. . .Human Events Online.I don’t think Human Events Online gets all the credit it deserves. Sure, Renew America has a larger stable of loony columnists, NewsMax has more ads designed to appeal to 98-pound weaklings who can’t attract women and who also want to get rich through war profiteering, and WorldNetDaily is selling a greater number of books about how sex-fiend fallen angels built the Washington Monument — but HEO offers a steady supply of wingnuttery on days when everything else palls.Yes, on a day when I am sleep-deprived, out of sorts, and out of ideas (which could be pretty much any day, but today qualifies in spades), HEO can be counted on to provide that all-important low-hanging fruit. (We used to be able to rely on Pastor Swank for our low-hanging fruit supply, but he apparently went to out to wrestle Satan in the desert over the 4th of July holiday, and hasn’t been seen since.)So, let’s see what HEO offers today:
Democrats Use Dead Americans as Campaign Props, by Michael Reagan – Where’s the outrage over DCCC’s commerical?
It’s probably hidden behind the stuffed, mounted body of Ronald Reagan that Micheal is using to prop himself up.
New York Times: Better Dead Than Read, by Ann Coulter –Doing everything in its power to help the terrorists win
In this week’s column, an increasingly marginal Ann tries to reclaim her spot as the nation’s most vile woman from Melanie Morgan by calling for the editor of the NYT to not just be gassed, but also shot, hung, drawn-and-quartered, and his head placed on a spike, and his entrails fed to dogs. However, nobody cares, and without public outrage to feed her, she starves to death like that Jack the Ripper entity on the old “Star Trek” did when denied the strong emotions that fed him.
Bush’s 2003 Tax Cuts: Wildly Successful by Mike Franc – Will liberals acknowledge the power of tax relief?
Yes, will liberals ever acknowledge the fact that costly wars combined with tax cuts for the wealthy make good economic sense?
Anyway, as great as all these pieces sound, I think we should head over to “VIEW FROM THE RIGHT,” and check out today’s featured opinion columns.
First up is Obama Defines Christianity to Include Leftist Ideals, by Janice Shaw Crouse And I have to say, it’s mighty tasty.
In it, Janice “Mad at My Mop” explains that Barack Obama’s call for the Left to embrace faith is actually a put-down of the Right, because Obama’s definition of Christianity includes such suspect concepts as helping the poor, accepting others, and loving one’s neighbor
The left is especially adept at wrapping a cloak of moral certainty around their controversial priorities: poverty, economic parity, the environment, social justice and gay marriage.
Yeah, what kind of “Christianity” would consider things like fighting poverty and working for social justice to be a priority?
Hardly anyone questions Obama’s faith, but following the axiom that “actions speak louder than words,” we must point out that he has a 100-percent pro-choice voting record, and he argues that Christianity embraces “universal values” such as “inclusiveness and diversity” –– both code words for a liberal agenda.
And hardly anyone question’s Jesus Christ’s faith, but we must point out that once told a rich young man that he should sell all he owned and give it to the poor – which is code for Marxism!!! Also, the apostle Paul once preached inclusiveness and diversity to the non-Jewish followers of Christ, saying that they were no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow saints, and citizens of the household of God. That sounds like part of the liberal agenda to me!
But back to Janice. (And by the way, when she said that hardly anyone questions Obama’s faith, she meant, hardly anyone but her.)
His actual words, too, can be suspect. For instance, in describing his faith he once noted, “There are many paths to the same place.” He believes in a “higher power” but admits that he grew up going to church only on Easter because his mother was a “lonely witness for secular humanism” who believed that “rational, thoughtful people could shape their own destiny.” He is a follower not just of Christianity, he declares, but also “of our civic religion.” He claimed a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” that began nearly 20 years ago. He denied that it was a conversion experience; instead, he said it raised as many questions as it answered for him.
So, yeah, his faith is pretty questionable, in that it doesn’t meet with Janice’s complete approval, God having given her the charge to evaluate such things for Him.
At a recent “Take Back America” conference, Obama titled his talk, “The End of Small Politics” and described it as an attempt to “reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic society.” He proclaimed a desire for a “deeper, fuller conversation about religion in this country.” Yet, he began the discussion with long paragraphs of blatant political criticism of the current administration and Congress. He framed his whole argument as a counter to the “2,500 flag-draped coffins that have arrived at Dover Air Force Base.” He declared that the president, while he “loves this country,” has brought a “smallness of politics” and produced a Washington that “hasn’t been willing to make us believe again.”
I think that what Janice is trying to say is that Obama is a hypocrite for saying he wants a deeper, fuller conversation about religion, and then failing to acknowledge that George Bush is God’s only other begotten son.
But anyway, Janice goes on to say that Obama “comes across as a man of conviction and integrity” who is able to grab the spotlight while appearing humble and deferential to his betters, so he may get to be Hillary’s running mate in 2006 – proving that he indeed the antichrist.
Now, let’s briefly check out her piece from last week, “Why Are More Americans Lonely Today?”
Rarely has news from an academic paper struck such a responsive nerve with the general public. The National Science Foundation (NSF) reported in its General Social Survey that unprecedented numbers of Americans are lonely.
So, who or what do you think that Janice blames for this?
- Working women
- The 1960’s
- Secular Humanists
- Television
- Suburbia
- Self-reliance and independence
The correct answer is all of the above. However, if you wrote ”slutty women who put out before marriage,” that would be acceptable also.
Now, on to our second feature column for today, Targeting Dodge Ball and Other Inanities by David Limbaugh (And yeah, David has a lot of nerve to be talking about inanities).
There was a time in this country when public school teachers could focus on teaching the basics. Today, unfortunately, they are all too often preoccupied with accommodating the silly concerns pervading our society.
To what concerns do I refer? Oh, those such as banning the innocent children’s games of dodge ball, cops and robbers, musical chairs, steal the bacon and tag.
There is an innocent children’s game called “Steal the bacon”? In what hillybilly hellhole is this played? (Because my puppy Flossie wants to go there, since stealing meat products is her most favorite game of all, although its not all that innocent when she does it, despite those puppy dog eyes.)
But let’s hear more about David’s childhood, a golden time when he joined in such innocent pastimes as “steal the bacon,” “steal the pig’s feet and calves liver,” and “steal the Viagra from brother Rush.”
Call me nostalgic for my childhood if you wish — for the days of Beaver Cleaver and Andy Griffith — but I long for the times when cockamamie ideas didn’t pass for reasonable. Bring back the days when kids were allowed to have some harmless fun without certain hair-brained, social engineers coming unglued.
Yeah! Bring back the days of Beaver! And while you’re at it, bring back the Victorian era, when kids were allowed to clean chimneys and work in mines without any damned social engineers whining about child labor laws and OSHA regulations!
For the record, we played the game all the time in Coach Russell’s PE class at Franklin school, and I can’t remember a single injury, even among the girls who played with us boys. Sure, when the ball hit you it stung slightly, but that was part of the fun of it.
If I were an evil person (which I’m not), I’d lead a call for people to pelt David with dodge balls, since he seems to be into masochism.
So, under the pretense that dodge ball is too dangerous, there is an increasing trend among school districts across the country to ban it. But this seems more of a convenient excuse, as does the objection that the game provides a poor cardiovascular workout.
So, since dodge ball isn’t dangerous (because it’s fun to get smacked in the face with a hard rubber ball), and nobody actually cares about kids cardiovascular health, what is the REAL reason that school districts are banning the game?
According to David, it’s because namby-pamby liberals think that the game can hurt kids feelings, and can be used by bullies to target other kids. David explains why people who thinks this way are so very, very stupid:
These ideas are ludicrous on their face, but there is obviously something else at work here. While the secularists are paranoid lest any vestige of Western values remain in the classroom, they are eager to impose their own values at school.
They tell us they want to promote harmony, community and inclusiveness when what they really want is to push the notion of pacifism and discourage our traditions of competition and rugged individualism.
David is right – if we want Western civilization to endure, we must FORCE kids to play dodge ball, so that they can internalize our Western traditions of competition, rugged individualism, and getting the crap beat out of them. And, since civilization depends on it, maybe I WILL lead a call to smack David with rubber balls.
But, after all that, I’m not aware of Fox News making a big deal out of some school district’s recent banning of the sacred sport of “Steal the Bacon” (and usually O’Reilly is right on top of these kinds of things). What gives?
This column was originally published in April 2002.
Oh, I see. David is on vacation this week, so they are using an old column that is noteworthy for its timeless wisdom. But I find it highly suspect that David and Pastor Swank are MIA at the same time. Are they out sharing stories of the halcyon days of childnood and playing “steal the bacon” together, or could the answer be something more sinister? Only time will tell . . . .