Selective outrage by the liberal media and its consequences

It's no secret that I'm not a fan of many mainstream media. Everyone knows most cable news channels have a liberal slant. You know what, though? I would even watch liberal news shows if they presented the news. What we have instead is a bunch of channels presenting half-truths and radical opinions with the objective of smearing republicans and excusing democrats. They're not news shows – they're the propaganda arm of the DNC.

A recent example was this non-response of a CNN panel to the Kathy Griffin photo/video showing her holding the severed head of Donald Trump. Jake Tapper introduces the clip calling Griffin's photo, “disgusting” and saying, “it's hard to imagine how anyone would think that's appropriate.” As he is saying this, though, you can hear him chuckle so obviously he's not overly disgusted and certainly not outraged. This is about as harsh a criticism the panel can muster.

Next, Tapper quotes Donald Trump, Jr as saying, “This is now considered to be acceptable discourse by the left,” and turns it over to his panel for discussion. Molly (I don't even know her last name because most CNN contributors are that unimportant to me) and Tapper share another chuckle before she admits, “I have a hard time bringing myself to even care about something like this.” She even goes so far as to blame the Trumps for making a big deal about this saying it, “speaks to the need to see themselves as the victim.” The remaining two panelists added nothing except to say that there are bigger issues than Kathy Griffin.

There were no calls to tone down the rhetoric. There were no pleas for people to come together. It was just pompous rebukes by liberal elitists telling the Trumps to stop whining.

I don't watch CNN. I guess most people don't watch CNN. Conan O'Brien said the only people who watch CNN are the people who clean the offices at CNN. Now that's funny. Anyway, the only reason I'm writing about this is to draw attention to the precise reason I don't watch shows like CNN.

Most people will remember from before the election, the leaked audio tape of Donald Trump joking with a male reported. In a high school like display of machismo, in what was thought to be a private conversation, Trump bragged that women will let a celebrity grope and kiss them. For months there was non-stop coverage about how Trump is a sexual predator and misogynist. CNN has held on to it like a dog with a bone. Now, a high-profile celebrity, in an intentional attempt to incite, holds up a terrorist-like image of her holding the bloody head of the President, and CNN says... meh.

The left calls Trump divisive. That's a laugh. They see an evil motive when Trump doesn't attend the White House Correspondents' Dinner. They shout “unfair” that the President gets two scoops of ice cream. But they can't even bring themselves to care about Griffin's incendiary display. //RKBentley shakes his head//

The selective outrage of liberal media has consequences that reach far beyond a lack of viewers. Kathy Griffin recently held a press conference which, in my opinion, was probably her funniest performance ever. In it she lamented that Trump is a bully who is trying to ruin her career. Hilarious, right? I mean, come on – Griffin poses with the President's severed head and Trump responds in a Tweet saying she is sick and should be ashamed. Now she's the victim? Excuse me while I have a chortle.

Griffin also expressed her concerns over the death threats she's been getting because of this. Here's the problem: for months, conservative pundits like Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, and Milo Yiannopoulos have received real threats when they appear somewhere to speak. These aren't anonymous letters or emails – they're rioters who wear masks and burn buildings. Black Lives Matter protesters march in the streets and chant they want dead cops now! The mainstream fake news media simply makes excuses and tries to distance the violence from the ideology. The typical liberal commentator usually starts with something like, “I don't condone violence but....”

The violent rhetoric has reached a fevered pitch and it's all coming from the left. The response from the right has been relatively mild. How far will CNN and news outlets let the line be pushed? If the political rhetoric needs be toned down, they need to stop providing cover to the purveyors of the worst hate speech.

There have been other folks on CNN who have been a little more firm in their condemnation of Griffin but her actions were so far over the line they simply realize there's no excusing it this time. I think if there hadn't been a history of complicity between liberal media and the Democrat party, Griffin might have thought twice before doing the photo shoot. When the people who are supposed to report the news sit silently by while mobs riot and threaten, it allows the violence to escalate.

CNN, I don't care that no one watches you. I hope you lose more viewers. I hope your station goes bankrupt. I wish I could hurry it along. I'm just sorry that you've endured this long.

Is creationism driving young people out of the church?

In my last post, I made some comments about an articled titled, 5 Ways Creationism Is Bad For Christianity. Just recently, someone I am friends with on FaceBook linked an article from the Huffington Post titled, Creationists Drive Young People Out Of The Church. The headline might sound similar to my last post but I'm going to make different points. Bear with me.

My first thought when I read that article was that it is fake news. It's not fake in the sense that I don't believe it's correct (although it is very misleading). I'm saying it's fake in the sense that it's not news. Does anyone really believe a left-leaning site like The Huffington Post is at all concerned with young people leaving the church? The point of the story isn't, “What are we going to do about these young people leaving the church?” It's more like, “Ha, ha. Look at how stupid these young people think creationists are.” The author seems to want to shame people away from believing in creation. It's a common tactic which I've written about years ago. Consider this quote from the first paragraph:

Particularly disturbing is the finding that only 27 percent of evangelical pastors “strongly disagree” with the statement that the earth is 6,000 years old.

Do you see what I mean? The author finds a belief in a young earth, “particularly disturbing.” In spite of its headline, the article is less about young adults leaving the church and more about getting Christians to stop believing in creation. But the liberal bias and shoddy reporting of The Huffington Post is not the point of my post today. I was more interested in what my FaceBook friend said. When he posted the link to the article, he commented:

Young Earth Creationists need to think about this.

Now, I can't claim to know exactly what this person was thinking when he said this. He seems to be making the same point that unbelieving evolutionists make when they write similar comments; he seems to be saying to creationists, “Just stop it because you look silly.” Maybe this person was trying to make a legitimate point that completely escapes me. I've thought and thought about his comment and the only thing I can conclude is that it is a blatant appeal to consequences.

Let me ask this: if a six-day, literal, miraculous creation is the correct understanding of the Genesis account, then what else is there think about? If I tell people the truth, and they leave the church, am I wrong for having spoken the truth? Should I not tell the truth for fear of offending someone? What else about the truth should I water down? What if people leave the church because I tell them Jesus was rose from the dead? Another reason cited for people leaving the church is that they are uncomfortable with the exclusivity of Christianity. So then are we to teach universalism instead? Jesus is one way but any way is fine.

If people leave the Church because we believe the Bible about creation, that does nothing to prove a belief in a miraculous creation is wrong. And if creation is correct, then why should we compromise on the truth of it in order to make the Bible seem compatible with the incorrect theory of evolution?

Articles like this one and comments like that made by my FaceBook friend are pointless. It's a worthless argument. But I have something to say to Christians who make these arguments: I think you're doing far more harm than good with your compromise!

The Bible commands us to love God with our minds (Deuteronomy 6:5, Matthew 22:37, et al). Evolution is a worthless theory. It is rife with difficulties, it makes no useful predictions, and it has made no contribution to any scientific advancement made in the last century. If a young person is wavering in his faith because he sees a conflict between “science” and the Bible, you need to know how to defend the Bible rather than giving credence to some useless, fairytale dreamed up by men how proudly boast that miracles never happen. Do you think it's helpful to say to an inquisitive youth, “Well, the Bible doesn't always mean what it says”? I think young people are leaving the church because they don't see the church as having any authority. When Christians pick and choose which parts of the Bible they will believe, it sets a bad example that these young people can see.

Jesus faced this same problem during His ministry. He preached the truth and people turned away because of it. John 6:53-68:

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.” These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum. Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.

Jesus spoke the truth. People left following Him because they didn't want to hear the truth. I will be like Peter and accept the truth no matter how difficult it seems. I will not be like those Christians who compromise on the truth of the Bible for the sake of making it seem more appealing.

What do liberal news media have in common with clowns?

I'm going to take a short break from my series to interject my thoughts about the alternative media – aka “fake news outlets,” aka CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, The NY Times, The Washington Post, et al.

Do I need to say that these supposed news organizations have a liberal bias? I mean, really? Everybody knows it. And yes, I mean EVERYBODY knows. I know it. You know it. Anyone who watches these shows knows it. Their fans know it. Their critics know it. Elected officials know it. Democrats know it. Republicans know it. Even the so-called journalists who report on these shows know it. Do you understand what I'm saying? EVERYBODY knows these organizations are liberal. But what is absolutely hilarious is that they keep trying to pretend they're unbiased.

Pretend for a moment that President Trump holds a press conference and a reporter shows up wearing a clown nose.

President Trump asks, “Why are you wearing a clown nose?”

The reporter stares back straight-faced and says, “I'm not wearing a clown nose.”

Trump presses him, “Look. You're sitting right there wearing a clown nose. Everyone can see it. Why are you trying to deny it?”

The reporter begins talking over the President, “Why are you trying to pivot off the subject by talking about me? No one is wearing a clown nose. You're just trying to avoiding answering the hard questions.”

Trump throws up his hands in exasperation. Shaking his head, he humors the reporter, “OK, what's your question?”

Doesn't that sound ridiculous? I'm telling you that it's not that far-fetched. When these so-called “news networks” try to say they report the news objectively, they sound to me as ridiculous as a reporter denying he's wearing a clown nose. It's so obvious that their denial just makes them seem all the more foolish.  After a certain point, you just can't take anything they say seriously.

I don't get it. You are all liberal. You KNOW you are. If you want to be cheerleaders for leftists, then be the cheerleaders. I'd understand that and some people like to hear the cheerleaders for their cause. But please, please, please, stop the charade. Why do you all continue the farce? You're not fooling anyone and it's becoming embarrassing. I know you're not embarrassed, of course, but I'm embarrassed for you.

Just stop. OK?

Rant over. Carry on!

Let me tell you what I find offensive...

So, I'm having breakfast with my wife at McDonald's on Saturday and I read this headline on FaceBook: Community Shocked Over Christian Church Sign: 'Muhammad not Greater than Jesus.' And they aren't kidding when they say shocked. One resident, Eric Cohn, is reported as saying, “I literally had to stop and back up and make sure I saw what I saw, and I was profoundly offended and upset by it.” Cohn also felt moved to write a letter to the editor of the local paper where he said, “Disparaging another group’s God is completely out of line.... Please, take it down — now.”

Another offended resident said in the same editorial, “I want to complain openly about the marquis in front of the Missionary Baptist Church on Belmont Drive. The message on the west bound side of the sign promotes ignorance, bigotry and hatred, none of which are regarded as true Christian values.”

In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father but by me.” The message of Christ is one of exclusivity. There is only one name by which men may be saved: it's Jesus – not Allah, not Muhammad, not Buddha, not Confucius. If Jesus is right, then all these other religions are wrong. Liberals say I'm intolerant but the truth pretty much is exclusive. I find it offensive – and more than a little hypocritical – that liberals say I'm bigoted and intolerant for believing the words of Christ. They say I'm wrong for believing someone else's religion is wrong yet liberals can't see how they are calling my religion wrong.

Even the mayor of Hood River, OR, had an opinion on the sign. Mayor Blackburn said, “I was really annoyed and sad. I am annoyed that in this political season there's a solid case of ugly going on. I think it norms up this kind of behavior like 'oh it's okay to be a bigot now.'”

The other thing that offends me is when elected, public officials abuse their office. Is this mayor aware that the Constitution protects our freedom of speech and the right to freely exercise our religion? If private citizens want to write letters to the editor or protest a church, they have a right to do so. But when the mayor, a representative of the state, uses the sway of his office to mock and ridicule the religious speech of a church, it erodes our liberty. Mayor Blackburn is a despot, a tyrant, and an offender of freedom!

OK, now fast forward to Sunday. My wife and I are having lunch after church and see the news of the shooting in FL. A radical Muslim called 911 and pledged allegiance to ISIS before shooting more than 100 people, killing 50 of them (later it was amended to 49). How sad.

I find it strange that the “peaceful” religion of Islam continuously spawns worshipers who would shoot people in a night club, burn Christians alive, behead people on TV, fly planes into buildings, and strap bombs to themselves to blow people up in a mall, while brain-damaged liberals continuously call for tolerance. Yet let a Christian church puts out a sign that says Jesus is greater than Muhammad and militant bleeding-hearts seem ready to riot. Really?

Oh, and I'm getting a little offended that the shooting is being characterized as an attack on gays. It's sort of like the President calling the Ft. Hood shooting a case of workplace violence. This was a jihadist. He would have found any reason to shoot innocent people. If it weren't a gay nightclub, it could have been a bus full of first-grade kids. It didn't matter to the shooter. At the end of the day, he wanted to create terror. If we don't identify the problem for what it is, it only distracts from the issue. We need to deal with radical Muslims who want to kill all of us; this is not the time to talk about gay rights or gun control.

It is God's will that we should all come to believe in the Son and have life (John 6:40). It is the plan of terrorists to kill non-believers. Christians want the lost to hear the truth. We want to reach them with the gospel – the good news. There is life in Jesus and none other. We plead with people, we reason with them, we pray for them – we don't shoot them. Are liberals really so thinned skinned that they're offended by a sign that says the Muslims are wrong?

I'm offended by stupidity.

Why are there gun free zones?

An Oregon college campus was the site of another mass shooting. Nine innocent victims were killed before the deranged shooter took his own life. Before nearly any facts behind the shooting were known, the President was already on the air calling for more gun control laws. Since we knew hardly anything about the shooting, how could the President know that any gun law he was suggesting would have done anything to prevent the shooting? He couldn't have known, obviously. He was merely exploiting the tragedy to push his agenda. Shame on him. However, we did know one thing about the shooting almost immediately – it happened in a “gun free zone.”

I saw this meme on FaceBook the other day. We defend the President with guns. Celebrities defend themselves with guns. When money is delivered to my office, I've noticed the armored car courier carries a gun. Why then do we “protect” our most precious treasure, our children, with signs that say, “This is a Gun Free Zone”? It seems counter intuitive that if guns can help protect the President from harm, that they couldn't also help protect children. Why then do some people still want gun free zones – especially in the case of protecting the children?

Not being able to completely understand the insane logic known as, “liberalism,” I did an internet search, trying to find out why people think gun free zones are a good idea and found a lot of rhetoric rebutting criticisms of the concept. Here are some of the “facts” being presented by defenders of gun free zones: I took these quotes from one source, but I've found the same points being made by many people so I'm considering them to be representative.

Mass shooters are completely unconcerned about whether or not an area is a “Gun-Free Zone.” A study conducted by Mother Jones found that, in 62 mass shootings over 32 years, there were exactly zero instances of a killer targeting a place because of a gun ban.

OK, that's interesting. I've read some criticisms of the Mother Jones study but let's assume this point is true. Even if mass shooters never target any place because he thinks unarmed people are softer targets, how is that an argument for gun free zones?

Furthermore, thirty-six mass shooters in the Mother Jones study committed suicide at or near the crime-scene, and 7 more committed ‘suicide-by-cop’ by engaging in a knowingly unwinnable shootout with police. This is not the sort of behavior that suggests that mass shooters are deterred by the prospect of gun-imposed security.

Hmmm. It also shows the shooter is not deterred by a sign that says, “this is a gun free zone.

Instead of guns deterring crime, not one of the 62 mass shootings surveyed was ended by an armed civilian

I'd laugh if it weren't so tragic. If law abiding citizens are observing the “gun free zone” restriction, it's not surprising that there weren't any around to prevent or stop the shooting once it started.

Also, does this study take into account those times when guns are used to stop crimes? There is the case, for example, where an armed, “resource officer,” Carolyn Gudger, confronted a gunman at Sullivan High school, Blountville, TN, and held him at bay until deputies arrived. The gunman was killed in a shootout with the police. Since no students were harmed, this incident didn't qualify as a mass shooting. However, it is certainly a case where an armed civilian very possibly stopped a massacre. I might post some videos sometime of showing guns being used by civilians to stop criminals. It happens all the time.

Despite the fact that one-third of our nation’s schools have armed guards or officers, there is no evidence that these measures have deterred or de-escalated mass shootings.

I believe the Gudger incident I cited above is one example where an armed guard deterred a mass shooting. Maybe there are more. But let's again assume armed guards do not deter mass shootings. We can still see clearly that neither are mass shooters deterred by gun free zones! At least if there are armed guards present, there is someone on hand to stop a shooting spree once it's started. That's not the case in a gun free zone.

As I read article after article defending gun free zones, what I mostly saw were weak rebuttals to the criticisms of them. I found very little arguments as to why we should have them in the first place. The article where I found the quotes above only had this to say in favor of gun free zones:

While there is little evidence to validate the efficacy of armed guards or officers, there is a plethora of research showing that a large armed presence on school grounds institutionalizes the early criminalization of Black and Latino males. Armed officers at schools are quick to make arrests and write tickets, fast-tracking these students into the criminal justice system, rather than college, having an overall negative effect on net educational outcomes.

Am I reading that right? Does it really say that if we have armed guards in schools then blacks and Latinos are more likely to become criminals? But then again, liberals are racists so it shouldn't surprise me that they would think if a security guard arrests a student, it must be a black student.

The more common argument made in defense of gun free zones is the possibility of accidental shootings. The cartoon I reprinted from the Armed With Reason article paints a straw man image of students walking around with rifles and lunch boxes. You do realize we're not talking about having students carrying guns, right? Now, I concede that it is a reality that the mere presence of a gun comes with the risk of accidental injury. After all, it's impossible to accidentally discharge a gun if there is no gun present. But apparently the President isn't so worried about that possibility that he won't protect himself with armed guards.  And by the way, how is it that celebrities and the President think they should protected with armed guards but don't think “the masses” have the same right?  We as parents in local school districts should be the ones to weigh the risks and make the final decision on how to protect our children.  If Rosie O'Donnell wants to protect herself with armed, security guards, I demand we have the right to make that same choice to protect our children.

So what's left then? Why are liberals so bent on imposing gun free zones? I have a theory: I think liberals would really like to have all of the US become a gun free zone where only the aristocracy (liberal politicians, celebrities, and the mega-wealthy like Warren Buffet) have guns and “the people” are unarmed. I believe that they think if students are raised in a gun free environment, they will be less likely to protest tighter gun restrictions in the future. I sincerely believe that gun free zones aren't intended to make kids safer but are all about controlling us. It's always about control with liberals.

ABC is a bunch of intolerant bigots

Several months back, I wrote about how many, large corporations seem oblivious to the feelings of millions of Bible believing Christians while simultaneously being hypersensitive to even the slightest offense against gays. When one member of the Robertson family on A&E's “Duck Dynasty” made a comment in support of traditional marriage, A&E's first reaction was to throw him off the show. A southern cuisine restaurant chain, Cracker Barrel, pulled Duck Dynasty merchandise off the shelves. However, the public outcry against both companies was so severe, they almost immediately reversed their positions. Both companies offered half-hearted apologies.

Now, ABC, a subsidiary of Disney, has a show slated to air this fall called, The Real O'Neals. The show has been described as a “semi-autobiographical” comedy inspired by Dan Savage – who is also credited as the show's executive producer. I've written about Dan Savage on my blog before. His bio champions him as the founder of the “anti-bullying” movement known as, It Gets Better. He's more notoriously known for his perverted sex columns, his incendiary anti-christian comments, his invitations to GOP presidential candidates to perform oral sex on him, and for just being an abrasive jerk in general.

So let's get this straight: A&E wanted to throw Phil Robertson off their show based on his views on gay marriage while ABC gives a bombastic theophobe his own show. Obviously, Hollywood has made its priorities clear. A&E, of course, reversed their decision in the face of public protest. ABC, on the other hand, has stood firm on its decision to air the show in spite of the protest it has received.

I've watched the official trailer for the show. It begins with the narrator saying, “The O'Neals are your typical, Irish, Catholic family.” Really? From the video we see that the parents are divorcing, the older son admits to an eating disorder, the daughter runs scam fund raisers and pockets the money, the family priest drives a Lexus - oh, and the main character is gay. Yeah, that's a real typical Catholic family. //RKBentley rolls his eyes//

In one scene, a young girl in a Catholic school girl uniform is pressuring the main character (the gay one) into having sex (how cliché) when she produces a giant box of condoms. The scene cuts to the boy standing in front of the mirror admiring a male, underwear model in a magazine. I guess he's trying to psych himself up for sex with the girl. He chickens out and flushes the condoms which causes the toilet to overflow. Desperately plunging the toilet, the boy pleads to a statue of the Virgin Mary on the toilet by saying, “Come on, girl. You've got to help me out.” Hmmm. Can't ABC see how this might be offensive?

Now, ABC has every right to make the show. But I also have the right to say I will refuse to watch it. I also have the right to tell everyone I know not to watch it. I have every right to say I hope the show fails miserably (which I'm sure it will) and that ABC will lose millions of dollars just for having produced it in the first place. I have the right to wish that every company who advertizes on the show will hear a million protests from angry consumers, all promising to boycott their products for supporting such trash. Finally, I have the right to say that I'm sick and tired of corporations that thumb their noses at their Christian consumers all in the sake of “tolerance” and “fairness.”

ABC! You're not tolerant or fair. You're a bunch of anti-christian theophobes who has embraced the crowned Prince of intolerance. Savage is a bigot of the worst sort who has nothing in common with the values once held by Walt Disney. You have made your bed and now you will lie in it. It's values like this that have contributed to the overall decline of TV and movie audiences. You habitually offend the beliefs held by millions of people. ABC, if this show represents your corporate values, then your viewership will continue to decline. Maybe later, you'll regret having aired the show. You were warned.

By the way, I won't accept any apology. My rant is over. Carry on.

The Alternative Media Strikes Again

There's a reason I call the mainstream media the “alternative media.” Most TV news shows, cable news shows, liberal news sites, and many newspapers have simply demonstrated they are not credible sources of news. On Wednesday, 9/12, I blogged about the assaults on our embassies in the Middle East. That's news. That's what Americans need to hear about. Well, all the rest of that day and yesterday, the media spends it's time not covering the events in the Middle East but attacking the timing and tone of Mitt Romney's condemnation of the attacks and his criticism of President Obama!

 

Under the headline, “Mitt Romney Response To Libya, Egypt Attacks Called 'Irresponsible,' 'Craven,' 'Ham-Handed',” the Huffington Post provided some of the following quotes:

 

The Romney campaign drew fire on Wednesday morning for issuing a blistering statement condemning the American embassy in Egypt for speaking against an incendiary anti-Muslim film, even though the embassy made the statement before any attacks had taken place. NBC's Chuck Todd, for instance, called the statement "irresponsible" and a "bad mistake." ABC's Jake Tapper said that Romney's attack "does not stand up to simple chronology."

 

When Romney appeared in a press conference, reporters had the chance to ask him substantive questions about the crisis brewing in the Middle East. Instead, they wasted the entire interview prodding him on his criticism of Obama. Here are some of the “tough” questions he was asked:

 

REPORTER #1 (male): The statement from the President was very toughly worded statement last night. Do you regret the tone at all, given what we know now?

REPORTER # 2 (female): Governor Romney, do you think, though, coming so soon after the events, really, had unfolded overnight was appropriate to be weighing in as this as this crisis is unfolding in real time?

REPORTER (male) #3: You talk about mixed signals. The world is watching. Isn't this itself a mixed signal when you criticize the administration at a time when Americans are being killed? Shouldn't politics stop- [garbled]

REPORTER (female) #4: Governor, some people have said that you jumped the gun a little in putting that statement out last night and that you should have waited until more details were available. Um, do you regret having that statement come out so early before we learned about all of the things that were happening? 

REPORTER #5 (male): If you had known last night that the ambassador died, and, obviously, I'm gathering you did not know- If you had known that the ambassador had died, would you have issued such a strongly issued statement? 

REPORTER #6: How specifically, Governor Romney, would a President Romney have handled the situation differently than President Obama? [Finally, some substance]

Are you freaking kidding me?! On the anniversary of 9/11, two US embassies were attacked in the Middle East and four US citizens were killed!! Do these reporters really think the first questions on the public's mind is whether Romney was a little too hard on Obama for the administration's early handling of the situation? 

I'm not a news guy but let me offer a little help: “US Embassies Attacked in Middle East”; “War on Terror Not Over”; “Al Qaeda Suspected in Organizing Riots that Killed 4 US Officials.” These are the headlines we need to be reading. What is President Obama going to do about it? What would President Romney do about it? These are the questions we need to be asking. Questions like those above and headlines like, “Romney Shows He's Out of His Depth in Foreign Policy” are a waste of our time.

Dutch Carpenter Builds a Full Sized Ark

This week, a Dutch builder, Johan Huibers finally realized his decades old dream of building a full scale “replica” of Noah's Ark. I use the word “replica” loosely because we really don't know much about what the original ark looked like. According to Genesis 6, the Ark was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, 30 cubits high, had 3 levels, a door, a one cubit high window, was made of “gopher wood,” and was covered in pitch. That's everything we know about the Ark's construction.

Not knowing any more about the Ark than the brief description given in Genesis, Huibers certainly has taken a few liberties. His modern version is true to scale but, beyond that, I'm not sure how much it resembles the original Ark. The modern ark is reinforced with steel, stocked with plastic animals, has theater-style conference rooms, and is powered by a motor.

We also don't know much about the man who built this. Most sources identify Huibers as a “creationist” but I can't tell from the reports if he is a young-earth creationist or if he believes in a global flood.

Several news reports say that he was “inspired” to build the ark 20 years ago when he had a dream that part of Holland was flooded. That may have given him the idea but I'm still not sure of his objective. The news stories call the ark a “floating faux zoo” and say that Huibers intends to make it a first-rate, tourist attraction. An article published by AiG's “Answers” magazine a few years ago says that Huibers hoped his first ark, a ½ scale version, would “bring renewed interest in Christianity to the Netherlands.” That's certainly a worthwhile goal.

As usual, the media has exercised shoddy investigation in covering this story. One article said the following:

This feat of true biblical proportions was inspired by a dream Mr Huibers had 20 years ago, in which he saw part of his native Netherlands submerged in a flood like the one featured in the Book of Genesis.

Do you see what I mean? However bad the flood was 20 years ago, it was nothing “like the one featured in the Book of Genesis.” Later the article says:

And though it may not be able to shelter two of every animal, as the original story dictates, it can hold 1,500 people – not to mention a menagerie of life-size plastic creatures including giraffes, elephants and donkeys, as well as a few live chickens.

What do they mean, “it may not be able to shelter two of every animal”? The article may mention that Noah's Ark was more than ½ the size of the Titanic but little else is said about the enormity of the Ark. It doesn't speculate how many animals truly could have fit on a ship this size but instead amusingly highlights the plastic animals used on the replica. Admittedly the story is meant to be more of a human interest piece than a substantive, in-depth report but this article seems to go out of its way to make light of Huibers replica.

Finally, still another article said:

As far as God’s command to Noah that the ark be stocked with two of everything in the animal kingdom, Huibers steered a wide berth around animal rights activists and opted for inanimate models instead — and indeed, the ship now boasts faux giraffes, zebras, cows and donkeys by the pair.

God did not command Noah to stock “two of everything in the animal kingdom” but specifically told him to include terrestrial animals who breathed air. And by the way, zebras and donkeys belong to the same “kind” and so both would not have been on the Ark.

Shoddy journalism aside, the most unfortunate thing for me is that I'm not a world traveler so it's not likely that I'll ever have the opportunity to see this ark in person. Even so, I would still say that I'm excited it was built. Such a thing could be a wonderful tool in reminding people of the judgment of God as well as His mercy. At the very least, this will generate discussion around the Bible. It already has.

Dan Savage Bullies Christian Students

Dan Savage is a gay advocate, a newspaper sex advice columnist, blogger, and supposed “anti-bullying” champion. He's perhaps most acclaimed for his “It gets better” campaign aimed at encouraging young gays who are being bullied. I also think he's gay. Needless to say, he's a controversial character but he caused quite a controversy of a different sort a few weeks back with his comments to a group of aspiring, high school journalists. In the midst of what was supposed to be an anti-bullying speech, he launched into a rant against the Bible in front of high school students, where many of the students responded by walking out. The video of his remarks is provided below.

A lot has already been said about Mr. Savage's remarks and I don't want to bore anyone by echoing what has already been written on 1,000 other blogs. Suffice it to say that I agree that Mr. Savage has the right to say what he said. I also have the right to call him an idiot. In the arena of free speech, some people say things that will offend others and Savage pushes offensive speech to the extreme. But if he couldn't say it, there wouldn't be “free” speech, would there?

I am a little curious about this venue, though. I've only heard it described as a “conference” for high school journalists. Are these public school students? Is this a government sponsored event? If so, then I most certainly do object to Savage's remarks. Actually, I object to them in any case but if this is a government sponsored event, then I object on the grounds of the free exercise clause in the first amendment. No one would deny that a public school ordinarily shouldn't bring in anyone who speaks to endorse the Bible. Neither should they bring in someone who openly criticizes the Bible. Regardless of that, even if this wasn't a government sponsored event, I still think the language Savage used was not appropriate for high school aged students. Many of these young adults were not old enough to get into an R-rated movie. They didn't need to be hearing R-rated language. However, this isn't really the point of my post.

I'm also a little amused at the irony of the remarks. This alleged “anti-bullying” hero, in the midst of an “anti-bullying” speech, proceeds to verbally bully the Bible believing students in the crowd. Some might say he was simply speaking against those who would use the Bible as grounds to mistreat gays. Really? Who in the audience did that? He didn't know if any of them have ever bullied anyone. It's obvious that his remarks were against all Bible believing Christians. When those students, not guilty of anything Savaged alleged, walked out in protest (at least one in tears), he referred to their protest as a “punk ass move.” It just strikes me as self-defeating that a person would be so intimidating if his objective is to persuade people to stop bullying others. However, this isn't really the point of my post either.

Like I've already said, I don't want to echo what has already been discussed elsewhere on the net and other media. There were at least two things I've not heard being discussed anywhere. First, I was a little surprised at some of the comments made by people who criticized the students! I heard more than a few people say that, if these students are aspiring journalists, they need to learn to be objective. They shouldn't walk out and refuse to listen to points of view they might happen to disagree with. I have to laugh at the insincerity of these critics. I believe the people who make this point are themselves theophobes who are looking for still another excuse to ridicule Christians. Like most people who reject the Bible, they're not rational. They cannot apply their logic consistently nor have they thought through their position. For example, what about the students heard on the tape who hooted, hollered, and applauded Savage's remarks? Where's their objectivity? If a good journalist shouldn't protest views he disagrees with, shouldn't he also not cheer wildly views he does agree with? These amateur critics, who pretend to know what a good journalist should do, haven't picked up on that point.

This is sort of an ancillary point but I believe those students who cheered Savage are representative of the alternative media today. I heard the other day that CNN's viewership has tanked. Newspapers all across the nation are folding. Do you know why? It's because these outlets pretend to report the news objectively but cannot conceal their seething liberalism. Nobody is interested in hearing their bias.

The second thing I noticed about Savage's remarks is the same point I've raised several times before. He said the Bible is “wrong” on human sexuality. Such a notion suggests there is some absolute “right” view of human sexuality. OK, then – where is it? I ask in earnest. Show me where has been written the absolutely true and correct standard of sexual conduct. I don't believe such a thing exists outside of the Bible.

Mr. Savage speaks as though he has authority on the subject yet he has no authority beyond his own opinion. And even though many might laud his opinion, I defy him to lay his finger on some absolute rule that transcends opinion. Without such a transcendent standard, Mr. Savage's opinion carries no more weight than my own. As a matter of fact, my opinion likely carries more weight because mine is the opinion held by the majority of people. If rights are determined by the majority, I don't even need to appeal to the Bible to condemn homosexuality. I could say homosexuality is “wrong” on the simple grounds that most people think it's “icky.”

Mr. Savage has retreated a little from his remarks in the wake of the backlash that followed. However, he will never turn away from his course. I hope he makes more remarks like this because it will only shine more light on his error. It's still sad, though. He doesn't see how wrong he is nor does he know how lost.

Reporters Don't Have a Clue About Religion

On this Ash Wednesday, I can't help but post this gem from Ash Wednesdays past. I know that most reporters are completely clueless about all things religious and, since these reporters are British, they're likely more secular than most. Even so, since they are reporters, you'd think they'd at least have heard about Ash Wednesday on the news before they embarrassed themselves.

It was Ash Wednesday, for crying out loud. Didn't their network even announce the day? I've mentioned before that I'm not Catholic but even I'm aware of this observance. I'm not asking them to observe the practice but, again, since they are reporters, do you think they at least might be aware of a practice observed by hundreds of millions of people all over the world? I can only assume they didn't think it was important enough to be mentioned on their network.

Can you imagine something like this happening at Christmas? Would the reporters have said something like, "I wonder why that tree behind the Vice President has lights on it?" Of course, nothing like that could ever happen. Christmas has become secular enough to catch the notice of the liberal media (though they still refuse to call it, "Christmas" but prefer the more benign sounding, "holiday"). Ash Wednesday is still far too religious for them to be interested in actually learning something about it.

Oh well. At least their antics provide a never ending supply of humor for bloggers like me. Enjoy!!