First Pitch at The Series
George W. Bush, often remembered for his role in leading the nation during the 2000's, and flanked by his former-president father George H. W. Bush, threw out the first pitch of the World Series game last night. For all the hatred thrown his way while in office, seeing W. and his pops out on the field together made me (temporarily) forget the nation's current problems. It was a nice breath of fresh air.
Although under completely different circumstances, it reminded me of another famous pitch from the Bush legacy:
America. Baseball. Mom's Apple Pie. Sometimes things really are that simple.
Krauthammer on the Election
In about 48 hours we will know (most of) the 2010 mid-term election results. As we draw near this historic election, I thought it prudent to hear some final words of wisdom on the entire process from Charles "The German-hammer" Krauthammer. His latest column is a doozy.
An excerpt:
The beauty of this year’s campaign, and the coming one in 2012, is that they actually have a point. Despite the noise, the nonsense, the distractions, the amusements — who will not miss New York’s seven-person gubernatorial circus act? — this is a deeply serious campaign about a profoundly serious political question.
Obama, to his credit, did not get elected to do midnight basketball or school uniforms. No Bill Clinton, he. Obama thinks large. He wants to be a consequential president on the order of Ronald Reagan. His forthright attempt to undo the Reagan revolution with a new burst of expansive liberal governance is the theme animating this entire election.
Democratic apologists would prefer to pretend otherwise — that it’s all about the economy and the electorate’s anger over its parlous condition. Nice try. The most recent CBS/New York Times poll shows that only one in twelve Americans blames the economy on Obama, and seven in ten think the downturn is temporary. And yet, the Democratic party is falling apart. Democrats are four points behind among women, a constituency Democrats had owned for decades; a staggering 20 points behind among independents (a 28-point swing since 2008); and 20 points behind among college graduates, giving lie to the ubiquitous liberal conceit that the Republican surge is the revenge of lumpen know-nothings.
On November 2, a punishing there will surely be. But not quite the kind Obama is encouraging.
My prediction: The Dems lose 60 House seats, eight in the Senate. Rangers in seven.
On November 2nd We Need The Hammer, Hold The Sickle
By: R.J. Moeller
Few people today remember the name of Charles "The Hammer" Martel, Duke and Prince of the Franks. Even fewer (as in nobody) remember the individual men, women and soldiers who helped this 8th century ruler push the invading Islamic forces of the Umayyad Caliphate back out of southern France, thereby effectively saving Europe from theocratic, totalitarian subjugation (and a completely different, decidedly worse, trajectory).
For those who care, Christianity in the West was, for lack of a better term, saved by Martel and his people. There were no other military forces in Europe who could have stopped the Muslim forces from doing what they had done everywhere else they went: conquer and convert.
For those who cherish any of the ideas, culture, and values that have emanated from Europe during the last 1300 years, Martel and his people are a big reason that the Western world doesn’t look like the societies and governments of Saudi Arabia or Iran.
But the people responsible for warding off the Saracen invaders at such a pivotal moment in Western history didn’t wake up one morning in 732 and say, “We probably should save civilization today.” Although one event, the Battle of Tours, in particular stands out, and certainly was a point-of-no-return for Europe at the time, the victory won there did not happen by accident. The groundwork for the defense of Christendom began decades before.
And thank God it did.
------
The story of Charles the Hammer truly is a remarkable one. Born the bastard child of a Frankish governor in 688 AD, Charles did not come to any real position of power until he was 30. By then he had unfairly spent time in jail, defeated superior armies in battle, and set the precedent of being a leader who was as principled and pragmatic as he was innovative and creative.
As Martel amassed more and more control over the various kingdoms in modern-day Belgium, France, and Germany, it became apparent that foremost on this young ruler’s mind was power. His talents on the battlefield were the stuff of legend. The only military engagement he ever lost in his entire life was the first one (of hundreds) he commanded troops in. If he couldn’t convince a local monarch to join his team, he and his enemy knew ahead of time what the outcome of any battle would be. Like many leaders in Europe before him to that point, he could expect to spend the rest of his life warring and adding land and treasure to his fiefdom.
But history had different plans for Martel.
Beginning in 711 AD, Muslim imperialists from Damascus started what they intended to be a total Islamic conquest of Europe. Any of the lands they would capture in the Iberian Peninsula became property of the Muslim-run theocracy that at that time stretched from India to Morocco. Any of the people living on those lands had the choice to covert, live the life of a 2nd class citizen, or, in many cases, die.
Other than the southern European kingdoms that were being over-run by these formidable foreign foes, most everyone in continental Europe was anything but worried over the potential threat they posed to their own homelands.
That is, most everyone but Charles Martel.
Martel’s eyes were opened to the fact that Spain’s problem would soon become his problem. Instead of fighting over the lands that exchanged hands for centuries in Europe, Martel realized that a fight was coming that would decide whether or not there would even be a Europe to fight over. Unlike almost any other military leader of his time, Charles did three critically important things in order to prepare himself and his people for victory.
First, he appropriated the funds and resources needed to train a year-round army. Almost all soldiers were also farmers and had to return home during the planting and harvesting seasons. These new enemies from the Middle East had no such constraint and were there for one thing, and one thing only: total domination of an entire continent. There would be no negotiations. There was no compromise available. It was kill or be killed. Martel needed his best troops to be able to focus on how best to kill the opposition.
Second, he accepted and embraced the help of his former enemies. This was unheard of at the time, and yet Charles Martel had the presence of mind to recognize that whatever differences he had with his local enemies were nothing compared to the prospect of seeing everything he and his local enemies fought over being transformed forever (and for the worse).
The third, and perhaps most critical thing he did was to get it set in his own mind that he was embarking on a long war. He and his people wouldn’t be able to prepare in one day for the war that was upon them, and the war would not be over in a day either. His enemies had been fighting and planning for decades. Europe needed at least one leader with a proper understanding of the scope and nature of the threat it faced.
Eventually there did come a time and place when all the planning and training was put to the test. Muslim forces moving northward through southern France came upon Martel and his troops near the French town of Tours. Both sides knew that a defeat for the Franks would leave the rest of Western Europe defenseless. Martel was outnumbered (some say 3 to 1), but held the high ground and positioned his forces in such a way that the Saracens’ intimidating cavalry were neutralized. The over-confident and impatient Muslim generals attacked first and were routed. It would end up being the furthest north the Umayyad Caliphate would reach in Europe.
And thank God for it.
-----
There are moments that define a nation (or even a civilization), same as there are moments that define your life. Some of them happen unexpectedly. Some of them you cannot prepare for.
Most of them, you can.
Often the biggest obstacle in appropriately preparing for a difficult challenge or trying decision is that we can’t always tell which challenges or which decisions we face along the way will end up being, in retrospect, the ones that sent our life (or the life of our nation) on a course towards peace and stability, or regret and suffering.
If you’ve yet to figure out that the mid-term elections next Tuesday will be seminal benchmarks in the contemporary history of this country, with all due respect, you’re probably part of the problem.
That problem is this: our nation is in trouble.
But this trouble we are in did not reveal itself out-of-the-blue. It has been simmering and festering for decades.
Spending money we don’t have, for programs we don’t need (and in many cases, do not want). Buying votes with taxpayer dollars. Weakening our currency with irresponsible monetary policies. Watering down the Constitution and its original intents. Turning our backs on traditional, Judeo-Christian values (including the entrepreneurial work ethic that has separated America from all other nations in human history). Re-defining (and undermining) the foundational institution upon which all societies and civilizations have been built: the family. Reducing the all-too-real war with the irreconcilable wing of Islam into a talking point on cable news or a bargaining chip on Capitol Hill.
The election on November 2nd is just one day, but it is a big day. Your vote is just one vote, but it is a significant vote – perhaps the most significant of your lifetime.
An ideological and cultural enemy, secular progressivism and the Nanny State socialism married to it, has encroached all the way into the highest reaches of power in this land. Its stink is even on the hands of many who call themselves Republicans and conservatives. It is the antithesis of our form of government, our free market enterprise, our way of life.
There are no perfect solutions, only better ways than others to conduct the affairs of a nation comprised of 300 million liberty-loving, Creator-endowed freemen and women. The way of Obama-Pelosi-Reid is the wrong one.
There are no perfect candidates, only better (or closer) representatives of what Americans have traditionally believed are the ideas, ideals, and values that have enabled us to succeed and flourish where others have failed and floundered.
Charles Martel had to fight actual battles to preserve his peoples’ way of life. We who believe that the United States of America is the last, best hope for freedom on earth merely have to vote misguided, in some cases corrupt, fellow citizens out of public office and support the few brave volunteers willing to fight and die for us. Martel and his people had to train for military combat to keep their civilization in-tact. Most of us simply have to stay informed and teach our principles and traditions to the next generation.
We need not just one Martel, but an army of them.
The once-strong and courageous French people spent the second half of the 20th century pursuing the exact policies and ideology President Obama and Speaker Pelosi promote today and now must deal with a citizenry so dependent on the State that they riot and protest at the very thought of working until the age of 62 (instead of 60).
Millions of Americans over the past year-and-a-half have also rallied and protested, but here it is to tell the State to stop spending and to get out of the daily lives and interactions of the people.
So the question you would do well to ask yourself before November 2nd (and every day after you feel like letting down your intellectual guard) is this: What kind of nation do you want to live in? Do you prefer to see your neighbors rioting in the town square to demand more of your money, or to hold their government accountable to its Constitutionally-defined parameters?
Do you want to be a part of a nation that turns out in the streets at the thought of “free lunches”, or the promise of more personal liberty?
A revitalization of this blessed land and people begins November 3rd. Your children and grandchildren will thank you.
Same Reckless Rhetoric, Different Day
President Obama is desperate. The man who promised to bring the nation together, to put partisan politics behind him (and us), to lead a national dialogue on mending racial tensions, had this to say to Spanish-speaking voters on the Hispanic radio network Univision:
“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”
Nice. The presumption, of course, is that the Republican party is un-friendly to Latinos.
In way of a response, I'd like to share with you a poignant, thoughtful "open letter to Hispanics" from conservative talk show host (and uber-white guy) Dennis Prager.
An excerpt:
I am writing to you as a concerned and sympathetic American who is a Republican. My sentiments do not represent those of every American — that would be impossible. But I believe the following represents what most Americans believe.
First, a message to those of you here illegally:
You may be very surprised to hear this, but in your position, millions of Americans, including me, would have done what you did.
If I lived in a poor country with a largely corrupt government, a country in which I had little or no hope for an improved life for me and my children, and I could not legally get into the world’s freest, most affluent country, the country with the most opportunities for people of any and every background, I would do whatever I could do to get into that country illegally.
Mexico and many other Latin American countries are largely hopeless places for most of their people. America offers hope to everyone willing to work hard. Who could not understand why any individual, let alone a father or mother of a family, would try to get into the United States — legally preferably, illegally if necessary?
Now that I have made it clear that millions of us understand what motivates you and do not morally condemn you for entering America illegally, I have to ask you to try to understand what motivates us.
No country in the world can allow unlimited immigration. If America opened its borders to all those who wish to live here, hundreds of millions of people would come in. That would, of course, mean the end of the United States economically and culturally.
If you are from Mexico, you know that Mexico’s treatment of illegal immigrants from south of its border is far harsher than is my country’s of illegal immigrants from your country and elsewhere.
All it takes is common sense to understand that we simply cannot afford to take care of all of you in our medical, educational, penal, and other institutions. However much you may pay in sales tax, most illegal immigrants are a financial and social burden in those states in which most of them settle.
Yes, many of you are also a blessing. Many of you take care of our children and our homes. Others of you prepare our food and do other work that is essential to our society. We know that. As individuals, the great majority of you are hardworking, responsible, decent people.
But none of that answers the question: How many people can this country allow to come in?
The moment you answer that question is the moment you realize that Americans’ worries about illegal immigration have nothing to do with “racism” or any negative feeling toward Hispanics.
Please read the rest of Prager's recent column here.
Arthur Brooks-Jim Wallis Debate
Wheaton College, in conjunction with The American Enterprise Institute, is hosting a debate for the ages this upcoming Thursday night between AEI president Dr. Arthur Brooks (pictured right) and President Obama's "spiritual adviser" Pastor Jim Wallis (pictured left). 
If you live in the Chicago-land area, and you don't come to this free event (7pm Thursday night, in the Edman Chapel), then the terrorists win. Just kidding. But you should come out to hear a candid discussion regarding the moral cases for both free market capitalism, and for the Left's "social justice" movement. The whole thing will be moderated by former George W. Bush speechwriter, Michael Gerson.
From AEI's Common Sense Concept website (which I blog at, btw):
Recent events have renewed questions about the sinfulness of capitalist economics. Rampant greed, high-profile instances of theft, and patterns of “conspicuous consumption” rightfully cause Christians to question the morality of the market. There is no perhaps no more vocal critic of capitalism from a Christian perspective than Jim Wallis.
Hope to see many of you Thursday evening!
Politically Correct Left to Muslim World: Jihad Me At ‘Hello’
Why does the mainstream media spend more time attacking the opponents of radical Islam than the radical Muslims (and their apologists) themselves?
By: R.J. Moeller
“These are volatile times…people only hear what they want to hear.” -Whoopee Goldberg
“Say what you need to say.” -John Mayer
We are living in crazy times, people. Truth is a luxury that much of the modern Western world now sees as too lavish and extravagant for their lifestyle. A devastating combination of political correctness, mis-information, indoctrination, intimidation and apathy has converged in the United States to form the dark clouds of timidity that hang overhead. This cultural apprehensiveness, this over-riding desire to offend no one and accept everything, regardless of the costs, is, I believe, more dangerous than any other threat we face as a nation.
But before my soapbox is kicked out from underneath me, let me get to an example of the problem I am referring to.
Bill O’Reilly, of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, appeared on ABC’s The View last week to promote his latest book, Pinheads and Patriots. In the course of the lively interview, Bill gave his take on why it is the popularity of President Obama has plummeted as it has since he took office. Among other examples, O’Reilly cited the president’s public support for the Ground-Zero Mosque in Manhattan. The American people, to the tune of 70%, are not in favor of the mosque being built so close to such a sensitive site. However, more than 70% of the women of The View do support the mosque being built there, and see any disagreement as ignorant bigotry.
The “discussion” became “heated” when Bill, who made a point to say that there is nothing illegal about the building of the mosque, explained that many feel it is inappropriate and unnecessary for peaceful Muslims to build a religious center for other Muslims near a place that radical Muslims killed thousands of Americans (in the name of the Muslim religion – Islam) at.
To her credit, the openly-liberal Barbara Walters immediately condemned the childish (and revealing) actions of her colleagues. But, in order to measure her outburst of sanity and reason with just the right amount of politically correct nonsense, Ms. Walters then immediately turned to Bill and said, “You can’t say that, though.” O’Reilly was cornered into apologizing to anyone he might have offended, and eventually the “brave” Goldbeg and Behar returned to the set.
In an interview a few days later with Fox News’ Greta Van Sustren, Whoopee explained that she took her ball and went home that morning because O’Reilly’s comments had made her so mad that she knew she had crossed some emotional line in her own head and just “had to get out of there.”
One wonders where such raw emotion from members of the media is when reports of Muslim fathers and brothers murdering their daughters and sisters in the name of “honor” actually make the news? Or why movies like The Stoning of Soraya M do not become the darling-child of publications like Rolling Stone and Newsweek? Or where the same outbursts of indignant outrage from the Left were when millions of Muslims in countries around the world took to the streets in celebration after the fateful events of 9/11?
The only people who really make liberals in the media spitting mad these days are religious conservatives and Tea Partiers from the suburbs (or Wasilla). The cowardly jihadists meanwhile get treated with kid-gloves because they happen to belong to a religion the media deems off-limits.
Putting that aside for the moment, what Bill O’Reilly said (and how he said it) was factually and actually legitimate. Everyone knows that not all, or even most, Muslims are terrorists. We get it. But it was Muslims that slaughtered more than 3,000 Americans in September of 2001, and did so because they had been taught at a mosque in Germany that murdering the infidels in the name of Islam was their duty to God. They were men who believed in the implementation of the totalitarian Islamic Sharia Law in all nations of the world. They were Muslims whose actions somewhere between 5 and 10% of the 1.2 billion people in their faith agree with and condone. They are the type of Muslims our brave troops have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for nearly a decade now.
To deny this is to deny reality.
But none of that matters to people like Joy Behar, and apparently, the folks who run National Public Radio. The tax-payer funded network fired political commentator Juan Williams, himself a life-long liberal and civil rights activist and author, for having the nerve to show up on The O’Reilly Factor Monday night and generally agree with what O’Reilly said on The View.
In the midst of candidly discussing the matter on-air, Williams commented: “Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous “
Pretty offensive stuff, right? I mean, where does this man being paid to offer his opinion get off uttering an opinion that nearly every American (of any skin color or religion) holds? I wonder if I can sue Mr. Williams for offending me both visually and audibly since I both saw and heard his beyond-the-pale remarks on television and radio?
On NPR’s website we read the following:
Late Wednesday night, NPR issued a statement praising Williams as a valuable contributor but saying it had given him notice that it is severing his contract. "His remarks on The O'Reilly Factor this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR," the statement read.
Williams' presence on the largely conservative and often contentious prime-time talk shows of Fox News has long been a sore point with NPR News executives.
It came as no shock to learn that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim version of the ACLU, had its right hand in the firing of Juan Williams. We now live in a society where anything that is anything less than pro-Muslim is deemed anti-Muslim. Partially due to the tribal, instinctual loyalty that many Muslims feel to their faith as a whole, and partially due to white American guilt for how other minority groups (i.e. blacks, native Americans, the Irish, etc.) have been treated in our nation’s past, groups like CAIR have become extraordinarily effective in silencing any critic of any aspect of the Muslim faith. Most Muslims can’t bring themselves to publicly critique the glaring problems within their faith and almost all Americans have been trained like lap-dogs to never broach the subject.
But what are we average, everyday, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens supposed to say and/or do in the face of such insanity? What ought to be our reaction when we hear the Times Square Bomber say at his own trial that, “the war with Muslims is just beginning”? Or when leaders of Islamic nations like Iran promise to wipe Israel and the United States off the map?
Even if only 5 to 10% of all Muslims agree with the irreconcilable wing of Islam, that is still anywhere from 50 to 100 million people who don’t mind terrorism. Some 30% of Muslims living freely in Great Britain say they would like to see Sharia Law implemented in their new homeland. They want the same dictatorial policies that cripple the development of the nations they have come from to govern (and effectively destroy) the ones that welcomed them to their shores and offered them freedom and economic opportunity.
This is a problem. There is no problem that is equivalent to it in size, scope, and importance among any of the other major religions of the world.
And how these realities fit into the controversy surrounding Bill O’Reilly’s appearance on The View is simple: if the facts of such important cultural, political, and economic issues cannot be freely discussed, then freedom is not long for such a society. If being nice has now become more important than being right, we are done-for. Two people involved in a friendship or marriage won’t last without honesty, so how do we expect a nation of 300 million people to be able to?
Americans can’t be the only ones who have to compromise when it comes to those American-Islamic relations that CAIR (and other such groups) insist they are intent on developing. We certainly need to hear from the “moderate” Muslims we all know exist (and perhaps even personally know), but we also need to hear from our own American liberals in the media that the practice of indulging every offended minority by firing or intimidating anyone who dares raise the emotional ire of Whoopee Goldberg is no longer standard practice.
Whoopee, however unintentionally, perfectly encapsulated the Left’s weakness in these matters when she alluded to her “emotions getting away” from her as being the reason she stormed off stage.
“These are volatile times…people only hear what they want to hear,” was one remark she made after the O’Reilly incident. But she is the one who only heard what she wanted to hear. She, like far too many on the Left, has decided that simply being considered tolerant is a higher priority than objective truth, freedom of speech, and good manners. She can’t deny the validity of what O’Reilly said; she can only attempt to bury it under a mountain of emotions and mis-directions.
We are at a cross-road as a nation in terms of our values and ideals, and which direction we head from here will depend largely upon a greater understanding of where each path might lead us.
I vote against whichever path the ladies of The View (minus my girl Elizabeth Hasselback) are keen on walking.
How Awkward Is This?
If you haven't seen this clip yet, you're in for a treat. One of the best conservative minds around is Jonah Goldberg (of National Review and American Enterprise Institute fame), and Mr. Goldberg was the editor on a recently-released compilation of essays by young conservative writers. Jonah and a handful of the contributors to the book were present for a panel discussion at Georgetown University two weeks ago. Two of the members on that panel had previously dated and had, shall we say, a "falling out."
Enjoy the fireworks!
And who says conservatives are boring?
Victor Davis Hanson on the “Post-Cold War World”
The Cold War was a reality that my generation (the under-30 crowd) knows very little about. The world used to look and feel very different when the Soviet Union was a fact. We only know the world as it has been since Michael Jordan started winning NBA championships in baggy shorts. History is so fundamental to a proper understanding of life in general, but politics and economics in particular. Professor and military historian Victor Davis Hanson gave a compelling 5-part interview this week on the current state of geo-political affairs in the world. Part 1, which I have posted from YouTube below, is specifically about the changing landscape in Europe.
For more from Dr. Hanson and this fantastic interview:
Prodigal Politics
By: R.J. Moeller
Luke 15:20 And the son arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him.
Something remarkable happened to me the other day while watching MSNBC, and I feel like it would be worth sharing with you. Let me begin by assuring you that the reason I was watching MSNBC in the first place had nothing to do with my being held for coercive interrogation by Jack Bauer-type federal agents who discovered that after a few hours of Rachel Maddow I would be willing to take responsibility for both the Great Chicago Fire and JFK assassination.
I was watching MSNBC because I know my Sun-Tzu and he taught me to “know thy enemy.”
Anyway, I was taking in an episode of Hardball with Chris Matthews when all of the sudden and out of nowhere, Matthews – one of my least favorite political commentators on the planet – said something extraordinary that rocked my political world. In analyzing a speech President Obama had just given about tax-cuts, the man who claimed to “get a chill” down his leg whenever he heard Barack Obama speak in public, had to this to say about his beloved president:
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: I have one small tweak to make to what the president said today — he should stop saying that giving people tax cuts is giving people money. It`s their money! A tax cut is when the government doesn`t take our money. It`s an important distinction.
He talked today, for example, about people getting a check from the government in the form of a tax cut. That`s not the way it works. If tax rates are kept lower, it`s a matter of the check going to the government being smaller. Again, it`s an important distinction.
I was floored upon hearing this. My jaw dropped, my arms raised above my head, and out of my mouth came these words: “Sweet Lord, he’s seen the light.”
I recognize that Matthews’ words may not seem like much to the casual observer, but it was a wonderful moment of clarity on a show not particularly known for it. For the first time in a long time – maybe ever – I actually hoped that other people were watching MSNBC.
Not only is what Matthews said an important distinction in fact; it is the distinction between Right and Left in this country. When you boil all of the Tea Party vs. Union Rally, Palin vs. Pelosi ideological battles down, the Left believes that the government is almost always the solution (and therefore needs more and more of our money) and the Right knows that the government is nearly always the problem (and therefore needs to focus like a laser-beam on meeting its Constitutionally-prescribed duties before venturing off into the production of Broadway musicals and space-alien exploration).
The president believes a tax-cut is when you have money taken out of your paycheck by Uncle Sam, where it is pilfered and laundered by largely incompetent, ineffective, and ethically-challenged congressional committees and federal bureaucracies, and then a rebate check is sent back to you (and millions of people who didn’t pay any taxes) months later.
I, and apparently now Chris Matthews, believe that a tax-cut involves the reduction of our middle-men friends in Washington D.C. A tax-cut is keeping the money you earned. It’s a self-made stimulus.
The difference between these two positions is the distance between the correct answer on a quiz and the wrong one.
But it wasn’t simply the economic truism Matthews shared with his audience that got me so excited. As I thought about it more, what struck me most was the deep, genuine respect and admiration I felt at that moment for someone like Matthews, who is diametrically opposed to my positions on the issues, for merely being intellectually honest enough to clarify an important point like this. I was instantly ready to look past all of the ideological differences and embrace him as a brother-in-arms.
I literally wanted to give the man a high-five and “Atta boy” to go with it.
But how could this be? How could one such seemingly insignificant paragraph of words from the lips of an ideological enemy invoke in me such a pleasant, welcoming emotional reaction? How could someone getting one thing right out of a thousand things wrong wash away the fortified walls of scorn and contempt in my heart like a flood?
It was then, sitting in my living room on an otherwise typical day, that perhaps for the first time in my life I caught a real glimpse of what the biblical story of the Prodigal Son is all about.
As most of you already know, the parable of Christ that I am referring to involved a wealthy man whose wild and selfish son disrespectfully demands his inheritance before his dad is even dead. The son quickly squanders the money his kind father has given to him, and after hitting emotional and financial “rock-bottom,” decides that he will return to his father and ask that he be made a servant (as he now understandably feels unworthy to be given the same position in the family).
In Luke 15 we read of the father’s response:
21"The son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.[b]'
22"But the father said to his servants, 'Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let's have a feast and celebrate. 24For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' So they began to celebrate.
The father hadn’t naively forgotten all of the things his rebellious son had done since they last saw one another. The father wasn’t trying out some new-age parenting tactic he saw on Dr. Phil. He simply loved his son more than he hated what his son had done.
I was excited to hear Chris Matthews speak the truth, despite all of the times he had spouted things I know to be incorrect, because if someone can speak the truth once, there is hope that they can speak it again (and again).
The truth, once realized and understood, is more powerful and important than all the lies in the world. I believe that one moment, one act can change a life for the simple fact that I believe that one act saved the world from its sins.
I fully appreciate the differences between my brief flirtation with feeling fond of Chris Matthews, and the biblical account of the Prodigal Son. And I certainly do not intend to equate myself with the father in the story and Chris with the son. It’s weird how certain circumstances or events can unpredictably open your heart and mind to revelations. Usually these moments of clarity occur while in the midst of some trying incident, or while out among the wonders of God’s created beauty in nature.
But sometimes they occur while you are watching a cable news network you loathe like the plague.
I want to be the type of conservative (and more importantly, person) who is more concerned with getting it right, than with who got it right. If a liberal Democrat such as Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT), who was his party’s vice presidential nominee in 2000, is willing to announce publicly that he supports the military efforts in the War on Terror, I want to be there to shake his hand and welcome him to the ranks (even if only on that one issue). If President Obama says something regarding education or energy policy that I agree with in a State of the Union Address, I want to have the humility and integrity to acknowledge that and commend him for it.
How one reacts when their enemies disagree with them says something about them. How one reacts when their enemies agree with them says everything. Anyone can be mad at an enemy when in the heat of battle, but it takes a truly wise, genuinely humble individual to be kind to that enemy should they ever switch sides.
My encounter with Chris Matthews has caused me to once again take a self-inventory of my motivations for being involved (in an admittedly small way) with offering up commentary on the cultural, political landscape of this great nation. Do I really want people to see the validity of the tenets of my worldview, or do I just want to be heard? Do I care if hearts and minds are changed in the name of my (religious) conservative convictions, or is it all a ruse to get praise from like-minded readers? Am I happy when fellow conservatives are successful in getting our message out, or do I selfishly insist on only finding joy in the furthering of my own name?
If we on the Right, especially the “Religious Right,” fail to remember that, but for the grace of God, we would be as lost as Michael Moore, or as confused as Rachel Maddow, or as incorrect about economics as Barney Frank, then our brand of politics will perpetually be as petty and pedantic as that of the far-Left’s.
RJ's Social Network
Read RJ’s Columns/Blogs
What is “Mere Conservatism”?
Video of RJ
Rudy the Dog barks at "change"
Books You Need to Read
Wall Street Journal
Blogroll
- Acton Power Blog
- Big Government
- Big Hollywood
- Black and Red
- Conservative Daily Blog
- Dad's blog
- Dennis Prager (The Master)
- Desiring God (John Piper)
- Doug Giles (Clash Radio)
- Education News
- Hugh Hewitt
- Jihad Watch
- Mere Orthodoxy
- Michael Medved
- Milton Friedman
- Mom's blog
- My LOST blog
- Only Good Movies
- Patriots Corner
- Remnant Culture
- Shot In The Dark
- Stiletto Blog
- Subscribe via RSS
- The Straight Hype
- Twitter Me
Columnists You Need to Read
- Ann Coulter
- Charles Krauthammer
- Christopher Hitchens
- George Will
- Jonah Goldberg
- Karl Rove
- Mark Steyn
- Marvin Olasky
- Thomas Sowell
- Tony Blankley
- Walter E. Williams
Music/Entertainment
News/Politics
- Drudge Report
- Fact Check
- Fox News
- Hot Air
- Jerusalem Post
- National Review
- Real Clear Politics
- Townhall
- Washington Times
- Weekly Standard
A View From The Left: Maureen Dowd
New York Times columnist Marueen Dowd went to Nevada for the Harry Reid-Sharron Angle debate last week, and registered this report from The Silver State:
Keep in mind: Dowd isn't some no-name blogger. She is one of the most popular and well-known liberal political commentators in the country. While it is no surprise that she holds the female GOP candidates gracing the field in 2010 in utter contempt, I wonder...what do all the hand-wringing "moderates" and "independents" who decry anything even semi-outlandish that Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck might say have to say about such mean-spirited rhetoric?
We only ever hear people complain about the "rancor" in our political discourse when it is a conservative involved.
She concludes her piece as follows:
I love the solidarity a feminist like Ms. Dowd shows with her Republican "sista's". In the same way Sarah Palin was left out to dry by the bra-burning crowd, Dowd, with commentary like this, exposes that feminism was always more about liberalism than egalitarian sisterhood of the traveling capri pants.
When Hillary Clinton is shrill and combative, she is praised for being able to "hang with the boys" in a "man's world." When prominent Republican women are gutsy and aggressive, they are derided by the mainstream media for being shrill and crazy.
I don't disagree with liberals that someone like Christine O'Donnell in Delaware is not the world's best choice for Senator, or that Sharron Angle might have come off as pushy in her debate with Senator Reid, but what tone-deaf pundits like Maureen Dowd seem to be intent on missing is that Americans are sick to death of anyone peddling more spending and higher taxes and increased regulation on business. People want jobs. They want to keep more of their hard-earned money. They want the opposite of Harry Reid.
One last point. I will begin to take Maureen Dowd seriously when she has something to say about this guy:
Dowd can't bring herself to critique her own side and therefore loses credibility (and an ability to appreciate reality).