Hemingway Exposing Left-Wing Myths About 'Right-Wing, Extremist Christians'

We have recently discussed on this blog the rapid speed in which the MSM jumped on the "Right-Wing Christian Extremist" bandwagon while the shots were still echoing in Norway following the horrific killing spree of Anders Behring Breivik. Mark Hemingway over at The Weekly Standard is obliterating the worn out templates regularly used by Leftists who will not own up to their own kindred spirits being responsible for some of the most devastating attacks in recent memory. First, Hemingway delves into the mindset of convicted bomber Eric Rudolph (above) who stated, according to USA Today...

"Many good people continue to send me money and books," .. "Most of them have, of course, an agenda; mostly born-again Christians looking to save my soul. I suppose the assumption is made that because I'm in here I must be a 'sinner' in need of salvation, and they would be glad to sell me a ticket to heaven, hawking this salvation like peanuts at a ballgame. I do appreciate their charity, but I could really do without the condescension. They have been so nice I would hate to break it to them that I really prefer Nietzsche to the Bible."

I don't know about you, but I've yet to attend a church in which a reading from the Book of Zarathustra segues neatly into that week's sermon.

Next, Hemingway examines the case of (alleged) Anthrax killer, Bruce Ivins...

"As for alleged Anthrax mailer Bruce Ivins being supposedly motivated by his pro-life, Catholic views -- well, that's a pretty unfounded assertion based on a lot of tenuous and anonymous sources. Further, from what we know about his religious views -- to say nothing of considerable evidence that he was mentally ill -- he wanted the Catholic church to liberalize on the issue of female and married clergy. Not exactly what one thinks of when we discuss extremist religious views."

The article goes on to point out the Leftist leanings of Andrew Joseph Stack who flew his plane into IRS offices in 2010 and holocaust memorial shooter James von Brunn . Next time a tragic event unfolds and the finger is immediately pointed at the Right or Christians, just wait for all of the facts to come in. Bill O'Reilly (who I often disagree with) summed it up rather accurately as to why the Left-wing media so readily pounces on such gross mischaracterizations.

"Two reasons. First, some on the left want to make an equivalency argument between Muslim terrorism and other kinds of violent acts. The Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh, was often branded "a right-wing terrorist" in the media*. Terrorism is terrorism the analysis goes. It's not fair to constantly emphasize Muslim terrorism without acknowledging the others. Besides, bad men like George W. Bush hype the Muslim threat and use it to do evil things such as invade Iraq.

The second reason is purely political. The left well understands that Christian opposition to things like abortion, gay marriage and drug legalization makes those liberal causes more difficult to achieve. Thus, anything that diminishes Christianity is fair game to be promoted. Every newsworthy sin committed by a Christian is highlighted with a sneering reference to hypocrisy. Any whiff of Christian intolerance is celebrated in the press.

Breivik did not kill in the name of Jesus. He was not a member of a Christian-based al-Qaida-like group. He was not funded by Iran or enabled by Pakistan. It seems he is simply a murderer, a man devoid of any spiritual conscience, a direct descendant of Cain."

* (And positively, NEVER mentioning the fact that McVeigh would often state that "Science is my Religion")

EDIT: Reuters Labels Norway Terror Suspect as ‘Right-Wing’ 25 Times IN ONE ARTICLE

Rauser: 'Why are Atheists so Obsessed with Zeus?'

We've all seen it before if one has been visiting various chat rooms and discussion forums over the last decade or so since the internet began to gain in usage. I've encountered such nonsense personally and now Randal Rauser is wondering why this is....

"It's true. Spend some time as a theist talking to an atheist and pretty soon they'll introduce Zeus to the conversation...

..If it's not the Flying Spaghetti Monster then it's Zeus. The trend is so common that I even named my forthcoming book on apologetics From Angels to Zeus: Apologetics in One Long Conversation. But what is going on here?

I'm sorry to break it to Zeus, but I don't think this revival of interest has much to do with him in particular. Rather, I think this is a mere rhetorical move designed to marginalize current concepts of God by associating them with now defunct concepts, and Zeus is ideal in this regard because he is widely known in popular culture and yet obviously not widely believed in."

Although old Zeus is not believed in, this does not deter the intellectually flacid atheist from lumping all belief systems together as if they are of equal weight and castings such aspersions. They never get around to explaining why it's such a valid comparison and yet they don't actually know anyone who goes around spouting off about their belief in Zeus.

Why is Estonia Beating us in Oil Shale Development?

As to why Estonia is beating the United states in Oil Shale Production, I think the answer comes down to political will to get the job done. Lincoln Brown lays out for us how advanced their process is...

"A company in Estonia is mining a 9 foot high seam of oil shale. From that seam the company has created a plant that is producing something on the order 25 thousand barrels of oil per day. And while environmentalists would tell you that it uses up that most precious of resources: water, water is not used at all in the extraction process. In fact the drier the shale the better. So much for the myth of water going down the proverbial dry hole. Additionally, the Estonian plant meets the exacting air quality requirements of the European Union, which is no small feat in this day and age.

But is it useable? Well, unless the laws of physics in Estonia vary wildly from those in the United States, the Magic Eight Ball seems to say YES. The country of Estonia has a total of eight power plants running off of oil shale. Six of those are in operation and two are in the process of being refurbished. Construction is underway on a new power plant that will generate 600 megawatts of electricity when it goes online.

Impressive numbers? Yes. But a drop in the bucket when you consider that the seam of oil shale in my part of the world is not nine feet high but 70 feet. Consider the possibilities."

Perhaps we could learn something from the Estonians in so far as extracting energy from this abundant resource. There comes a time when, even if energy prices gradually lower over time, that we have to develope our own resources due to instability in the parts of the world where OPEC extracts their oil.

Norway Killer - Darwinist, not Christian

It seemed like the template was already set to roll by the time the smoke cleared in Norway and Anders Behring Breivik (above) was taken into custody. A 'right-wing Christian fundamentalist' we were told by the left-wing media. However, new evidence is beginning to emerge and the explanation offered earlier might not be that simple...

"A review of Anders Behring Breivik's 1,500-page manifesto shows the media's quick characterization of the Norwegian terrorist as a "Christian" may be as incorrect as it was to call Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh one.

Breivik was arrested over the weekend, charged with a pair of brutal attacks in and near Oslo, Norway, including a bombing in the capital city that killed 7 and a shooting spree at a youth political retreat on the island of Utoya that killed more than 80 victims.

Piecing together Breivik's various posts on the Internet, many media reports have characterized the terrorist – who says he was upset over the multiculturalist policies stemming from Norway's Labour Party – as a "right-wing, Christian fundamentalist."

Yet, while McVeigh rejected God altogether, Breivik writes in his manifesto that he is not religious, has doubts about God's existence, does not pray, but does assert the primacy of Europe's "Christian culture" as well as his own pagan Nordic culture.

Breivik instead hails Charles Darwin, whose evolutionary theories stand in contrast to the claims of the Bible, and affirms: "As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science, and it must always continue to be that way. Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I'm not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe."

The terrorist also candidly admits he finds no support within either the Catholic or Protestant churches for his violent ideas."

Lets monitor this situation closely in order to see if ABCBS/NBCNN even bother to mention this at all.

Reading the Bible Promotes Science

It's from a study done by baylor University so it HAS to be Science!

"What daily practice may help American Christians become more concerned about issues of poverty, conservation and civil liberties?

Reading the Bible.

The answer may come as a surprise to those locked into viewing religious practices in ideological boxes. However, a new study by Baylor University researcher Aaron Franzen found frequent Bible reading predicted greater support for issues ranging from the compatibility of science and religion to more humane treatment of criminals.

The study, one of the first to examine the social consequences of reading Scripture, reveals the effects of Bible reading appear to transcend conservative-liberal boundaries.

Thus, even as opposition to same-sex marriage and legalized abortion tends to increase with more time spent with the Bible, so does the number of people who say it is important to actively seek social and economic justice, Franzen found."

There goes the entire "Bible reading is for mindless lemmings" mischaracterization. Can we now expect atheists to pick up the Good Book in order to reinforce their fetish for science? I'm not holding my breath people.

Thank You Allen West!

I had heard earlier in the day that Rep. (and DNC Chairperson) Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL, above, right) had gotten into a public tizzie with someone, but I now just found out with whom. Apparently, after Rep. Allen West (above left, R-FL) had left the floor of the US House of Representatives yesterday, Rep. Wasserman-Schultz singled out West for his support of the so-called "Cut, Cap and Balance" budget. Wasserman-Schultz, who isn't West's favorite person anyway, was then the recipient of of an email directly from West....

"From: Z112 West, Allen
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 04:48 PM
To: Wasserman Schultz, Debbie
Cc: McCarthy, Kevin; Blyth, Jonathan; Pelosi, Nancy; Cantor, Eric
Subject: Unprofessional and Inappropriate Sophomoric Behavior from Wasserman-Schultz


Look, Debbie, I understand that after I departed the House floor you directed your floor speech comments directly towards me. Let me make myself perfectly clear, you want a personal fight, I am happy to oblige. You are the most vile, unprofessional, and despicable member of the US House of Representatives. If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face, otherwise, shut the heck up. Focus on your own congressional district!


I am bringing your actions today to our Majority Leader and Majority Whip and from this time forward, understand that I shall defend myself forthright against your heinous characterless behavior……which dates back to the disgusting protest you ordered at my campaign hqs, October 2010 in Deerfield Beach.


You have proven repeatedly that you are not a Lady, therefore, shall not be afforded due respect from me!


Steadfast and Loyal


Congressman Allen B West (R-FL)"

West is correct, in my estimation, that Wasserman-Schultz is indeed the " most vile, unprofessional, and despicable member of the US House of Representatives" Her assertion that republicans were "literally" trying to drag the country back to Jim Crow era laws was particularly low, even for her shoddy standards.



Ms. Wasserman-Schultz continues to live down to the reputation so pervasive among democrats of trying to balkanize various groups and capitilize on their grievances rather than attempting to work together to achieve a mutually agreeable end.

Gay Marriage and the Soft Totalitarianism it Implies

I use the term "soft fascism" every now and again on this blog to denote the intolerance of those on the Left who, while they LOVE to spout off about how inclusive and tolerant they are, they themselves are the most hate-filled, INtolerant bigots on the face of the planet. As author Jonah Goldberg wrote in his landmark classic, Liberal Fascism, The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, (quoting comedian George Carlin) "When fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will be in Nike sneakers and smiley shirts. Smiley-smiley."

For example, one way the closed-minded, uncritically thinking screech-monkeys that support gay marriage scarcely notice their strong resemble to their ideological cousins, the racist segregationists of the American south from several decades ago, is in their arguments that they so predictably invoke involving race to rally their cause. Or as columnist Glenn T. Stanton wrote, (paraphrasing David Blankenhorn), "..some Southern racists redefined marriage to make it something it was never supposed to be about — racial purity — when race is not any part of marriage. It was about making marriage do something it was never intended to do for the sake of their own narrow social ideals. Likewise, same-sex marriage advocates today are drafting marriage into their own narrow social cause, as a way to elevate the social standing of homosexuality. Like keeping the races apart then, marriage has no place in this special-interest-based re-engineering... If the Loving [v. Virginia] analogy is exact, we would have to conclude that our current laws on marriage as a male/female union stem from some effort to keep others in their place. Study the anthropological origins of marriage for as long as you want and you will find nothing of the sort."



Getting back to the Left's "soft fascism" resemblance on this particular subject, George Weigel writes of a couple that he knows from a former Eastern Bloc nation who are all too familiar with the coercive power of government to redefine reality and shape it into an imaginary construct of a bureaucratically-approved fairy tale...

"As analysts running the gamut from Hannah Arendt to Leszek Kolakowski understood, modern totalitarian systems were, at bottom, attempts to remake reality by redefining reality and remaking human beings in the process. Coercive state power was essential to this process, because reality doesn’t yield easily to remaking, and neither do people. In the lands Communism tried to remake, the human instinct for justice — justice that is rooted in reality rather than ephemeral opinion — was too strong to change the way tastemakers change fashions in the arts. Men and women had to be coerced into accepting, however sullenly, the Communist New Order, which was a new metaphysical, epistemological, and moral order — a New Order of reality, a new set of “truths,” and a new way of living “in harmony with society,” as late-bureaucratic Communist claptrap had it.

The 21st-century state’s attempt to redefine marriage is just such an attempt to redefine reality — in this case, a reality that existed before the state, for marriage as the union of a man and a woman ordered to mutual love and procreation is a human reality that existed before the state. And a just state is obliged to recognize, not redefine, it.

Moreover, marriage and the families that are built around marriage constitute one of the basic elements of civil society, that free space of free associations whose boundaries the just state must respect. If the 21st-century democratic state attempts to redefine something it has neither the capacity nor the authority to refine, it can only do so coercively. That redefinition, and its legal enforcement, is a grave encroachment into civil society.

If the state can redefine marriage and enforce that redefinition, it can do so with the doctor-patient relationship, the lawyer-client relationship, the parent-child relationship, the confessor-penitent relationship, and virtually every other relationship that is woven into the texture of civil society. In doing so, the state does serious damage to the democratic project. Concurrently, it reduces what it tries to substitute for reality to farce."

When viewed in this light, the term "soft fascism" doesn't seem far-fetched at all.