The Spectator: Is America Really Going To Do This? (Good Question)

My friend Paul sent me a link to a British online magazine called The Spectator with a piece written by Melanie Phillips: Is America Really Going To Do This? In it she makes a powerful summation of why the election of Obama would be a catastrophe not only for America, but also for Israel and the West. Here is an excerpt:

[...the only way to assess their position is to look at each man in the round, at what his general attitude is towards war and self-defence, aggression and appeasement, the values of the west and those of its enemies and – perhaps most crucially of all – the nature of the advisers and associates to whom he is listening. As I have said before, I do not trust McCain; I think his judgment is erratic and impetuous, and sometimes wrong. But on the big picture, he gets it. He will defend America and the free world whereas Obama will undermine them and aid their enemies.

Here’s why. McCain believes in protecting and defending America as it is. Obama tells the world he is ashamed of America and wants to change it into something else. McCain stands for American exceptionalism, the belief that American values are superior to tyrannies. Obama stands for the expiation of America’s original sin in oppressing black people, the third world and the poor.

Obama thinks world conflicts are basically the west’s fault, and so it must right the injustices it has inflicted. That’s why he believes in ‘soft power’ — diplomacy, aid, rectifying ‘grievances’ (thus legitimising them, encouraging terror and promoting injustice) and resolving conflict by talking. As a result, he will take an axe to America’s defences at the very time when they need to be built up. He has said he will ‘cut investments in unproven missile defense systems’; he will ‘not weaponize space’; he will ‘slow our development of future combat systems’; and he will also ‘not develop nuclear weapons,’ pledging to seek ‘deep cuts’ in America’s arsenal, thus unilaterally disabling its nuclear deterrent as Russia and China engage in massive military buildups.

McCain understands that an Islamic war of conquest is being waged on a number of diverse fronts which all have to be seen in relation to each other. For Obama, however, the real source of evil in the world is America. The evil represented by Iran and the Islamic jihadists is apparently all America’s fault. ‘A lot of evil’s been perpetuated based on the claim that we were fighting evil,’ he said. Last May, he dismissed Iran as a tiny place which posed no threat to the US -- before reversing himself the very next day when he said Iran was a great threat which had to be defeated. He has also said that Hezbollah and Hamas have ‘legitimate grievances’. Really? And what might they be? Their grievances are a) the existence of Israel b) its support by America c) the absence of salafist Islam in the world. Does Obama think these ‘grievances’ are legitimate?]

The article gets even more alarming as she continues...and you can read it HERE in its entirety.

What a catastrophe it would be if our country elected an inexperienced, extreme liberal simply based upon his non response to a mortgage crisis for which he and his Democrat cronies are largely responsible, only to realize the mistake after we are surrounded by enemies giving us the ultimatum of servitude and bondage vs. extermination. History (if anyone will be allowed to write it by then) will ask..."Where was the Media?"

From now until election day I will try to make the time to present other convincing arguments I find or that friends send my way.

Not For Women Only ---Book Review of Lady of Milkweed Manor

Not more than a couple of weeks before I renounced my membership to the University of Illinois alumni association for the university's continued support of William Ayers, I read in the alumni magazine about a former classmate, former radio coworker, and old friend with whom I (until recently) lost touch after graduation named Julie Klassen who had published her first novel just last year. It's a Christian romance novel set in Regency England called Lady of Milkweed Manor, and it's gotten some very good reviews which can be found HERE and HERE.

It's a story of a vicar's fallen daughter who finds herself an unwed mother-to-be at a time in history when people were shunned for such mistakes. Her father, an unforgiving clergyman, is no exception and banishes her from home, forcing her to take refuge at a home for unwed mothers, a manor with a garden wrought with milkweeds. Later we learn the milkweeds are purposely grown for medicinal use, and become very symbolic throughout the book and consistent with the theme that things are not always as they seem.

It's basically a story about true love and sacrifice during a period when class, manners, snobbery, and hypocrisy seemed to rule the day. But the hope lies in the triumphing of the spirit, in patience, and in the Will of God. The period in which the story takes place was one in which very few thought so highly of themselves as to question the existence of God, though their behavior might oftentimes suggest a lack of God's influence. But while the sin of indifference to the least of us seems prevalent (snobbery running amok towards those far beyond unweds, wet-nurses, and fatherless babies), abortion is never an option.

One of the interesting examples of Julie Klassen's findings through extensive, on-site research in Britain of the historical period in question, was the practice of using goats as wet-nurses, in which the babies are straddled by the beasts and fed by direct contact in order to reduce the spreading of syphilis. Other items of note are excerpts from poems or other literature from that period that are usually about milkweeds or puerperal insanity (prenatal and/or postpartum depression) found at the start of each chapter. Plus, there is a lot of breastfeeding going on throughout the book, but tastefully described and in great detail.

As an author Julie (pictured at right) seems quite adept at plot flow, keeping my interest throughout and surprising me many times. Needless to say I found the book hard to put down. Perhaps it is her years of experience as a fictional editor (giving her such wonderful talent in writing) that makes this excellent debut offering so engrossing. It is an interesting and enjoyable read not just for women, but for any anglophile or lover of Christian literature.

Click HERE for an excerpt.



Picture of author and book cover borrowed from Julie Klassen.

N.O.W. Hangs Out The "Gone Shopping" Sign On Key Issues

There have been two recent headlines in the news lately that have grabbed my attention. One is about a 19 year old rape victim in Saudi Arabia having to undergo 200 lashes and six months in jail for being alone in a car with her boyfriend (also raped); and another is about the British teacher in Sudan serving a 15 day sentence for allowing her students to name a teddy bear after the prophet, Mohammed. Yesterday thousands marched in the streets of Sudan wielding knives and demanding her execution. The United States Government has voiced its displeasure about the former, while the UK has gotten involved in the latter. What I find truly amazing is that the National Organization for Women (NOW) has said virtually nothing about either news item.

Their silence is deafening. Though I may have heard something on the radio about NOW announcing they were not taking a position one way or the other on both news items, in checking their website I found no mention at all about either. I expected to find both listed under hot topics, but only found links to something called "love your body," sexual harassment, and National Caregivers Month among others.

Upon searching much deeper I finally came upon a link to a campaign against violence against women....in Juarez, Mexico. That seems to be about as international as these timid feminists care to get. They'll whine and complain about "lite" issues at home while ignoring helpless cries from oppressed women and girls around the world. And although if you dig really really deep into their site you can find a denunciation of honor killings (no specific cases or culprits mentioned here, just an agreement that they're bad), NOW still seems much more concerned with lesbian rights, promoting diversity, and recommending "easy holiday shopping."

Why isn't NOW dealing with Islamic subjugation of women? Don't they realize that if the Islamofascists have their way that all those NOW gals will be wearing burkas and having their butts tanned and blistered for violation of the merest infractions? Could it be that allying themselves with Republicans in the war on terror is more distasteful for NOW than the prospect of losing that war? Are they so lacking in foresight? Are they as delusional as Rosie O'Donnell in thinking that mainstream American Christians are as big a threat as Islamofascists? Sure looks that way.

More Disturbing Trends In The UK

It will soon get to the point where we cannot relate to the United Kingdom anymore, as their values stray from our own. Here are a couple of examples here and here, in addition to the story listed in the October 25th posting below:

First, do-it-yourself at home abortions are being proposed by the Commons Science and Technology Committee (not to be confused with any “common sense” committee, which the UK has by now all but outlawed) to be added to the Human Tissues and Embryos Bill, which is expected to be introduced in the Queen’s speech next week. A couple of Tory MP’s, Nadine Dorries and Dr. Bob Spink, along with Labour MP Jim Dobbin represent the sane view that this proposal will encourage termination as a form of contraception by making it so much easier to carry out.

But in spite of the CSTC chairman’s admission that the current yearly figure of 200,000 abortions is “monstrous,” and also in spite of compelling scientific research showing fetuses “walking in the womb at 12 weeks,” or even that babies are now surviving earlier than the 24 week limit, the committee sees no reason to pull back from the 24 weeks rule or discourage abortion in any way.

Secondly, Labour’s favorite think tank, the Institute For Public Policy Research, has declared that Christmas should be downplayed for the sake of multiculturalism, as Great Britain is no longer a Christian nation. In addition they propose several other crazy notions…like birth ceremonies in which the state and parents agree to “work in partnership” to bring up children (who says communism is dead?), banning religious private schools, throwing bishops out of the House of Lords, flying flags other than the Union Jack, etc…

It appears that this think tank wants to destroy Britain’s national identity and eliminate its borders, allowing other cultures to enter the country and keep their own identity without assimilating. Hmmm that does sound familiar, doesn’t it? What happens over there can also happen here, if we are not careful. One problem with Britain is that it doesn’t currently have an opposing conservative voice on the air or in print. There is no Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. There is no Laura Ingraham, Bill O’Reilly, or Michelle Malkin. There is only the liberal BBC and several liberal newspapers. Perhaps Mark Steyn could broadcast a show and have it beamed over there ala Radio Free Europe simply to provide a little balance.

Hat tip: Culture Wire

UK's Labour Govt. Shoving Homosexuality Down The Throats Of The People

I haven't been living under a rock lately, so I cannot imagine why I haven't heard about this story sooner (sarcasm). But thanks to DrTony, who read it on HotAir (Allapundit), who saw it in the Daily Mail <----(click here for full article), this story is finally making its rounds. And that's how the Main Stream Media inadvertently invented blogs, by burying politically incorrect stories.

In the UK they have a law known as the "Equality Act of 2006" which has "Sexual Orientation Regulations" which among other things, require foster parents to promote homosexual lifestyles to children as young as 11 years, no matter the religious beliefs or values of the foster parents.

Vincent and Pauline Matherick, the latest victims of these new laws, were forced to give up their most recent foster child (number 28 that this Christian couple have successfully raised, but whose counting?) because they refused to teach him values that conflict with their faith.

When asked if they could look after the child until a new home is found, they were told by officials the child would be placed in a council hostel on Friday. Obviously the government cannot wait to indoctrinate this young boy into a state sanctioned perverted lifestyle. Don't believe me? The couple were also told they would be required to take the child to "gay association meetings" so he could hear the other side's point of view. It makes me wonder what's stopping the Labour Government from imposing this requirement on ALL parents. I'm also wondering if they'll force parents to introduce other religions (as if on par with their own) to their kids.

There is a ray of hope here in that the Mathericks are going to court, and not alone. The Lawyers' Christian Fellowship is backing them and others who have refused to take this lying down. Will keep you updated.

It should also be mentioned that this story comes out on the heels of another from early September of this year about the homosexual couple in Britain who freely sexually abused their foster children (one of the kids being autistic), because social workers feared retribution from investigating complaints. Obviously the social workers feared the same laws that have the Mathericks up in arms. Read more here (hat tip Michelle Malkin).

(photo from Daily Mail, SWNS)

UPDATE: GOOD NEWS! Friday morning 11-2-07, it was reported that our prayers were answered. The Mathericks can be foster parents without being forced to subject their foster children to homosexual propaganda. It is assumed that the 11 year old child that was taken from them has already been returned.