 PM

Much is made of the social and political divides in this country. The media and her bountiful supply of experts remind us constantly of the purported “narrow gap” between Red and Blue State America. To ensure that their own liberal views are represented as mainstream, we are led to believe that there is absolutely no majority on any major issue. This from the same people who twice predicted George W. Bush would never be able to win the presidency. (Reminder: Bill Clinton never got 50% of the vote, something W’s done twice.)

But former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich believes the governing majority of opinion on almost all of the important issues today in the United States to be around 70%. Despite his label of “Conservative partisan,” Newt makes this claim based on research, not arbitrary conjecture.

During and after the 2004 presidential election, his conservative think-tank group, the American Enterprise Institute, conducted a study to find out how exactly it was Americans felt regarding 34 of the most talked about issues. This included such topics as: God’s name on our money and in our Pledge of Allegiance, border control, partial-birth abortion bans, over-reaching judicial power and activism at the Federal level, gun control, and the War on Terror.

On 33 of the 34 issues, John Kerry was, on average, in a 77%-17% minority. The sole area where Bush was vulnerable? Global warming and the environment. (And this was before Al Gore inconvenienced the world with his power point presentation on displaced polar bears and renegade ice bergs.)

So how was it that the last two presidential elections were so tight? How was it even possible that exit polls on November 2nd, 2004 were reported to indicate an easy win for Senator Kerry? More importantly, how scary was it that Teresa Heinz-Kerry almost became our first lady?

The answer, my friend, is blowing in the hot wind coming from a decidedly Left-leaning media and academia (not to mention an enthusiastically uninformed Hollywood). Over 80% of journalists and educators in public school and universities voted for Kerry and Gore in the previous two elections. Not only did they vote at such a high rate for two liberals, but the financial contributions received by Democratic candidates in 2000 and 2004 from those same two groups were nearly identical in proportion.

Former CBS News correspondent Bernie Goldberg, a veteran of the news business for three decades (and life-long Democrat), wrote a Wall Street Journal Op-ed in 2002 calling on fellow members of the media to wake up and smell the bias. He emphatically maintained that the liberal partiality he himself had been guilty of in his own reporting was not any sort of grand conspiracy where secret meetings in the bowels of the New York Times’ building determined the global strategy to undermine traditional, conservative, core American values. The problem was more subtle than that.

In business there is a term called “group think” which defines what happens when an isolated group of employees eventually all end up agreeing with each other on a specific topic just to avoid “rocking the boat.” Goldberg realized that even he was susceptible to subjective reporting that echoed his own views rather than the objectivity he knew the viewers deserved. For this he was “let go” by CBS.

Dan Rather led the charge of public, personal attacks on his former friend and employee, claiming Goldberg was a conservative all along and was dead wrong to say that the media’s admitted personal liberal preferences got in the way of good, solid reporting. Within two years, however, Rather would be fired for knowingly using a falsified National Guard report two weeks before the 2004 election in an attempt to give John Kerry a bump in the polls, and force the bumbling cowboy from Texas out of the White House. (I’d hate to see what media bias does look like in Rather’s world.)

Does it frighten anyone else that the only media outlets that gave 100% of their campaign contributions and votes to Gore and Kerry in the last two elections were NPR and PBS, the two “publicly” owned and operated networks? Fairness Doctrine, anyone?

Heading in to the 2008 Presidential election, it is critical that we begin to fight through the barrage of misinformation from the traditional news sources. I’m not suggesting that everything you hear on NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN is worthless and that all you need is Fox News. But, to get the fuller picture of what is actually being said by the candidates who desire to lead the Free World, you are going to have to work a little harder than taking in the three minutes of Anderson Cooper you flip to during commercial breaks of Hogan Knows Best. The candidates are talking, and we need to listen.

Hillary Clinton has vowed that she will “take from some to give to others” and brags: “American can’t afford all the plans I have.” Barack Obama publicly says on one day that he would bomb our ally Pakistan without warning, says he’ll sit down and negotiate with our enemy and known terrorist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran (a direct contradiction to U.S. policy since George Washington) on another, and then claims he’d do neither and was misquoted. John Edwards promises state-run control over “big oil” and “big drug companies,” both ideas supported and practiced by Hugo Chavez and Communist China.

Common themes for each of the six leading Democratic candidates: increased centralization of power in the hands of the Federal government, higher taxes, reduction in military strength and intelligence gathering capabilities (the kind that have prevented 19 terrorist attacks since 2001), harping on the divide between rich vs. poor (a favorite of Communists everywhere), promises of entitlements for Baby Boomers (their own generation), and an immediate withdrawal from Iraq where violence is down 75% since April. Any takers? I’m not making this stuff up.

I end with what I think to be a prime example of the disconnect between what Americans generally believe and what they are told they believe by liberals in positions of influence. In 1970, then Governor Ronald Reagan of California goes to the Governor’s Association conference and speaks on the detrimental effects welfare has on society, and more importantly, the people who receive it. He warned that we couldn’t give able-bodied parents something-for-nothing and expect that their children will work for it when it’s their “turn”. He said that our focus as a nation should be the hand-up, not hand-out model of truly helping the less fortunate. As could be expected, he was unanimously and resoundingly dismissed as out-of-touch with the American people and on the path to career suicide. As was his habit, Reagan cheerfully continued speaking on the issue and pushing for reform.

In 1994, the Republican Congress, finally in control for the first time in more than 50 years, introduces Welfare Reform legislation. It takes still another two years, and two subsequent vetoes from President Clinton before he finally signs the bill into law 8 weeks before his 1996 re-election. The week Welfare Reform became a reality the New York Times runs an article citing that 92% of Americans were in favor of the cutbacks in entitlement programs, including 84% of citizens currently receiving government hand-outs.

But for the 28 years from Reagan’s speech to Clinton’s signing, everyone knew that reforming welfare was not only impossible and unpopular, but was supposedly mean-spirited, cruel, and somehow anti-American. For a policy reform initiative that was allegedly untenable, Welfare Reform proved to be something almost every American wanted. There are many issues out there where the consensus is overwhelming, but the politics surrounding them are divisive.

Far too often we refrain from voting for particular candidates for reasons that are far less important than the ones that should guide us in our decisions: our values. No candidate is perfect, just as no Party is perfect. So what are we to do?

Listen with your own ears, vote with your own values, and I promise: you’ll be surprised to find out just how conservative you really are.

Don't be the Lowest Common Denominator

Posted by Mr. Ecko on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 4:26:01 PM

The fundamental differences between the candidates for President in 2008 themselves are very real and very important to understand. But by favoring YouTube debates and 30-second answers to complicated questions involving topics such as Iran’s nuclear weapons program, the respective candidates and their campaign staffers have made the search for real solutions to real problems increasingly more convoluted and insincere.

They’re playing to the lowest common denominator, and we’re letting them.

Both sides of the political aisle are guilty of pandering, posturing, and proselytizing to be sure, but does that really mean all ideas held, and all policies proposed, are equal in merit and practicality? (Or in flaw and impracticality?)

What this nation and her people need to rediscover isn’t necessarily that “Old Clinton Magic” of the 90’s or the “Glory Days” of Reagan’s Revolution in the 80’s, but a reinvigorated pursuit of real solutions, an appreciation and understanding of objective economic realities, and a renewed sense of the republican (small “r”) ideal that personal responsibility and civic duty are compatible and necessary prerequisites for a healthy America.

In short: we need to rediscover ideas.

The confidence I have in my conservative convictions didn’t come over night, and it would be a gross understatement to even say that I’m a long way off from being an expert on any topic other than what comes on a Chicago-style Hot Dog. But the road to discovery and understanding begins by taking that first step down what Robert Frost famously called the “path less traveled by.” This path only appears ominous from the vantage of that fork-in-the-road we all reach in life where it is no longer intellectually and emotionally satisfying to be blissfully oblivious as to why you believe any of the things you claim to.

A few clicks down the path you realize that so many great men and women throughout history have been there before you, and they’ve left maps and compasses along the way to aid you in your journey toward Truth. It’s comforting and inspiring.

Growing up in the suburbs of the Windy City, it was all too easy for my peers and I to accept the things we were taught, heard, or watched as gospel. This was the case in everything from Sunday School at my local church to the random snippets of “news” I would read for that split second it took me to flip past the front-page en route to the Sports section to see if perhaps the Cubs’ horrendous collapse in the 9^th inning the evening before might have been a bad dream. If a teacher or parent said it, even if I appeared apathetic to it on the surface, I generally believed them to be telling the truth. This is the case for most teenagers and young adults in modern America.

I didn’t know any better when my 8^th grade Social Studies teacher would say things like: “Communism is a good idea, but just has never been given a fair chance to work.” Sounds good to me, Mr. S. What’s for lunch? That was about the extent of my inquiry into the purported “facts” surrounding the (at that time) recent implosion of the USSR.

At church, when a Sunday School teacher or pastor (usually my own father) would explain theological doctrines like why it is that we as Christians believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God, I was “busy” writing fake sicknesses on the “Prayer Request” cards (under the name of some kid I didn’t like) to tactfully place in the offering plates going by. Even by the time I graduated high school, my belief and faith in a Creator-Savior God was abstract, untenable, and weaker than the excuses I gave the deacons and church officials who would trace the bogus prayer cards back to me. (“Oh, I thought I had heard Ryan did have rickets, sir.”)

The problem I, and most Americans of my generation, found myself in was that I was a walking, talking contradiction of beliefs, narrowly held together with a hodge-podge of barely comprehensible talking-points. My logic was flawed (or non-existent), my facts were wrong (or misunderstood), and there was little-if-any application of my beliefs in my daily life. I was the physical manifestation of a Michael Moore film, and ready to run for public office with a “D” in front of my name.

What finally got me turned around and set on the path of a life-long pursuit of truth and understanding was the empty feeling I discovered a year or two into college when the realization came over me that I couldn’t explain to anyone what it was I thought I believed. My 20-year love affair I had been having with myself (instead of Truth) had created an ignorant monster of my own making.

It would be unfair and untrue to lay the blame for my lack of understanding at the feet of my parents, or society, or my liberally-inclined teachers. I was the one accepting things at face value. I obsessed myself in sports and Nintendo instead of getting to know the writings of John Locke, Milton Friedman, or the Apostle Paul. I naively trusted, but rarely, if ever, verified.

“Disillusionment” might well be the epitaph of my generation because of our collective inability to not only articulate, but also to fully (or at least more fully) understand the reasoning and motivation for even getting out of bed in the morning. “Truth is relative”, and “God is dead” are mantras we are bombarded with from the time we enter junior high until we’re eligible for membership in the AARP.

We need and want more than this. It doesn’t sound or feel right, and when we put these “progressive” teachings into practice, we end up where we started: empty and desiring real answers.

Admittedly, the socio-political stances we as individual American voters hold on the “issues of the day” seem, at the surface, to be far removed from the discussion of philosophical (and in some cases, theological) concepts and questions each of us undoubtedly have in our lives. But are they really? Wouldn’t it be fair to say that someone’s view of their own purpose on this planet might affect their position on, oh, say, something like abortion? We breeze right past developing what should be our central, core beliefs, and spend inordinate amounts of time fighting over the peripheral ones.

The rabbit-hole, Alice, goes deeper than simply “thinking” about what you believe in. It’s a great start, but knowledge and contemplation alone do not ensure sound judgment and success. They are necessary preconditions for a decision (i.e. Who should I vote for? Is there a God?), not for that decision’s ultimate worthiness or validity.

And this is just the problem I’m trying to get at: too few of us have ever gotten to the point of “knowledge and contemplation”, let alone a discerning assessment of what real Truth might be. I’m not talking here about housewives needing to spend 4 hours of their hectic day in secluded study of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, or busy businessmen having to neglect their work at the office to pour over Platonic manuscripts and treatises on how governments ought to be run. The great ideas almost always lend themselves to reducible, intelligible levels for mass consumption. The problem is: so do the bad ones.

The only hope a representative democracy can have is if her citizens take it upon themselves to remain: vigilant of encroaching centralized power (in any areas not specified by the Constitution), cognizant of threats from abroad, and well-equipped with thoughtful considerations regarding the Judeo-Christian moral standards which, according to Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, will either hold this republic together or tear it apart.

We have that duty. We have that obligation. We have that power.

What can the Writers' strike teach you and me?

Posted by Mr. Ecko on Friday, November 23, 2007 2:03:44 AM

The baseball strike of 1994 was particularly devastating for a chubby kid like me whose life revolved (revolves) around the Chicago Cubs, baseball cards, the prehistoric chewing gum in packs of baseball cards, and Dairy Queen. (Honestly, how good does a Dilly Bar sound right now?) Some say the sport has never recovered, and that our National Pastime will never be the same again.

But just this month, in the epicenter of American morality, an even more crippling labor strike has left “we the people” hopeless, forced to wander in a desert of our own imaginations.

Demanding an increase in wages, and a cut of the DVD action currently padding Hollywood producer’s and Studio executive’s bank accounts, back-room writers on the sets of everything from The View to Late Night with Conan O’Brien to Dancing with the Stars to LOST are currently withholding their talents from desperate housewives and obsessive fans everywhere.

Dancing with the Stars, even? Really? Come on, I thought Reality TV was all off-the-cuff? Please don’t tell me this means Bob Sagat wasn’t ad-libbing all those hilarious commentaries on America’s Funniest Home Videos, because I’d have to rethink my entire childhood.

I’d like to make a few observations regarding the situation that the picketing Writers’ Guild has left the rest of us in.

First off, it has become abundantly clear that the writers of your favorite show are a substantial (sometimes sole) source of its alleged genius. I think of Larry David writing for Seinfeld all of those years in relative anonymity before landing his own show, Curb Your Enthusiasm, on HBO. Since Curb began in 2000, it becomes more and more apparent each week that it was Larry more than Jerry that made Seinfeld the legend it turned out to be. Of course every successful show needs proper casting, acting, and directing, but the reality is, performance entertainers (like politicians) are typically one-dimensional (e.g. every person associated with Friends).

Which leads right into my second point: it is much more difficult to write a good script than it is to satisfactorily act one out. Extrapolated out into the world of politics and government, this reality is noteworthy when considering our criticisms for current leaders. The reason liberalism continues to fail isn’t simply the less-than-convincing leaders who espouse it (or, act it out), but that their script (ideology) is so full of holes and intellectually unsettling as to make one wonder if the writing team from Dude, Where’s My Car? had had their hands in its conception.

Third: even I forget sometimes that the thoughts and views expressed and disseminated by the talking heads on television and the Silver Screen are rarely their own. The “talent” and message behind our beloved films and programming emanates from a source deep in the bowels of Tinsel-town. Sometimes, as in the case of Conan O’Brien, a writer gets his chance to live every Wizard of Oz’s fantasy by being granted a spot in the limelight to show the world what well-rounded talent they really have. But, this is rare for a reason.

Like a great English teacher who can tactfully offer insight on War and Peace, yet is incapable of penning even a moderately interesting email, actors, performers and talk show hosts possess abilities that, if all writers on the planet were to crash and remain LOST on an island with Others and black smoke monsters, would be rendered as inconsequential as a life-insurance salesmen in Heaven. For every one Dostoevsky there are thousands of 9th grade-teaching “Mr. Curry’s”. (Do you have any idea what that “B-” on my To Kill a Mockingbird paper did to my GPA, Mr. C?)

Writing, and the power that ideas “put to paper” can have are largely lost on our visually stimulated culture. Reading the newspaper or a (gasp!) book is archaic in the land of Cable News and Wikipedia. However, a quick peak at history (that thing your public school teacher claims to be teaching you) offers a few important examples of just how powerful the written word can be compared to those spoken (or acted out).

Thomas Paine’s Common Sense was the fuel needed for a patriotic fire that would consume the colonies for war with Britain. Karl Marx’s Manifesto spawned countless revolutions and prompted countless revolutionaries to (misguided) action. Uncle Tom’s Cabin brought slavery to the forefront of American’s consciousnesses, Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle exposed the dark side of industrialization, and George Orwell’s Animal Farm satirically depicted the reasons why Marx and his communistic legions ultimately failed (and will continue to fail, despite what Hillary promises in her latest stump speech).

Which brings me to my fourth and final point: we’ve always been more influenced by the writer than the actor. We’ve just forgotten it. We keep telling each other how busy we are, so pre-packaged worldviews courtesy of people with a microphone or behind a camera or in front of an audience seem deceptively more appealing than actually getting our own hands dirty with details.

Al Gore wins every award on the globally-warmed planet (except the highly-coveted “Participation Prize” given at my elementary school to make the uncoordinated and untalented dopes in my grade feel better after yours truly trounced them in every competition on the docket at Field Day), and for what? Reading cue cards off a power point presentation someone else wrote. Why is it that Comrade Gore refuses to debate any other public figure regarding global warming if it is truly his message and he believes in it deeply enough to accept a Nobel Peace Prize for it?

The best example of what I’m getting at here can be seen nightly on The Daily Show with John Stewart. Because his team of more than 15 writers are on strike, the supposed expert on everything from foreign policy to social security reform is currently sitting at home twiddling his smug . Recent polls show a significant number of people under the age of 30 claim to get their news from Rolling Stone (wow!), The Colbert Report (funny), and John Stewart (bad).

I’m in no way insinuating that there is no place for political satire, or that the politicians and pundits I agree with are off-limits from criticism. Important to recognize is the fact that the likes of John Stewart (and yes, even my beloved Stephen Colbert), while funny and camera-friendly, are not the ones coming up with the decidedly Left message propagated on such shows each night.

The people I get my news from (i.e. Michael Medved, Charles Krauthammer, Hugh Hewitt, Rush Limbaugh, and Robert Novak, etc.) not only acknowledge their conservative “tendencies”, but also create their own commentaries, cite their work, and are willing to engage in public, open debates on a daily basis to defend their positions. The writers’ strike has exposed even my own assumption that Stewart and Colbert might actually know what they are talking about.

Similar to the awkward feeling you get when another walks in on you and a group of young kids arguing over who gets the last Popsicle, the strike has revealed the voices we take many of our political cues from to be frauds (or at least puppets). If we don’t feel silly for caring so much about what stand-up comics and people who pretend for a living think about the War in Iraq or Healthcare Reform, we should.

When conservatives, like yours truly, point out the danger a society can find itself in when its most respected voices are its also its most misinformed, we are arded with accusations of “taking too seriously” what “some dumb actors or comedians say.”

But what are we on the Right to think when the same anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Capitalism sentiments that get such raucous applause on Comedy Central and at the Oscars are being taught in public school classrooms, or can be found on the front pages of most major American newspapers, or are heard on Capitol Hill from the lips of Congressional leaders in the Democratic Party?

An Open Thanksgiving Letter to our Leaders in Congress

Posted by Mr. Ecko on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:45:15 PM

Congressional Leaders

Teaching Liberal Democrats How to be Thankful (even when Bush is President)
by:R.J. Moeller

Dear Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid,

First of all, let me say right off the bat that I am a huge fan of you both. I must admit though, last year at this time, I was dismayed and disheartened at the prospects of your Party gaining control of my Congress. While I should have known better than to worry about your capabilities (or lack thereof), it has been a not-so-pleasant “surprise” to watch each of you run your respective houses of government into the proverbial ground.

Therefore, I wanted to begin this friendly letter by thanking you both for exhibiting the lack of courageous leadership that it requires to land your approval ratings in the “teens” (the lowest ever recorded and almost exactly half of what President Bush’s are).

As I reflected on the fact that Thanksgiving is upon us already this Fall, it recently occurred to me that neither of you, due to your insatiable desire to find the cloud in every silver lining, will have anything to say when your families go around the table to recite what each person is thankful for this year. So take a load off for the next few minutes and let this sagacious, conservative, optimist give you a few Gratitude Talking Points.

Thanksgiving Day Talking Point #1- I am so grateful for the fact that there are young men and women who are proudly willing to put their lives on the line to procure my freedom. Even if engaged in a war that I don’t fully agree with (understand), I can never thank the nearly 4,000 soldiers who have paid the ultimate price for liberty enough. It is by their blood, sweat, and tears that 50 million humans have been freed in areas of the world where human rights and dignity are as foreign to the soil as the sight of American G.I.’s upon it.

Now this first idea will be hard, and may even take some practice in front of the mirror to re-teach your face how to smile, but as it turns out, the situation in Iraq continues to improve at an impressive rate that even the (purposely) ambiguously defined “Neo-con’s” never predicted. When the topic of the war comes up as you pass your “green” green beans (to the left, of course), remind your guests that it isn’t just right-wingers who are reporting achievements aplenty in Baghdad and Anbar province, but things have gotten so good (bad, for Democrats) that even The New York Times, Newsweek, The Washington Post, and U.S. News & World Report have all had to admit that the “surge” and General Petraeus (thus far) are smashing successes.

Thanksgiving Day Talking Point #2- A “Family” is the most precious social institution a society can participate in. It is the bedrock of our civilization and I thank God for my parents (each who was of a different sex), my children, my relatives, and the special friends and neighbors in my life that have become like family to me. Life is precious, and I know this to be true if for no other reason than the incredibly profound bonds that exist between my loved ones and me.

This second idea is more for you, Speaker Pelosi, than you, Senator Reid, because you remind us so often that you are a proud Italian Catholic grandmother, and that the reason you seem to do almost anything (and I mean anything), according to you, is “for the kids.” Madame Speaker, you’ll have to try and forget the fact that you have publicly supported lowering the age of sexual consent to 12, are in favor of complete federal funding of the anti-fetus practice known as murd…abortion, and have approved of the jihad against such provocative groups as the Boys and Girls Scouts of America simply because they don’t want homosexuals “den” leaders and mention “God” in their charter.

Thanksgiving Day Talking Point #3- I’ve been blessed with family, friends, power, prestige, and wealth above and beyond what any 10 men (or women) could hope for in a lifetime, and I realize my good fortune is temporal above all else. I appreciate the things I have, the platform I’ve been given, but know that power for the sake of power, and money for the sake of money, ultimately end in a selfish and lonely existence. I do not envy my neighbor, nor will I encourage anyone else to envy their own.

All right, please don’t put down this letter just yet. A Congressional leader with higher approval ratings might have tossed my heartfelt sentiments in the trash at least three paragraphs ago, but you know you can use the “image” points with, if no one else, your family. Something we conservatives believe in is that idea that Americans should embrace personal responsibility in conjunction with civic duty. This means that we are to hold ourselves (and each other) accountable for the decisions we make in our local spheres of influence.

Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi, you are both strong advocates of entirely Socialistic policies, but have both benefited immensely from the free market system you besmirch. Your family (especially your pro-capitalist-even-if-they-don’t-know-it kids) will be aware of your anti-growth stances as well, but are deep down grateful themselves that supply-side economics has consistently triumphed in America.

Thanksgiving Day Talking Point #4 (last one)- I am so appreciative for Founding Fathers who intuitively recognized that it was our Creator, not any one man (or groups of men), who was the grantor of equality and freedom. Our Judeo-Christian heritage is a blessing that, for better or worse (but mostly ‘better’), has shaped the social, political, and cultural landscape of this greatest nation on God’s green earth for some 230 years. All peoples and faiths are welcome, even those with no faith at all, but not all faiths played such an undeniably integral role in our formation, growth, and undeserving prosperity. God Bless America!

I could hear your gasps just now from my highly fortified bunker. Obviously as products of a self-obsessed, anti-establishment, anti-religious generation (the Boomers), you will have to deny every instinct in your liberally-indoctrinated bodies to get this last talking point out (especially in front of other people), but give it a go. Forget your financiers from Moveon.org and the ACLU for a brief moment, embrace the foreign concept of “intellectual honesty” for a while, and let your loved ones know that it is indeed okay to proudly boast we are “One nation, under God.”

So that’s my list. I hope it helps. I also would really suggest rehearsing before the big day because your family (kids especially) can smell phony a mile away. Nothing could be more embarrassing than getting called out by your 10 year-old nephew for disingenuously pretending you care about the troops because you had to peek at the notes I’ve just given you, which were written on your palms. I personally don’t know what that would feel like from experience, but then again, I can’t imagine being a liberal either.

One request before I go: if you could please promise to maintain the status quo of accomplishing little-if-anything in Congress, I promise to keep dutifully sending my hard-earned tax money to you in D.C.

Good day to you both, and have a wonderful Thanksgiving.

Insincerely,
Robert J. Moeller

A Funny Thing Happen on the way home from a movie

Posted by Mr. Ecko on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 1:34:14 PM

Liberal Lunacy, after hours

Saturday night I had an experience that is worth sharing. After enjoying a lovely, well-balanced dinner (Buffalo wings and cheese fries that could “Farley” your heart quicker than you can say, “Tommy Boy”) a friend and I took in a film at the local theatre. The movie was excellent and spirits were high as we drove back to his humble abode.

Before heading home to my own cozy lair, a lively discourse ensued on the current state of politics in this greatest nation on God’s green earth. Seeing as we both share the same penchant for Conservative values (the ones our country was founded and flourished on), the conversation was comforting to say the least. The primary topic was liberals’ inability to formulate, articulate, and/or explain their ideas, and how they are usually reduced to ad homonym (“Bush is a doo-doo face”) attacks on their opponents.

Funny we should mention this utterly common phenomenon…

As I barreled down Palatine Road back to my home, the radio station AM 890 WLS, caught my ear’s fancy. Due to my medically diagnosed addiction to Talk Radio that is political in nature, I was compelled to invest the next hour and a half of my life in a show that had the same entertainment value the troops in Iraq got when Al Franken offered his “talents” on a USO tour in 2004.

What I heard on my radio dial was the embodiment of ignorance. A man by the name of Nate Clay was hosting a show that literally had no name (a bad sign unless you are Prince) and more importantly, no point. Liberals often opine as to the reasons Conservative talk show hosts are so much more popular, yet often they overlook the deceptively important necessity of talent. Nate Clay was claiming to be the weekend response for Liberals to all those nuts like Sean Hannity (12.5 million listeners each week), Rush Limbaugh (25 million), or Michael Savage (8.5 million). Clay (8 people not in his family) had the on-air presence of my yellow lab puppy, Katie, and the intelligence to boot. I hope he is house broken at least.

Guest after guest called in to share their well thought-out arguments for why President Bush and the Republicans are dummies, which was followed by misplaced praise and adulation from Mr. Clay at every turn. An example? The first guy was from Pakistan, working in our country, and complaining that is was unfair to blame the Pakistani scientists who sold nuclear secrets to North Korea on how to enrich uranium enough to cause an “earthquake”. His reasoning? America aided Israel in obtaining nuclear capabilities (which is the only reason Israel even can continue to exist since they have 9 million people in their country and the Arab world hell-bent on their destruction which completely surrounds them has over half a billion). Convinced? Me too...

Next up, a woman from the North side of Chicago named Janice who had “read on the internet that a group of ‘elite’ businessmen rule the world and keep wars going to keep populations down.” I thought Cindy Sheehan was from the North side of the state of California? Having obviously been far too busy at a rally to rename the schools ethnic un-friendly mascot to attend her Economics 101 course, she forgot that markets need more, not fewer, consumers to thrive. Nate gave this woman almost 20 minutes of on-air time to spew like she was being reimbursed to do so.

This is where yours truly had had enough. I am passionate and un-apologetic about what I believe, but I try to stay away from situations that will only end in heartbreak and heartburn for all parties involved. However, every fiber of my being cried out for logic and reason to be injected into such a frivolous and daft conversation on public airwaves. I think it was the tenth time I heard that, “Bush lied, our boys died” that sent me over the edge. My cell phone was dialed and the ringing from its speakerphone echoed throughout my car before I knew what had happened. A male voice asked me my name, city, and purpose for calling. I stated that I was the man to bring some clarity to the murky waters of unethical journalism/broadcasting taking place on the same radio station that my hero, Rush Limbaugh, imparts his God-given wisdom to us every weekday.

I was promised at 1:35 am that mine would be the next call taken by Nate Clay (not Aiken). At some point during the next ten calls that were taken ahead of me I sent an urgent text message to my friend that I had just left so he could tune in for a piece of radio history. This would be the coming-out party for Robby the Republican, and not the Floridian Congressional kind. I quickly received one back saying that he was all ears.

Now that I had some fans (about the same number as Clay) my brain started filing through the Rolodex of Liberal armor-piercing tidbits and quick-facts. I figured that since the producer told me I’d be on soon that I better be ready to give an account for what it is I believe, as the Good Book says. “Thankfully”, they gave me over an hour and twenty minutes to think things through.

When I was finally brought on the air (as the “cue commercial” music to the show with no name started), I had only a minute to get the Truth out there. A moment of Phil Jackson Zen occurred. A calmer, more thoughtful Robby Moeller started off by complimenting Clay for his willingness to engage in the arena of ideas and thanked him for the opportunity to share my conflicting, and, coincidently, correct views. As Stevie Wonder’s “Living for the City” played in the background, I reminded the listening audience that Bush can only be called a liar if bringing intelligence to the American public that was supplied by our own CIA and the intelligence agencies of nine different ally nations (including France) is considered lying. If it is, then I am content in agreeing. But, since it is not (even Sadaam it turns out thought he had WMD’s), Clay was not only wrong, he was disingenuous at best and a lying fool at worst. After forty-five seconds of graceful oration, and a few attempts at some semblance of a response on Clay’s part, he ended my luminous philibuster with, “But there might be contradictory evidence to some of what you’re…that’s all time we have.” Click.

Oh, no he didn’t! After sitting through nearly two hours of the most painfully ignorant drivel, and being lied to about how soon my national talk radio debut would take place, this is how our boy ends things? I thought Liberals championed free speech and that it was the religious conservatives and Karl Rove minions who stifle debate with the help of almighty Fox News. I thought we Conservatives were corroding free-speech in our country simply for not wanting tax-payers money going to the bank accounts of University of Wisconsin professors who teach that the Holocaust never happened and that 9/11 was planned and condoned by Bush.

Guess a white kid from the suburbs with more enthusiasm than expertise and an opposing view from the previous fourteen disgruntled union workers and coked-out UIC students was too much for Nate Clay to handle. His broadcasting skills and integrity are probably better suited for the likes of Air America. By that I mean bankrupt and off the air.

After recapping with my buddy, who had actually stayed awake long enough to hear my butt-whipping debut that lasted less than a minute, I went to bed with a big smile on my face. The one thing that the host and I could agree on was that I was right and he was scared to take me on. Conservatives CANNOT lose in the arena of ideas. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Thanks for the big break though, Mr. Clay. We’ll always have those forty-five seconds.

P.S. I’m calling next week at the same time.

Featured Posts

Is the divide in America really that close?

By Mr. Ecko at 2:25 PM on 12/18/2007

News and Opinion

About Me

Comments

Blog Roll

Do Christians need to apologize to Muslims?

Is the divide in America really that close?

Don't be the Lowest Common Denominator

What can the Writers' strike teach you and me?

An Open Thanksgiving Letter to our Leaders in Congress

Go to my site

A Funny Thing Happen on the way home from a movie