Thursday, January 12, 2006

Random Stuff

Pat Robertson's careless remarks may cost him a $50 million deal. Look for some backtracking from brother Pat. Robertson was leading a group of evangelicals hoping to construct a six-flags over Jesus type operation in the "holy land" called Galilee World Heritage Park. According to the BBC, the park was to contain "a park, an auditorium, a Holy Land exhibition, outdoor amphitheatres, information centre and a media studio." But after Robertson's remarks that Sharon had been stricken by God because he was attempting to divide Israel, the Israeli tourism ministry indicated they would not sign a contract with Robertson to build the proposed theme park. Am I supposed to take this man seriously?

Gary DeMar points out that by invoking God's name in his condemnation of Sharon, Robertson violated the 3rd Commandment. DeMar says, "Jesus Christ is the focus of history, not the land of Israel. Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecy, not ethnic Israel. Our salvation comes by way of Jesus’ shed blood, not the shed blood of Jews (Zech. 13:8) or anyone else. Dispensationalism has created a foreign policy nightmare with its insistence that Israel is still the center of history, geography, and redemption."

Rick Warren gets his second glowing write-up in nine months from the Philadelphia Inquirer. (For the first article, click here.) Why is Warren so beloved by the likes of Larry King and other secular media outlets? Consider how the article ends:

Warren predicts that fundamentalism, of all varieties, will be "one of the big enemies of the 21st century."

"Muslim fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, secular fundamentalism -- they're all motivated by fear. Fear of each other.

So Christian fundamentalism is to be equated is Islamic and Jewish extremism? And the motivation of "fundamentalist" Christianity is fear of Islam and Judaism? And I'm supposed to take this man seriously?

According to James Risen, who broke the NSA story, "The CIA ignored credible information that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and, instead, followed the Bush Administration's lead to provide fabricated intelligence that was used to justify invasion of the Mideast country."

Hitting the bottle?

I've ignored most of the recent impeachment talk. But when I saw this article by Bruce Fein in, of all places, the Washington Times, I thought it noteworthy. Fein wrote:

Mr. Bush has continued the NSA spying without congressional authorization or ratification of the earlier interceptions. (In sharp contrast, Abraham Lincoln obtained congressional ratification for the emergency measures taken in the wake of Fort Sumter, including suspending the writ of habeas corpus).

Mr. Bush has adamantly refused to acknowledge any constitutional limitations on his power to wage war indefinitely against international terrorism, other than an unelaborated assertion he is not a dictator. Claims to inherent authority to break and enter homes, to intercept purely domestic communications, or to herd citizens into concentration camps reminiscent of World War II, for example, have not been ruled out if the commander in chief believes the measures would help defeat al Qaeda or sister terrorist threats.

Volumes of war powers nonsense have been assembled to defend Mr. Bush's defiance of the legislative branch and claim of wartime omnipotence so long as terrorism persists, i.e., in perpetuity. Congress should undertake a national inquest into his conduct and claims to determine whether impeachable usurpations are at hand. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 65, impeachment lies for "abuse or violation of some public trust," misbehaviors that "relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."

Fein served as associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, so he can't be called a "liberal." Moreover, that he was able to post such heretical thoughts on the opinion page of the Washington Times, neocon central, has some importance.

Here is an interesting piece by Eric Holmberg on the pagan roots of the abortion culture. Holmberg runs a fine outfit called The Apologetics Group, which I highly recommend.

Middle Eastern euphemisms.

Game over in Iraq. "The consequences of SCIRI's (Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq) victory are manifold. But there is no silver lining, no chance for peace talks among Iraq's factions, no chance for international mediation. There is no centrist force that can bridge the factional or sectarian divides. Next stop: civil war."

Pat says that "if the Iraqi insurgency has done nothing else, it has induced a sense of humility, and of the limits of American power." Does Pat really believe that the neocon banshees, braying from the safety of their AEI cubicles, have been chastened by the outcome in Iraq? If only it were true.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home