August 30, 2010

New Column: Obama's Appalling Mistreatment of Israel

As Israeli and Palestinian peace talks are scheduled to resume in Washington in a few days, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated that Palestinian recognition of Israel as the Jewish homeland is an essential condition for peace. Completely reasonable, yet don't keep your fingers crossed, especially with the Obama administration's attitude toward Israel.

In my new book, "Crimes Against Liberty" (I know, another shameless plug, but you'd do the same in my position), I dedicate an entire chapter to detailing the Obama administration's horrendous and unprecedented mistreatment of Israel. Can you believe we're even having a discussion about Israel's right to the land six-plus decades and numerous wars after the modern Israeli state was restored to the Jews?

It's bad enough when misfit countries oppose Israel's right to existence and always demonize Israel while downplaying the Palestinians' misdeeds, but it's shocking and disturbing when the president of the United States abuses our greatest ally in the Mideast.

It's mystifying to me that so many Jewish people in America have been so tolerant of Obama's behavior toward Israel, almost as if in denial, but what more evidence do we need?

During the campaign, it was widely suspected that Obama had strong ties with pro-Palestinian groups, not to mention his membership in the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church -- one that is known for its sympathy for the causes of certain terrorist organizations and the Palestinian position.

Continue reading "New Column: Obama's Appalling Mistreatment of Israel"

Posted by David Limbaugh at 08:55 PM | Printer Friendly

August 26, 2010

So Is He a Christian?

My new book, "Crimes Against Liberty," has just been released, and in many of my radio interviews, hosts have been asking me whether I believe Barack Obama is a Christian or a Muslim. Though I don't address that subject in my book, I'll take a stab at it here.

First, let me confess that we can't possibly know for sure whether someone is a Christian, in the sense that we can't read another person's soul. We can sometimes get a pretty good idea based on someone's statements, professions and actions, but ultimately, Christianity is about an individual's beliefs and his faith and personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

With that disclaimer and the further admission that I'm no expert on Islam, let me share with you some factors that I believe merit our consideration on the question of whether he is Muslim, Christian or neither.

In some ways, Obama exhibits a worldview that more closely resembles a secularist than it does either a Muslim or a Christian, especially in his views on social issues. Also, he seems to place a great deal of confidence in himself and in government to bring about transformational change. How many God-fearing people have you known who would say "we (meaning I) are the ones we've been waiting for" or "generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal"? The staggering conceit of these statements cannot be overstated.

Those who mocked George W. Bush for openly declaring his faith in God and sharing that he prays to God for strength squawked about the horrors in Bush's allowing his beliefs to influence his governance. Apart from the mockers' misunderstanding of the proper intersection of faith and governance, let me pose another question. Are you more comfortable with a chief executive who, along with the overwhelming majority of Americans, humbly admits to reliance on God or one who projects the impression that he himself is messianic? Which has a firmer grip on reality or comes closer to your own worldview?

Though the mockers would have us believe the former is abnormal, this can only be true if enormous numbers of Americans are lying to pollsters about their Christian faith. It's time we quit acting as if belief in God and Christianity were some kind of oddity or government officials should or even could fence off their beliefs from their governance. Secularists certainly don't.

Continue reading "So Is He a Christian?"

Posted by David Limbaugh at 04:45 PM | Printer Friendly

August 19, 2010

The Judiciary's Culturally Sanctioned Allergy to Christianity Flourishes

Does anyone find it ironic that the very people who protest so loudly over supposed affronts to Islamic religious expression are often so hostile to the slightest Christian religious expressions -- even incidental expressions?

The left is going bonkers over opposition to the ground zero mosque in the name of religious freedom, but the left's assault on Christian liberties proceeds unabated. One very recent example is the ruling by a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that memorial crosses erected and displayed along Utah public roads to honor fallen state highway troopers must be removed as unconstitutional.

In case you are wondering how highway crosses could remotely be considered to have violated any constitutional provision, the court tells us: "We hold that these memorials have the impermissible effect of conveying to the reasonable observer the message that the state prefers or otherwise endorses a certain religion."

So here we go again. Our politically correct-intoxicated culture is so allergic to expressions and symbols of Christianity that our courts leap to absurd conclusions to cordon off the chief allergen: Christianity.

To fully appreciate the outrageousness of the court's decision, you must understand that the memorial crosses were placed along Utah public roads by a private -- not public -- organization, the Utah Highway Patrol Association, which also maintains the crosses.

Continue reading "The Judiciary's Culturally Sanctioned Allergy to Christianity Flourishes"

Posted by David Limbaugh at 02:19 PM | Printer Friendly

August 16, 2010

Why Does America Always Have To Prove Its Good Will?

A caller to my brother Rush's show suggested that we were making a mistake by opposing the ground zero mosque, because this was an opportunity to show Muslims that we are better than that and that our form of government is superior. This is more muddle-headed leftist thinking, even if it did come from a caller who thinks he's conservative.

It's an outgrowth of the liberal mindset that we need to prove our moral decency to Muslim people. Since the 9/11 attacks, it has been clear that many leftists believe that to some extent, America brought on itself the attacks. They can indignantly dispute this characterization, but we see too much evidence to dismiss it. No less a central figure than our own president's former pastor Jeremiah Wright took this position. Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam of the ground zero mosque, reportedly expressed that view, and, knowing that, Obama's State Department is making him a liaison to the Mideast.

Whether or not Obama believes we brought the attacks on ourselves, we can surely agree that he thinks, at the very least, that the United States has mistreated and antagonized the world's Muslims. His infamous Cairo speech (and countless other talks) was dripping with that message.

But on what do Obama and the left base the perverse conclusion that America has been less than gracious toward the Muslim world? We have provided bundles of foreign aid to Muslim nations and liberated millions of Muslim people. We guarantee Muslims the same First Amendment protections we do peoples of all faiths or non-faiths.

Where do they get this idea that we have given the impression that we are at war with Islam? It surely couldn't be from former President George W. Bush's frequent, adamant assertions that "we are not at war with Islam." It couldn't be from his taking great pains to describe Islam as a religion of peace. It couldn't be from Homeland Security's policy to go out of its way to profile Caucasian grandmothers in airline ticket lines before stopping Middle Eastern men for cause (excuse the slight hyperbole).

Continue reading "Why Does America Always Have To Prove Its Good Will?"

Posted by David Limbaugh at 04:48 PM | Printer Friendly

August 12, 2010

Equipping Children With Spiritual and Political Armor

As my friends' kids leave the nest for their first year away at college, I think of the monolithic ideas with which they will surely be bombarded in an environment that is supposed to expose them to a variety of ideas. Are they prepared to resist the seductive but destructive message?

Liberal elites have dominated most university faculties for years, but it seems they've become bolder, more radical and more militant. It is not their ideas I fear, because Christianity and conservatism stand up to truth challenges. It is the moral preening, the politicization of academics, the peer pressure, the revisionist distortions and the potential discrimination against dissenters.

You know the drill. The professorate will aggressively beat into your children's heads that America is not the greatest nation in history, but largely responsible, through action or inaction, for much of the suffering in the world and that it is imperialistic, exploitive and selfish. They'll say that Christianity is narrow, intolerant, anti-intellectual, anti-science, homophobic, hateful and judgmental and that capitalism is corrupt and skewed toward the "rich" and big corporations. They'll say or imply that political conservatism is inherently racist, homophobic, sexist, militaristic, unenlightened, close-minded, mean-spirited and uncompassionate.

As parents, are you aware that the above scenario is likely to play out to some extent at most universities? Do you disagree or think it's not a big deal? Do you believe your kids are immune from this inevitable onslaught? Are you confident that even if they are exposed to such slander, they will reject it as inconsistent with their own personal experiences?

Are you sure, for example, that your kids have the discernment to recognize the disinformation that Christianity and conservatism are hardhearted, selfish, hateful, bigoted and intellectually backward and the strength to oppose it? Apart from your kids' presumed respect for you, do they have the intellectual ammunition and the spiritual armor to resist the pressure to conform?

Continue reading "Equipping Children With Spiritual and Political Armor"

Posted by David Limbaugh at 06:21 PM | Printer Friendly

August 09, 2010

Democrats, Please Follow New York Times' Advice

Liberals' derision of "people of faith" as weak, anti-intellectual, anti-reason and anti-science is ironic beyond measure, given their stubborn adherence to their own discredited views on the thin thread of faith alone.

New York Times editors' "In Search of a New Playbook" provides a perfect illustration. They not only don't apologize for President Obama's failed policies but also insist that Democrats run proudly on his record.

They argue that for Democrats to retain control of Congress, "they need a sharper and more inspirational playbook." But they're talking about a playbook that deviates not from their tired liberal ideas, but simply from the way those ideas are presented. (This is reminiscent of Obama's tone-deaf reaction to his effective trouncing in the Massachusetts Senate election, when he said he would have to explain his health care ideas more clearly to the American people.)

You see, enlightened people understand the superiority of liberal positions, and the unenlightened just need more indoctrination. You'd think liberal control of the teachers unions, institutions of higher learning and other cultural institutions for a couple of generations would be enough.

The editors warn that the November elections could produce a Republican tidal wave akin to the 1994 midterms, "in part ... because the significant accomplishments of the last two years -- health care reform, the stimulus package, the resuscitation of the auto industry, financial reform -- were savagely attacked by the right and aggressively misrepresented as the hoof beats of totalitarianism."

Continue reading "Democrats, Please Follow New York Times' Advice"

Posted by David Limbaugh at 06:49 PM | Printer Friendly

August 05, 2010

Judge Walker's Clinic in the Power of Words To Deceive

Judge Vaughn R. Walker's opinion purporting to strike down California's Proposition 8 ballot initiative banning gay marriage is a screaming advertisement against the appointment and confirmation of renegade judicial activists like Elena Kagan.

The labyrinth of twisted reasoning Walker constructs in his opinion is a testament to the depth of deceit that inhabits the modern left's thought processes. The thinking is so bizarre I can only conclude it is the outworking of the spiritual warfare that hotly rages beneath our sensory perception. It is sheer madness!

Just read the sections of the judge's conclusions of law, "The Right To Marry Protects an Individual's Choice of Marital Partner Regardless of Gender," as an illustration of the power of words to deceive.

Walker first cites a line of cases affirming the principle that the freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right protected by the due process clause. He next asks whether the homosexual plaintiffs seeking to marry are asserting a new right or the same right as heterosexual couples. So far so good. But then he gives us a clinic in how a clever sophist can use words to minutely describe trees in a way that renders the forest they constitute completely unrecognizable.

He seeks to deconstruct (and then reconstruct) the definition of traditional marriage by describing its constituent elements and showing how those elements can be applied equally to heterosexual marriage and same-sex marriage, thus concluding there is no difference between the concepts. It's as if he compared my DNA with any of yours and concluded that because 99.9 percent of human DNA is the same in everyone, you and I are the same person.

Continue reading "Judge Walker's Clinic in the Power of Words To Deceive"

Posted by David Limbaugh at 07:21 PM | Printer Friendly

August 02, 2010

On Demagoguing, Obama Should Look in the Mirror

As the granddaddy of political demagoguery, President Obama might have outdone himself with his recent admonition to political opponents not to "demagogue" the immigration issue.

A "demagogue" is "a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument." "Ah," you say, "Obama is onto something here. Those who oppose his open-border policy are appealing to prejudice against immigrants instead of to rational argument." Wrong.

Rather, those who support defending our borders believe in the rule of law and in law enforcement. The people of the United States -- and Arizona in particular -- have a rational interest in protecting their borders and in wanting to prevent illegal immigration. Though we've had immigration laws on the books for years, are Obama's Democrats saying they are irrationally based -- that anyone who wants to enforce these laws is prejudiced? That anyone throughout our history who favored controlling immigration was harboring racial prejudice?

It is Obama and many of his supporters who fall into the demagogue category by appealing to prejudices and fears in lieu of rational argument. Even in his invocation of the term "demagogue" to describe this issue, Obama himself is demagoguing. He must, because he has no reasonable arguments to justify his lawless policy.

Obama is implying -- and has been implying for months -- that the people of Arizona didn't pass an enforcement law to ensure their own safety or to facilitate legitimate ends of law enforcement authorities, but to discriminate against legal aliens.

Continue reading "On Demagoguing, Obama Should Look in the Mirror"

Posted by David Limbaugh at 05:58 PM | Printer Friendly