Jon Stewart Asks DNC Delegates About Tolerance

It's impossible to make liberals appear any more foolish than they already are. However, whenever an opportunity presents itself to show just how foolish they can be, I'm more than happy to oblige. Jon Stewart, who is himself quite liberal, has shown that at least he a little more keenly aware of the hypocrisy inherent in the liberal worldview.

In this short video clip, two of Stewart's “reporters” interviewed some of the delegates at the recent DNC. They're happy to boast that they are the “big tent” party of tolerance. Yeah, right! Just listen to how tolerant they are of people who don't share their political views (sorry about the video quality, BTW).

Like I said, they make themselves look foolish. What more can I add except to say this is exactly what I've been talking about. Liberalism is the embodiment of contradiction. Militant pursuit of tolerance virtually demands that a person be intolerant.

Thanks, Mr. Stewart, for a good laugh. Although, when you really think about it, it's sort of sad, isn't it?

Hebrews 11: Faith or Wishful Thinking?

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Hebrews 11:1

A lot of people confuse “faith” with “blind faith” or “wishful thinking.” Archie Bunker once said, “Faith is something that you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe.” Archie never failed to get a laugh but, in this case, I can't say that I endorse his theology.

Hebrews 11 gives us a very different impression of faith then Archie Bunker's. The opening passage – taken from the KJV – describes faith as the “substance” of things hoped for and the “evidence” of things not seen. Other translations use equally concrete terms: words like, “assurance,” “conviction,” and “confidence.” Faith is not a tentative concept where the believer simply “hopes” or “wishes” something to be true. Faith means certainty.

Hebrews 11 makes two statements about faith.

1) It is the substance of things hoped for.

2) It is the evidence of things not seen.

This might sound a little cryptic at first but the epistle writer spends the rest of the chapter explaining what is meant by each of these. In this post, we'll dissect some of the examples.

Verse 3 begins a discussion about how the world was formed – by “the word of God” (ῥῆμα, (rhēma) “the spoken word”). The creation was an event that no one witnessed. How can we know what happened if we didn't see it happen? Many scientists today observe processes that are occurring in the present and use these to extrapolate what happened in the past. They are, quite literally, using the things we see to try to understand the things we didn't see.

Hebrews 11:3 tells us that exactly the opposite is true. The universe was not made by the things that we can see. God created the world ex nihilo (out of nothing). John 1:3 attests, “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” The things that God created includes not only time, matter, and space, but also the natural laws that operate within them. Natural laws are a part of the creation; they are not the cause of the creation.

So even though we weren't there in the beginning, we can know with confidence how the universe was created. It is not blind faith. It is not wishful thinking. It is a certainty; an assurance. We know it is true because it has been revealed to us by the One who was there. By faith, we have evidence about an event we did not see.

Likewise, by faith, we can also have certainty in things that have not yet happened, that is, “things hoped for.” The word translated in the KJV as “substance” is the Greek word, ὑπόστασις (hypostasis). In the Bible, it only occurs here but it was a common word used in business documents. It's literally a contract or guarantee. It's an absolute promise that what has been stated will happen.

Hebrews 11:7 says that God warned Noah about the coming judgment. Even though the Flood had not yet happened, Noah built the Ark in faith, knowing with certainty that it would come. Since God said it would happen, it was a certainty that the world would flood. Noah was as sure about the coming Flood as he was about anything. Because of his faith in God's word, Noah and his family were delivered through the Flood.

The chapter mentions several other notable characters of the Old Testament. This chapter has been called “the Faith Hall of Fame.” In each case, these men and women of old were obedient to God, knowing by faith that the promises He made to them would come to pass. Hebrews 11:39a says these people “gained approval” by their faith (NASB). Yet, in their lifetimes, none of them received the promise in which they hoped. It was not simply “faith” that saved these people but rather it was their faith in the promise of what was to come.  What they believed in the most would come centuries after they lived.

People of the Old Testament were saved the same way we are – by faith in Jesus. The characters mentioned in Hebrews 11 could not know Jesus the same way we know Him. Nevertheless, they believed in the Messiah God had promised all the way back in Genesis 3:16, the seed of the woman who would crush the head of the serpent.

Matthew 24:35 says, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.” If you are certain the sun will rise tomorrow, you can be even more certain that God's word is sure. The word of God is not equivocal. If He said it, He meant it. Because of His revelation, I have incontrovertible evidence about things I did not see: things like the creation, the Fall, and the Flood. I also have absolute assurance about things that have not yet happened: like the return of Christ and His promise of eternal life to all who believe.

I don't think; I know!

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.

We're Still at War with Terrorists

I made the decision to not blog anything yesterday, on 9/11. It wasn't because I don't think the date was important but it was out of a sense of reverence. To simply say, “we won't forget,” is obvious to the extreme and was posted on 1,000,000 other blogs already. I also didn't want to risk saying anything that might sound like, “Happy 9/11.” In the end, I thought it best to leave the day to everyone's own, private reflection.

Last night, The History Channel played video footage reconstructing the time line of the events on that dreadful morning. It was stirring. I went to sleep recalling many of the same feelings I felt 11 years ago. Then I woke up this morning to the terrible news that two US embassies were attacked in the Middle East and the US Ambassador to Libya was murdered along with three of his staffers!

Maybe I should have said something yesterday because I think people are indeed forgetting that there are still terrorists out there who hate us. Many people actually seem to have a pre-9/11 mentality where they believe radical Muslims can be reasoned with. As a mob rioted outside of the US Embassy in Cairo, protesting a YouTube movie critical of Muhammad, the Embassy officials actually sympathized with the protesters. They issued this statement:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

Perhaps I shouldn't be too hasty to judge because it's possible that Embassy officials were afraid for their lives and released this statement in hopes is would quell the mob's anger. It seems to me to be counterproductive, though, since this statement might embolden the rioters by admitting the the movie's creators were out of line. Even after the the mob stormed the Embassy's grounds, took down and burned the American flag, and raised a pro-Muslim standard in its place, the Embassy officials tweeted that their previous statement still stands.

However, after a rocket attack on the US Embassy in Libya killed 4, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, got tough – well, sort of. In still another press release, she seemed to apologized yet again:

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

Yeah, Hillary, that's very clear. You deplore attacks on religious beliefs (except at the DNC where they booed God) but that's not an excuse for violence. OK, where in that statement do you actually condemn the attack on our Embassy?

President Obama finally got around to putting out the “official,” White House statement. He disavowed the Embassy's statement saying it does not reflect the views of the United States. Really, Mr. President? Our US Embassies don't represent the United States? I guess your Secretary of State doesn't represent your administration either? Anyway, the President said:

I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.

I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

At least in this statement the President condemned the attack before taking a swipe at the makers of the video. Oh, and by the way, it doesn't escape my notice that Republican, Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney condemned the attack before the President.

I'm not the President, of course, and it's hard for me to say how best we should respond going forward. However, after having seen the “blame America first” attitude on grand display so far, I'm not optimistic. The President has said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are over. He calls acts of terrorism “man made disasters” or, in the case of the Ft. Hood shooting, “work place violence.” The entire Administration refuses to use the words “Islamic extremists” or “radical Muslims.” Democrats will call conservative groups like the Tea Party, “domestic terrorists” but they refuse to use the label for true terrorists!

The anti-American attitudes that has brewed in the Middle East for decades still simmers. Democrats can apologize until they're blue in the face but that won't quell the anger. Liberals can turn a blind eye and call each act of violence an “isolated incident” but that won't stop the violence. And let's be honest, it's not a coincidence that these riots happened on 9/11. We are still at war with terrorists.