Pocket Full of Mumbles

What's done is done, and this puppy's done. Visit me over at Pearls & Lodestones

My Photo
Name:

I would rather create than destroy, build up rather than tear down, move rather than sit, love rather than hate, live purposefully rather than meander, write rather than stare at an empty page...

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Liberal Hypocrisy! What Else is New?

Katie Couric had a resident talking head on this afternoon to tell the entire viewing audience that what the Bush administration had done in firing eight U.S. Attorneys was 'unprecedented'. Really!? Are you sure? Care to amend your answer?

The fact is President Clinton, in March of '93-- his first year in office --fired a few U.S. Attorneys as well... All 93 of them. And, without any fear if Liberal Media, stated the reason why...

"All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently."

And he's right! Truth is, Bush is also right-- U.S. Attorneys serve at the president's pleasure. This was true in Clinton's day and it's still true.

This is what's called 'Hypocrisy', and the Media and Democratic Congressmen, and Liberal hatchetmen are guilty of it. Mostly, they're guilty of passing off their false outrage with lies, castigations, and empty demands for investigations and resignations. Clinton fired 93, but most Americans have short memories and tend to believe whatever the likes of CBS and "Chuckie" Schumer tell them. Sadly, this kind of behavior by Liberals and Democrats is NOT unprecedented.

Truth is, Liberalism is dangerous. It feels deception is justified if it serves the cause, and Liberalism is, perhaps, the greatest of deceptions. Like communism, it promises prosperty, and equality... but in the end only the elite benefit from the promise. Everyone else pays an increasing number of taxes, levies, while suffering from dwindling civil and corporate liberties; payment to keep the cream on the top of the Liberal mocha latte. If there's one thing that sickens me about 'This President' it's his refusal to call the liars 'Liars'.

As to Liberalism. It's tentacles are not content to simply grab up political power by any means necessary... ANY means. Since Liberalism is every bit as much an ideology as Engel and Marx's bastard child, all this should come as a surprise. But while the Marx and Engels' 'Child' pushed its 'Religion is the opiate of the masses' agenda, Liberalism seeks to subvert religion and remake it.

                              ---

I've heard of Dennis Prager; read the name, heard it bandied about, but I don't know much about him-- who he is and why I should care. I mention this only because I actually read an opinion piece today by Mr. Prager. Not because of his name... no. It was the title that caught my eye.

"Jesus was no Leftist"

Being what I am [thank you Sinead] I was compelled... COMPELLED... to check it out. Suffice it to say, Prager hits Liberal Hypocrisy's nail square on the head.

In the view of John Edwards and other Christians on the left, Jesus would raise taxes, promote single-payer, i.e., socialized, medicine, be pro-choice and advocate same-sex marriage. But most of all, Jesus would be anti-war, opposed to the military and essentially be a pacifist.

This is based largely on one of His most famous statements: "Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

I've tried to argue this point with liberals here before, because while its obvious to me and other Conservative Christians, the truth is apparently too simple for Liberal Christians to grasp.

The flaw in interpreting such statements as policy statements on how a nation should behave is that Jesus was speaking about the life of the individual โ€“ the micro โ€“ not about nations and the macro.

...

But Jesus was clearly referring to interpersonal relations. It is critically important when trying to understand any portion of the Bible or any other text to read a passage within the context of the surrounding material. As biblical commentaries often put it, "Context is king."

Context may be king, but a lie is still a lie, and what Liberals are trying to do to Christianity is perhaps the greatest of lies in that it distorts the truth of God.

Anyway...

It also shows how hypocritical are the left's attacks on religious conservatives for taking the Bible literally. It is the left that engages in a far more dangerous literalism when it applies Jesus' words to national policy. Those on the religious right who believe that God created the world in six 24-hour days are engaged in, I believe, a completely unnecessary literalism. But it is hardly dangerous. The left's biblical literalism, however, applying "turn the other cheek" to millions of its own citizens, is fatally dangerous.

Besides literalism, another point of hypocrisy: The left attacks the religious right for threatening to replace our democracy with a theocracy that will impose fundamentalist Christianity on the nation. Yet the people who loathe conservatives for using Scripture have no difficulty with those who cite Jesus' words when arguing their positions โ€“ even when citing them incorrectly.


So there it is... it's not new and it's not surprising, it's simply par for the course for Liberals and their vision of Utopic Jesus-loving America.

I'm not impresed. Or swayed.

18 Comments:

Anonymous BenT - The Fact Based said...

You are right EL. The CBS Evening news did a bad job telling this story. Because you didn't understand the reasons why this is such an unprecedented firing.

1. Whenever the white house changes party, US Attorney Generals are traditionally asked to resign. Bush did it. Clinton did it. Reagan too. Cabinet secretaries are asked to turn in resignation lettters too. But now isn't the start of a new administration. In fact there's less than two years left in this administration. That seems strange doesn't it?

2. Usually the white house will screen new AG appointees past the state senators where they'll be serving. It's part of the give and take that helps that executive and legislative branches run. A white house that doesn't clear a new appointee can expect all sorts of trouble with any new legislation it wants to pass. With these new appointees none have been screened past the home-state senators. Why do you think that could be?

3. The President of the United States has the authority to nominate and fire US Attorneys at his discretion. Before March 2006, vacancies for United States Attorney were filled by presidential nomination. Such nominees would serve for up to 120 days, until the Senate could approve or reject the Presidential nomination. Vacancies that persisted beyond 120 days were filled on an interim basis by the court. When the Patriot Act was reauthorized last year Sen. Arlen Specter (PA) inserted a clause removing that time limit. Now the president can appoint whoever he wants. Democrat or Republican - nothing the Senate can do. No! These positions won't be used for political rewards, or motives.

4. The Justice Dept. when questioned about these firings replied that all were due to "performance related matters". It was a little embarrassing later when six had received positives on their latest review.

5. Also when congress subpoenaed these former AG's several testified that before the 2006 elections they were pressured by republicans to investigate democratic voter fraud. They couldn't find any supporting facts or witnesses and didn't pursue that cases. These former AG's said they felt they were fired for not being party-loyal enough.

6. The case of Carol Lam is interesting. She's the federal prosecutor who uncovered and is the middle of prosecuting the Duke Cunningham, Brent Wilkes, Dusty Foggo case. These were the guys running that huge Pentagon bribery scam remember. Big embarrassment to the republican party. Someone felt she had "poor performance".

7. Then there's the Ag from Little Rock, Arkansas. No one knows exactly why he was asked to resign. A lot of speculation however centers around his suggested replacement - Timothy Griffin. You probably don't know Tim. Previously before being appointed to be a federal prosecutor he worked in the White House for Karl Rove. He was the Chief Opposition Researcher. That meant his job was to find dirt on democratic candidates. Now he's going to be going to Little Rock (home of Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton) with subpoena power. Im sure he promised to put politics behind him though.

There's nothing sinister or politically motivated behind these firings at all. And another fact EL - from 1978 through 2006, four AG's had been forced out in the middle of a presidential term.

March 15, 2007 12:55 AM  
Anonymous BenT - The Fact Based said...

As to Dennis Prager's editorial: the only opinion I have is that I wish both left and right would stop trying to use the bible to justify their policies.

When it comes to my country I want facts. How do students today compare to three decades ago? Are most people satisfied with their healthcare? Do companies with diversified employees have better community relations, healthcare policies, pay? Will the nation need a new atomic submarine in the next 5 decades?

Did you know 50ยข of every dollar you pay in taxes goes to the military? Does most of that money go to troops and their care, or does most of it go to new weapons systems? You want to see how your taxes are spent go to The Death and Taxes Poster.

March 15, 2007 1:13 AM  
Blogger ELAshley said...

If Alberto Gonzales goes, he goes.

But U.S. Attorneys serve at the Presidents' discretion, and/or pleasure, irrespective of who is in the White House or to which party he belongs. I understood the reasons as CBS and other outlets have detailed, and so what? They serve at the Presidents' discretion. Besides which, they were all Bush appointees. Politics played a big role in their appointments, and I have little doubt politics played big in their firing.

But again... they serve at his pleasure, not their own. The media is manufacturing a scandal where none really exists, except perhaps in how Gonzales handled it all. And that's no reflection on the President.

March 15, 2007 1:36 AM  
Blogger ELAshley said...

As to your Prager comment: I agree

March 15, 2007 1:37 AM  
Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Misrepresentation #1:

Christian Pacifists would impose their religious beliefs of the gov't and their fellow citizens.

Truth:

We do no such thing. You can't show me anywhere where I've said that the gov't should be pacifist because of what Jesus taught.

We want the gov't to obey its own laws. We want the gov't to at least follow Just War principles - as that is roughly what our laws are based upon and what a majority of the people believe - aside from religious beliefs. We want the gov't NOT to take actions that are against our interests (as a pre-emptive invasion is).

But NOwhere have you seen me (nor usually ANY Christian pacifists) arguing for an imposition of pacifism. No need to repeat that misrepresentation.

Misrepresentation #2:

"We" conservatives take the Bible literally and Christian pacifists don't - except wrongly so?

Truth:

What Christian pacifists believe is that Christians ought to follow the teachings of Jesus. Jesus told us to overcome evil with good. To love our enemies. And yes, to turn the other cheek.

Killing people in other nations does not fit in with this teaching. Therefore, while we wouldn't impose our beliefs on a secular nation, we WILL remind our brothers and sisters in Christ that WE ought to follow the teachings of Christ and what Christ taught is fairly clear.

No one takes the Bible literally. Nor should we. Context matters a great deal.

But we all (Bible believers) ought to take the teachings of Jesus literally. Christian pacifists do, or at least try to.

Misrepresentation #3:

The Religious Left is hypocritical when they argue against the Christian Right trying to impose religious beliefs.

Truth:

As I pointed out, we are NOT trying to impose our religious beliefs on a nation. Therefore, there is no hypocrisy in opposing the Right when they do so.

Does that mean, though, that you think the Religious Right is hypocritical for opposing the Christian Left when the Left (according to the Religious Right) tries to impose their religious beliefs?

March 15, 2007 5:46 AM  
Blogger ELAshley said...

Misrepresentation #4:

Dan Trabue speaks for all of liberal Christianity.

Truth:

He speaks only for himself... and maybe a few others.

March 15, 2007 8:13 AM  
Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Fair enough. I don't speak for all of liberal Christianity. Further, there is much in liberal Christianity that does not speak for me (which is why I consider myself a conservative almost as much as I do a liberal).

But to the specific charges that liberal Christians want to impose pacifism on the nation, I'd suggest you provide a credible source of major liberal spokespersons advocating that America become a pacifist nation.

Jim Wallis? No, I don't believe so.

John Edwards (not actually a spokesperson from the Christian Left, but he is someone left of center who claims to be a christian and someone you cited): No. I'm pretty sure he doesn't.

Barack Obama? No.

Jesus? No.

Who do you think is advocating that America should be forced into pacifism? I know of no one - certainly no one in the large circle of Christian (or otherwise) pacifists that I frequent.

How about my response to the hypocrisy label: If it's hypocritical of the Christian Left to criticize the Christian Right for seeking to impose their Christian values, why is it not also hypocritical of the Christian Right to criticize the Christian Left for that exact same thing (not that I think that's the case, but that's the charge)?

March 15, 2007 8:38 AM  
Blogger Dan Trabue said...

re: "Liberalism is dangerous. It feels deception is justified if it serves the cause, and Liberalism is, perhaps, the greatest of deceptions."

No need to isolate this problem to Liberals. Most folk feel that deception is okay if the cause is Just. Need I remind you of the Iran Contra scandal?

There, you had lies and deception (selling WMD to both Iraq AND Iran - Iran illegally and under the table - in order to give money to the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua!) and the deception involved there was deception in order to support terrorism. Yikes!

No, most folk will find a way to justify their lies and deceptions. The ones to fear, then, are those that believe that it's okay to lie and kill if the cause is just. Those conditions are the prerequisites for terrorism.

March 15, 2007 12:36 PM  
Blogger ELAshley said...

You're going to point to Iran-Contra? Considering the plethora of skeletons in Clinton's closet? People died mysterious deaths around Clinton-- Vince Foster, Ron Brown... I make no accusations. 93 U.S. attorneys get fired. Whitewater. Cattlegate. Filegate. Travelgate. Sandy Berger gets a slap on the wrist for treason, yet Libbey gets indicted and convicted for lying... NOT for outing a covert agent... which she wasn't. To top the whole thing off, Fitzgerald knew who outed Plames name BEFORE he questioned Libbey. And yet Richard Armitage isn't even on Fitzgeralds radar... No body is! Clinton was asleep at the terrorist wheel for his entire presidency, leaving the blame for 9-11 squarely at his doormat. Yet media chooses to paint Clinton as a political god, and Bush a heinous lying murderous bastard!!!

You people on the Left-- Yes, Dan, that's you! And you too Ben --have NO cause to feel the least bit righteous about your boys in Washington. I readily admit there is corruption wherever there is power, but you guys take the cake. Look at William Jefferson! Two people have already pled guilty for bribing Mr. Jefferson. The Feds video tape him taking a 100k bribe. 90k is recovered from My. J's freezer! And you mean to tell me Nancy "we're gonna sweep corruption right outta da house" Pelosi sees no need to investigate!? Senator Ried can make a million dollar profit on property he doesn't even own!? All the while these paragons of virtue decry Republican corruption!!!???

Look at the people you look to as great men of state. Senator "leaky" Leahy is removed from a prestigious committee chairmanship because he repeatedly leaked classified material! Ted Kennedy allows a woman to drown in the backseat of his car... making no effort... NONE... to save her! Bill Clinton accused not once, not twice, but three times of sexual molestation and rape, ON TOP of his affair with Miss "I did not have sex with that woman" Lewinski! He lied under oath to a federal grand jury. Was impeached! Disbarred! And yet he's the darling of American politics!? He's the best president this nation has seen since JFK!? In. Your. Dreams!

Go ahead, stay on fantasy island for as long as you wish. But your objections are just as hypocritical as the Liberal agenda, and the Lying Liberals who push it-- they remind me of dung beetles!

You're through on this post. I don't mind honest debate, but I'm sick and tired of listening to the constant barking of blind dogs.

March 15, 2007 7:56 PM  
Blogger Erudite Redneck said...

That is to say, your guys are lying. Which means they're hiding something. From you.

March 16, 2007 7:55 PM  
Blogger ELAshley said...

This from a delusional redneck who worships the lowest form of pond-scum on Earth: Democrats, Liberals, and Liars.

March 17, 2007 12:33 AM  
Blogger Erudite Redneck said...

Picking and choosing what you let others say ... consistently mischaracterizing others' positions ... you're turning into a real asshole, EL.

I worship Jesus. Not the Bible. Not my own understanding. Not the Church. Not any set of doctrines. Not any conservative -- EVER.

Jesus is a liberal.

Peace.

March 17, 2007 9:17 AM  
Blogger mom2 said...

ER, Just about the time I think you might be an alright guy, you go off on a tangent of the awfullest language and as a mom, it offends me and as a father, I wonder what it does to God. For an educated man, seems to me that you should be able to express yourself without jumping off the page with expletives.
Do you not also think that all of us tend to believe what we want to believe and discount what we do not want to believe? Politics is NOT good, the truth to be known would be good. The world is not getting better and unless a revival comes, it will not get better till Jesus comes back. We that call ourselves Christians should be civil to each other so that those that don't know Christ as Savior can see a difference in us.

March 17, 2007 11:26 AM  
Blogger Dan Trabue said...

mom2, would it be fair to point out that ER responded with a curse word AFTER EL refered to ER thusly: "This from a delusional redneck who worships the lowest form of pond-scum on Earth: Democrats, Liberals, and Liars."

Would it be fair to point out that when I'm polite and try to engage in conversation, Eric has gotten angry at me for no discernable reason, misrepresented my position and then not printed my response? As he no doubt will not print this response?

As is Eric's prerogative. But what some of us don't get is why y'all get angry at us, make accusations of us and, when we call you on it, you say things like we're depending on gov't for answers, EVEN THOUGH we're the ones who say Dems are only marginally less bad than Republicans usually, whereas y'all seem to blindly support Republicans and then make accusations that we're defending Dems!!

It's just not making much sense to those of us who are also in the Family of God with you. Why this bitterness and acrimony towards us? Why this refusal to engage in conversation? Bible study?

March 17, 2007 2:51 PM  
Blogger mom2 said...

Dan, I picked the wrong place to post that comment, I was referring to ER's site. It is so bad, it is nauseous. You and a few others push Eric to an occasional bit of anger and you know what you are doing. We are Christians, but we don't have to let people wipe their feet on us and pretend innocence. There is a spirit displayed that can be discerned.

March 17, 2007 3:46 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

I have noticed for some time how ER frequently refers to Jesus, but never refers to Jesus as Christ. I wonder why? Is Jesus the Christ in ER's world?

What about it, ER? Is Jesus the Christ? And if so, why do you never refer to him as Jesus Christ but only as Jesus?

Your tacit refusal to acknowledge the Diety of Jesus speaks volumes about your cultic belief system. It's called heretical.

March 17, 2007 11:19 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

As to the latest non-issue regarding Alberto Gonzales:

The e-mails that the LA Slimes refer to in their charges against Gonzales prove that the 8 attorneys fired were not fired for the reasons the Democrats have stated, but for not doing their jobs. Politics have some, but not much to do with the firings. One of the attorneys was fired for not prosecuting illegal aliens after as many as 13 violations. The following are the actual e-mails that the LA Slimes misrepresented to make their Liberally biased case:
set 1

set 2

set 3

set 4

The Slimes conviently left out many very important statements in these e-mails. It shows what the press is capable of doing when they really want to start trouble.

March 17, 2007 11:44 PM  
Blogger Erudite Redneck said...

Re, "ER's site. It is so bad, it is nauseous."

Then don't go there. It's a generational thing. And I never ever want to be "an alright" guy to fundamentalist Christians. I want to their bane, in Jesus's name.

Mark, you and I have had this discussion before. "Christ" is not Jesus's last name. Mom2, hold your ears: Damn you for calling her "cultic." I have never denied the deity of Jesus. What I deny is that it matters. Jesus saves, whether or not one buys all of the list of doctrinal assertions you personally adhere to, Mark. And thank God for that.

March 20, 2007 11:40 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home