Entries Tagged as ''

Liberals and the End Times

There are times when I have attempted to talk to someone about a subject which has its own language: ie, computers. If you were going to discuss computers with someone who had no experience with them, the conversation would clearly be one sided. The other person would most likely have no idea what you were talking about. At the same time if this unknowledgeable person attempts to speak about computers, it sounds like complete gibberish. With this reference in mind, I came across this post in The Week magazine in which the Editor-in-chief William Falk discusses a subject with which he has no understanding at all. That to me is enough to keep me quiet, but not Mr. Falk.

Like it or not, preparations for The End are underway. Pastors of America’s evangelical megachurches, the Los Angeles Times reports this week, have launched a “Billion Souls Initiative” to reach every heathen on Earth. “Our whole purpose is to hasten the End Times,” says Bill McCartney, co-founder of the evangelical group Promise Keepers. He’s doing his part by trying to convert mass numbers of Jews to Christianity as quickly as possible. Those who fail to heed Christ’s message, McCartney warns, are “toast.” Iran’s alarming president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is just as eager to see infidels turned to toast. Within two years, he says, the Mahdi, the last of the Prophet Mohammed’s heirs, will return to Tehran, ushering in a bloody, cataclysmic confrontation with the non-Muslim world.

There are times when you should just shut up when you have no idea what you are talking about. As most Christians know the bible says the end times will come about when all have heard about Christ. Not acknowledge Christ, but have heard about him. What Bill McCartney is saying is he is trying to reach as many people as he can so the end times will come.

Assorted crackpots have been predicting the end of the world for thousands of years now, to their eternal disappointment. So it’s tempting to wave off this latest crop of doomsayers with a bit of eye-rolling. But times have changed since the 15th century, even if some folks’ religious ideology has not. Even without the Almighty’s help, it really now is possible for some true believer like Ahmadinejad to make radioactive toast of large portions of the human race. Even in our own, enlightened nation, 40 percent of the population believes the End Times are nigh, according to several polls, and they have substantial political influence. If a bloody cataclysm in Israel is all part of a vengeful God’s grand plan, why bother trying to negotiate a peace? Why not welcome a global religious war between Christianity and Islam? Strange questions for a species that’s come so far over the past two millennia, and yet has not.

The quote about ‘toast’ is confusing to Falk who is ignorant enough about religion to compare Christianity with radical Islam. I would imagine the subject of Christianity is confusing to Falk. Christians do not look forward to death, they look forward to spending eternity with their Lord. To athiets like Falk, the end times denotes uncertainty. For him, this is as good as it gets.

So let me explain it to you Mr. FalK. McCartney was talking about hell where non-believers will go if they do not accept Christ. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to kill everyone who does not believe in Allah, meaning, they are toast. There is a tremendous difference between the two competing religions. In Christianity, the non-believer goes to hell, in Islam the non-believer is killed.

Mr. Falk is not an isolated case. Others like him, mostly found in the more liberal blogs like Kos, rant about a subject in which they have neither the understanding nor the inclination to understand what drives Christianity. Take Bill writing in Kos.

Conservatives like to say that we on the left “hate America,” which of course is nonsense. But their side readily admits—right out in the open—that they look forward to our nation’s literal destruction. Next time you see a bumper sticker that says “Vote Republican And Die,” remember: it ain’t a joke. It’s a campaign promise.

Note to liberals: when you find yourself out of your knowledge area, shut up before you make complete idiots of yourself. Ooops, too late.

First Amendment Rights For Who?

When discussing the train bombing in India most of this nation’s MSM refuse to blame the terrorists for the bombing.  The MSM is refusing to admit we are in a war with radical islamists, a world-wide war.  In trying to put my words in order, I ran across the post from Penraker describing how a left leaning, America hating, terrorist sympathizing media is actively working to undermine the President in this war on terror.

Why would a paper breezily leak our most important secrets, but then refuse to even consider the fact that bombings are being carried out by Islamists? Is there a bizarre bias here? It certainly looks like they are on the side of the terrorists.

But this is just part of a bigger picture: the media has begun to obscure the truth, on a wide and sustained basis. It has become the anti-media, determined that you should believe only certain things, and so it presents only half the story. We get only half the story from Iraq. We get only half the story on the Guantanamo memo yesterday. Dan Rather is caught with faked documents. The NY Times puts forth people who are pretending to be torture victims. Abu Ghraib runs on the front page for 30 straight days.

This should not be surprising, considering they were educated in colleges and Journalism schools that focused on revealing only one side of an issue, in an attempt to indoctrinate. This is the Howard Zinn school of journalism.

Tell only one side. Hide the real fullness of the truth. Hide the facts you do not like; hide the arguments from the other side.

There is more, but the first line does the trick for me.  The MSM raises bloody hell when someone mentions the Times, or others like them, should not publish secrets. They all cry about have 1st Amendment rights.  These are rights they defend so vigorously in spite of what it costs this country in terms of being able to defend itself.  At the same time, the former newspaper of record tries to stymie any criticism for publishing these secrets.  In fact, they try to confuse the whole situation by referring to their first amendment rights.  They are critical of all who do not support their extreme liberal position.  The New York Times and their ilk only support the 1st Amendment when it favors them and their agenda.