The Pendragon's Hall

The whole fiasco about 9/11 has me sick. Not because Congress wants to know why it happened and how to prevent it, but because they do know and they continue to use this whole facade to undermine the administration and defeat Bush in the Fall. Bush has been rubbing their noses into what the failures of Clinton were that led to 9/11 and how to avoid it in the future for the last three years and they choose to ignore it. You'd think, since there has been no repeat terrorist attack on American soil, even the dimwitted Senator Kennedy would get the idea--"Duh, maybe da ting to do is beef up da military and da intelligence community and den we'll know when dey are trying someting. Ya tink?" No, you don't. That's your problem. The Democrats are hoping that by tying up the Bush administration, keeping them on their toes defending the failures of the Clinton administration--yes, that's right, the phony president who played politics with his country's security and monopoly with taxpayer dollars--that they won't have time to prevent another terrorist attack and give Kerry a pseudo-valid issue to raise in the election this November. Right now terrorists are the Democrats' best friends because Bush is in the hot seat and nobody will ask, in the event of another attack, why the President's team was so tied up in technicalities they couldn't defend the country. It's a brilliant strategy--is it working? We'll see.

It never ceases to amaze me: the blatant hypocrisy of the courts. In order to avoid violating "patient's privacy rights" the courts are allowing hospitals to refuse sub-poenas from the Justice Department to look over abortion records to use in upcoming court cases involving the ban on partial-birth abortion. One could wish they were this picky about the right of the President to privacy over his military records. But, no! Because Bush has no right to privacy--of course not. He's a Republican. But people who wish to blow their children's brains out when they are half-born must be protected at all costs. The Justice Department has already requested that the hospitals eliminate any names so that privacy will not be invaded. The problem being, of course, not one of privacy but one of proof. Were these records to fall into the hands of a horrible pro-life Attorney-General, public opinion might swing completely in favor the ban and we wouldn't want that happen. Infanticide is fun; let's do it more often. I bet justices and Democrats wish their mother had done it to them. Right. Abortion's great as long as you're not the one aborted. It's about time this administration and people in general began to ignore court rulings. The justices have gone nuts; liberals never bother obeying the law (the main reason a liberal President never has and never will be assassinated--only the enemies of conservative Presidents would stoop to such means)--why should we?

It shouldn't be surprising anymore, after all, who in the NYT editorial staff really cares about facts, nevertheless Kenneth C. Davis' atheistic piece today should take the cake. "Somewhere," he claims, "the spirits of Jefferson, Madison and Franklin may be smiling" about the Supreme Court case on striking God from the Pledge of Allegiance. Leaving aside the stupidity of an atheist saying "spirits" of anyone exist anywhere, Davis goes on to make a loony, but oft-hear argument that leading Founding Fathers were not only non-Christian but anti-Christian. His examples are Washington, Jefferson and Franklin.

Excuse me: that's three out of 95. And you're only batting 2 for 3 anyway. No historian I know of claims Jefferson and Franklin were Christian, although Jefferson himself insists he was. Washington you're dead wrong on. A look at his prayerbook, which he used regularly, is in fact astonishingly Christian (despite being Episcopalian) and these was just one of the prayers he prayed: Oh, most glorious God, I acknowledge and confess my faults in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. Correct my thoughts, my words, and work. Daily frame me more and more into the likeness of Thy Son, Jesus Christ. In His Name, we pray, Amen. As for the charge of freemasonry, yes he was a freemason. So were the Wesley brothers. Let's get an argument started that they were really Deists. But since we all know what stellar historians NYT editors are, we'll ignore this for now. One of my friends said in an argument yesterday, "Prove me wrong and I'll call you a liar." Does seem to be a favorite tactic.

Ok, so having agreed that he has Franklin and Jefferson pegged (although the inscription of Franklin's grave would suggest he was not exactly a straightfoward Deist), this leaves 92 Founding Fathers he has not accounted for but has lumped together with the Deists. This includes 27 ordained ministers, including the author of America's first hymnal. It also includes the PA Supreme Court justice who urged prisoners at the bar to repent and find "forgiveness of your sins through the shed blood of Jesus Christ." It includes the author of our national anthem who was also chairman of the National Sunday School Board. It includes the members of Congress who voted in 1792 to publish Bibles for distribution in our public school system. It includes Patrick Henry who said, "Give me liberty or give me death," but also that, "Our great country was founded not by religionists but by Christians; not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ." It includes his erroneous choice of James Madison, who believed "we have staked the future upon the capacity of each and every one of us to govern ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God." Whoops. We just removed those, didn't we? Earlier in life, Madison would urge a friend, expected to long outlive him, "Do not neglect...to have (your) name enrolled in the annals of Heaven." Deists didn't believe in heaven, for his information. It includes Samuel Adams, who declared, "I depend upon the shed blood of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of my sins." And in case he thinks of using John Adams' misquoted statement, "This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it," I would suggest he do what he claims he wants us to do (although I really doubt he does) and read the whole story. Adams and Jefferson were talking about religion and Adams admitted that "twenty times in the course of my late reading, I have been on the verge of exclaiming, 'This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it.'" Typical Enlightenment stuff. But let's go on: Adams continued, "But without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company--I mean hell!" Yeah, sounds like a Deist all right. The ability of pseudo-historians in papers that can't even get daily events right to pick and choose is truly amazing.

Do I deny the influence of the Enlightenment on our Founders? Not at all, particularly on Jefferson, who I am quite happy was in France during the Constitution's writing, so that he had no influence on it whatsoever. But rather than choose three people, and misrepresent one, if Davis is going to pursue this phony argument, he should have to produce evidence on more people. Would our Founders be smiling? I doubt it. Franklin told Thomas Paine, when urged to support a ban on all public religion that America needed religion to be moral. Even Jefferson believed this.

Let's talk history, turkey!

Robert E. Lee once said, "History teaches us to hope." That it does. I've been watching a documentary on Ronald Reagan the past few days. In 1983 (which I don't remember because that was the year I was born), Reagan was dealing with plummeting numbers and massive protests. Nobody would guess that in 1984, just one short year later, he would win a 49-state landslide. Today George W. Bush has higher approval ratings than the mid-40s that Reagan was dealing with, but he also has many of the same problems: short-sighted liberals and Europeans claiming he can never do it. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Kerry may find himself like Mondale--carrying only his home state. I hope he does. I think he will.

Give me a break! Another administration official, Richard Clarke, is accusing Bush of misleading the nation into war with Iraq by establishing immediately an inquiry into whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11. This is supposedly proof, to be discussed in a book released tomorrow, that Bush just wanted war in Iraq.

The really amazing thing is the length to which liberals will go to discredit the administration. It may interest them to know that Israeli intelligence in the first days after the attack labeled the Iraqi dictator as being behind the attacks. It seems only natural for Bush to want to know if this was true. Nobody on their own would have guessed the Taliban in Afghanistan would be behind this dastardly attack. And Saddam's history of assassination and terrorism would certainly lead one to believe him the more likely villain of the opera. Furthermore, the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection should be well documented by now. Why would Al-Qaeda care what happened to the secular dictator of Iraq unless there was? And more lucrative proof was discovered in Bagdhad during the War.

But proof is not an issue with liberals. Their ideology blinds them to the truth. Hopefully, the average American will be smarter than they are. It won't be hard. All people like Clarke do is prove that animosity dies hard. Incompetents dismissed from their posts do all that spite and envy can do to bring down the government they are supposed to protect. The press release from CNN tried to build sympathy for Clarke, saying he was dismissed by Bush "after 30 years in government". I don't see how that's exactly a glowing recommendation considering that period included the stellar presidencies of Ford, Carter and Clinton, none of whom were very good on national security. Perhaps Clarke would have preferred we went to war with Iraq to keep Bush's name out of the papers in connection with a female secretary. That's certainly what the media would prefer. Wars like that seldom have question raised about their justice. It's only when the goal is justice that people wonder.

I thought better of the Spanish. Having endured the horror of a terrorist attack on their own soil, something we also endured if anyone remembers, almost three years ago, they have apparently decided to indulge the liberal practice of pre-emptive surrender by withdrawing from the war on terror. America must stand alone, I guess, in being goaded by attacks into defending itself. But it won't matter. Al Qaeda wished to force Spain's withdrawal from the war. They have. This should lay to rest any lingering doubts that there is a link between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. The Spanish people have chosen the way of Neville Chamberlain...if they do not watch out, they will choose the way of occupied France. That will teach them the real meaning of "fear."

The real Saint Patrick, not the caricature:

In this fateful hour
I place all Heaven with its power
and the sun with its brightness
and the snow with its whiteness
and the fire with all the strength it hath
and the lightning with its rapid wrath
and the winds with their swiftness along their path
and the sea with its deepness
and the rocks with their steepness
and the earth with its starkness
all these I place by God's almighty help and grace
between myself and the powers of darkness

Nothing in this about snakes or shamrocks. Patrick was a real man of God who stood firm in a very dark hour, an hour not unlike our own. His life changed the course of western civilization and Christianity was passed on from the aging Roman Empire to the barbarian tribes of Ireland. Remember on this Saint Patrick's Day, the true meaning of what we celebrate.

Who is Jesus? The Gospel of John proclaims Him to be the living Word who "became flesh and dwelt among us" (1:14) and "we beheld His glory". It has long been a point of contention between both PC and non-PC Christians as to how or whether to portray this. Some decry dramatic adaptations of His life altogether as something approaching idolatry. Others fear the possibility of a non-Christian portraying Him incorrectly.

But among Christians there has been a great debate over the physical appearance of Jesus. Since the days of "King of Kings" and "Jesus of Nazareth" where Jesus is portrayed as light-skinned and blue-eyed, the PC camp and some on the other side of the aisle criticize this as making Jesus a white man, which He certainly was not. Bible-trusting missionaries put on Passion plays using members of the culture they are trying to reach. It is all part of Jesus being "one of us"--a missionary to each culture.

But Jesus did not become an African either. He became a Palestinian Jew. Yes, His message can and should be translated into every language and culture on this planet. If doing "Passion Plays" using natives can do this, by all means, do that. But those who portray Jesus as something different than the people they are trying to reach may have a point as well. The whole message of the Gospel is that Jesus had no share in our curse, in our death, but took these things upon Himself for no other reason than His great love. We hear a lot about how Africans and Koreans will see Jesus as "the white man's God" and the charge has merit. He certainly is not only that. But He was not just a Palestinian peasant either. He was the Son of God. He was part of one culture but also something apart. The great mystery is why someone different, with no obligation, save love, to us should endure what He endured willingly. Perhaps it might be just as powerful for an African audience, provided it is explained, to see a "white" man dying for them as to see one of their own number on that cross. And yes, perhaps it would be powerful for a Caucasian audience to see a movie in which Jesus looks like an Arab or the Jew He actually was to die for them. The message of the Gospel: He was not one of us, but He took our place nevertheless. Just a thought.

What else? A Cleveland snowplow driver is now suspended pending an investigation of an incident in which he supposedly painted "traitor" on his plow in reference to President Bush's recent trip to Ohio.

Details are not yet forthcoming but when they are, I'd be willing to bet how it will go. He will portrayed as a civil liberties hero whose badmouthing of the President has landed him in hotwater. There will be continual references to supposed 1st amendment violations. The media will point out similarities between Bush and Hitler.

How to deal with the hype: Notice that while an Ohio company privately decided to discipline an employee for what it appears to be an anti-Bush attack, when the mainstream media does so on purpose, Bush himself takes no action. If this were really Nazi Germany it would be the administration itself and not the company who would be taking the action. Most cartoonists would be in prison (which might not be a bad idea, come to think of it). The whole editorial board of the NYT would be deported to Russia. And almost the entire federal bench would be emptied...but death row would be full. As attractive as this seems, the truth is, we still live in a liberal democracy. Bush neither can nor will take action against those who decry and doubt. But as in the War of 1812, East and West coast liberals are becoming increasingly close to treason in their dissent. They'd better be glad we have a Republican president. There were some who spoke out against the abuse of power by the Clintons...but they're dead now.

This may not come as news to some of you but I, and any of you who support President Bush, are apparently "the most lying, crooked group" Senator Kerry has ever seen. Now how a member of the Democratic party has the guts to say something like that, given his own and others' track record on the truth is another matter altogether. But this is how the Kerry campaign apparently is going to go. He says whatever he wants to blacken the reputation of the leader of the free world and any of his supporters and when they return fire on the actual issues, he's going to break down and weep. If you ever wanted to prove the thesis that Democrats are about as thin-skinned as they come, look no further. Actually, Howard Dean was even worse, comparing himself to feeling "Job-like" (a book he astutely remembered as being in the New Testament) because of the attacks of Dick Gephardt, John Edwards and Kerry. While President Bush displays remarkable restraint in only pressing the issues and discussing the record (oh, editorial side note: why is it a personal slam to point out a presidential candidate's past positions on important issues?) the Democrats feel no such ethical pull. Yes, I rip the Democrats a lot. And they should have to get used to it. Since the liberal coup-d'etat post WW2, no major Democratic candidate has ever had to put up with half the crap Republican candidates have to put up with from the media. Republicans, at least conservative ones, are subjected to the most base and personal of attacks--including references to their looks, their intelligence, their families, their personal lives, and their personal service to their country. And they are expected to take it! But neither Kerry nor Edwards nor Dean nor any Democratic candidate was ever subjected to such scrutiny. When the Drudge Report dredged up the probably-erroneous tale of Kerry's affair with an intern, the media dutifully ignored it till their champion declared it an outright lie. Would they have done so for Bush? And why can we not point to Kerry's record to show the clear choice the American people have? It's because liberals cannot stand the two-party system or anything resembling fairness. They might do better in Putin's Russia...there too there is only a facade of a two-party system.

A question that was raised here at Have-It a few nights ago was whether Christians are concerned that Bush must needs label himself "a compassionate conservative." Shouldn't compassion just be thought of naturally as a Christian trait? Everyone asked admitted they were a little worried about this.

I'm not. A look at what the left and right are espousing in this conflict should lay to rest the myth of "compassionate liberalism." There may have been a time for the stereotype of the coldly calculating conservative and the open, embracing liberal but they are no longer valid...and this before George Bush's so-called "compassionate conservatism." Liberals espouse continuing murder of the unborn, even through the gruesome practice of blowing their brains out when half born, of condemning millions of couples to live within the destructive lifestyle of homosexuality all in the name of acceptance and tolerance, of sticking it to families of young children by lowering dependence child tax credits and keeping the penalty on marriage in place, of lowering moral standards so as not to offend anyone, of continuing to throw money at a bankrupt education system that is failing in its goal of teaching our children, forcing parents to keep their children in failing schools by opposing the vouchers' program, of discrediting the US, the one nation in the world with the military and economic power to achieve justice, and turning all things over to a useless UN, thus condemning millions to live under the tyranny of men like Saddam Hussein who would still be in power if the left had its way.

The conservatives? They believe in penalties for murderers not babies; they believe homosexuals should be helped because they can change and because they are wrong; they believe young families should be financially helped by returning some of their own money, they believe moral standards to be important, they want our schools to be top-notch and parents to have choices so their children can get a quality education, they want the US to intervene in the world to achieve justice and peace with honor, and they do not trust the weak and wily United Nations, but believe in freedom and justice for all.

You tell me: who is more compassionate?

"Alas that I spoke the truth, Gandalf! For without you, there is no hope." --Aragorn, from "The Fellowship of the Ring."

No hope. This would seem to be the cry of doom and gloom conservatives and pandering liberals alike. There is no hope for this marriage amendment. Therefore, it is useless to fight for it. A liberal professor on this campus and Cal Thomas have both said so. The very fact that the amendment is being discussed means the battle is lost. Therefore, we must not fight for this thing. Or in liberal terminology, which says one thing and means another, the constitution is not the place to protect marriage and declare its sanctity.

First of all, what can government do? According to Saint Paul, government is an institution of God, "to do good and punish evil." In today's liberalspeak, they define that as "an institution established by the Supreme Court to house the homeless and ignore evil." If a government is not actively punishing evil and promoting good, it has ceased to have a reason to exist. It is illegitimate. Pseudo-conservatives may try to say they're not in favor of government taking control but this is what government must do when the people themselves are out of line. The ideal scenario would be for the people to be controlled by the spirit of God and the law of God. This is what James Madison had in mind when he said we did not stake the future of American civilization on the power of government. What these "conservatives" are actually advocating is anarchy and it plays right into the hands of the liberals, who like nothing better.

Secondly, what if the battle is lost? I don't recollect anything in Scripture about only fighting when you know you can win. We are called to live holy and blameless lives. Period. We are called to fight injustice in this world. Does it matter if there is any hope for victory? No. God did not call us to be successful but to be obedient. Perhaps the battle is lost. Perhaps the soul of America and all other western nations is gone. It does not matter. It is the right thing to do and that is the only question to ask.

What in the world if George Bush up to? This is the burning question most seem to be asking. It is a good one. Someone commented to me the other day that while liberals are united in their hatred of Bush, conservatives are uncertain and divided. This may be true, and if it is, it could spell trouble for his re-election chances. I believe the President is taking a huge gamble here--staking his Presidency on the belief that the majority of Americans will be reasonable and listen to his defense of his administration. I hope he is right. It will do no good to strengthen his conservative base anymore than it is, simply because it will be called "pandering." While Kerry flip-flops on important issues, Bush's declaration of principles is seen as political maneuvering. It's the usual double-standard. But Bush had better be right. I am willing to support him through thick and thin regardless of what I think of his education plan or medicare reform because I am a Bush Republican and believe he has done wonders with very little help from either Democrats at home or terrorists abroad and the two are very closely linked. How many other Republicans are willing to say that? Democrats have no trouble uniting--their "platforms" are just sound bites to pander to special interest groups--whoever is chosen is all right with them. That's why John Edwards can blast Kerry in the primaries and then endorse him gushingly when it comes to his concession and why Pat Buchanan can't lose gracefully. If you don't believe what you say, it doesn't matter if the nominee doesn't say it. If you actually have convictions, as Pat Buchanan does, it's hard to unite behind someone you believe is wrong. Granted, I think Buchanan is extreme and I certainly wouldn't vote for him, but you have to admire the fact that he does believe what he's saying.

That said, I believe Bush's gamble may be the correct one, despite what the polls are saying. Mainstream America is not likely to find John F-ing Kerry (with his indecent language on the war in Iraq) very appealing, regardless of who he chooses as his running mate for the Fall. But with Bush having taken away medicare and education (albeit by becoming, for a moment, a liberal) and with his strong record in the war on terror, the American public will probably listen with care and choose the man who is keeping us safe.

Well, it has been a long week. All seems quiet on the western front...at least relatively. Kerry is doing a fine job making a fool out of himself and sparing me the trouble.

Last night I attended a debate here at Have-It University about the upcoming presidential election and was astounded to hear two of the professors, professed Christians, claim that abortion is a "red-herring" issue to blue the "real issue" of the economy. One is led to wonder how they reconcile that position with the teaching of Romans 13 that clearly teaches that government is "an instrument of God to do good and punish evil." Instead these liberal "Christians" would stand that doctrine on its head and claim the government is an institution established to house the poor and ignore evil. One claimed that the death penalty was also something he opposed, in addition to being "personally opposed" (which means nothing) to abortion. The difference between the truly pro-life and the anti-death penalty crowd is as follows: They believe in killing the innocent and letting the guilty live. I believe in killing the guilty and letting the innocent live. It is disgraceful the way so-called Christians parade themselves as being for justice and yet pervert the doctrine of justice into a weak excuse for the real thing. Hopefully those in attendence last night saw it clearly.

And...it's Kerry! What did I tell you? Edwards wasn't going anywhere, anymore than Dean was after stumbling in Iowa. Fascinatingly enough, Dean did finally win a state--his own--after dropping out. What the good people of Vermont were thinking I've no idea but it was a touching public display of affection to their old governor. I must say I sobbed when I read it. The burning question in my mind: Why the devil couldn't it have been New Hampshire? Not that I wanted Dean to win although it would have been McGovern all over again. But a little competition would have been nice. Ah well. Bush's campaign is beginning it's ads tomorrow. I have previewed these ads and they are very positive. Bush is running on his record.

Oh, and by the way, in case anyone is interested, another wonderful thing Bill Klinton did while in office was to put Aristide in power in Haiti. Good going, Bill!

It is a continual source of amusement to me how Bush gets blamed for everything. Really, the only thing a Republican president can do is die to satisfy the media. It's apparently his fault our economy hit a recession; his fault that 9/11 happened; his fault that weak UN resolutions didn't convince Saddam like they convinced the government of Libya that to resist the US means death. You know, interestingly enough, Clinton is praised for everything that happened during his reign. The great economy, the relative "peace" (whatever that means). All that was his doing. No mention of the great job Ronald Reagan did setting up for that. But what did Clinton really accomplish? Well, if he had focused on doing his job instead of adulterous lust affairs with White House interns, Bush would have had a really easy time in office. If Clinton hadn't ignored intelligence and cut military spending, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. If he hadn't been such a wuss, we could have got Saddam and Osama long ago (the Sudanese offered to turn him over to us but Clinton was trying to get his name out of the headlines in connection with a rafting term). If he hadn't raised taxes and carelessly spent our money, our economy would not have been in a recession and would not be weak now (although reports indicate it is strong and growing stronger). He inherited a country powerful and prosperous and for eight years ran it into the ground. Bush has done his best and he has done well. Our country is slowly returning to its post-Reagan, pre-Clinton state. But he needs the confidence of the American people. Join Bush's team and help get him re-elected. Our country cannot take another Clinton in the White House.

Jesus, lover of my soul, let me to Thy bosom fly
While the nearer waters roll, while the tempests still are nigh;
Hide me, O my Savior, hide, till the storm of life is past,
Safe into the haven guide, O receive my soul at last!

Other refuge have I none; hangs my helpless soul on Thee;
Leave, ah, leave me not alone; Still support and comfort me;
All my trust on Thee is stayed, all my help from Thee I bring;
Cover my defenseless head with the shadow of Thy wing.

Thou, O Christ, art all I want: More than all in Thee I find;
Raise the fallen, cheer the faint, heal the sick and lead the blind:
Just and holy is Thy Name; I am all unrighteousness--
False and full of sin I am; Thou art full of truth and grace.

Plenteous grace with Thee is found, Grace to cover all my sins--
Let the healing streams abound, make and keep me pure within:
Thou of life the fountain art, freely let me drink of Thee--
Spring Thou up within my heart, rise to all eternity.

--Charles Wesley.

Normally, I would leave a movie review with one showing but movie critics and newspeople keep bringing up "The Passion." The latest story has the number 666 appearing on tickets to the movie. Christians believe 666 to be the mark of the beast. Apparently some have complained. I wish they wouldn't do this. It gives the media grist for their unfair characterization of Christians. Why this is news I do not know but apparently the media is still seeking a way to discredit the movie. I worked in department 669 of a wood factory over the summer, which was adjacent to the paint toom, department 666. I didn't think anything of it. I doubt anyone really thinks anything of this. But when news is a profession, anything is news. The other secondary headline concerned the starlet of "Dirty Dancing." These people are really grasping at straws. When nothing of note happens, they make it up. Good grief.

The one newsworthy story going continues the unfortunate saga of a missing family's abduction and apparently murder by their own cousin. It's unbelievable the depths to which people will sink when living in an age devoid of the knowledge of God. It was for this reason that the events portrayed in "The Passion" took place. Jesus suffered and died for this reason--to bring forgiveness of sins and rightness with God. As political as I am, I am first and foremost a Christian. The government cannot change this basic fault of man, although it can and should punish it (and I have reason to hope it will in this instance) so do not depend upon the government. Education cannot do it, at least not education divorced from a knowledge of the holy God who judges every man according to his actions, so don't depend on education systems. Our only hope for peace in this trouble world is a battered and bloody man staggering up Golgotha hill carrying a large wooden beam over 2000 years ago. Mel Gibson's film implicates all of us in the death of Christ and indeed we are all to blame. It was our sin that crushed Him, our sin that made His death necessary. But the story doesn't end there. The closing shot of Christ striding out of the empty tomb means that a right relationship with God and with other people is possible. Yes, "The Passion" is a bloody movie, but think about what the blood means, not simply that it is there. The Son of God was willing to endure that for the murderers and the thieves and all the lost people of this world. That is what this film means but the media of course will not acknowledge it.