At 3:45 AM on May 29th, Houston Police Officer Kevin Will was killed in the line of duty when an intoxicated driver ran through a police barricade that was protecting an accident scene that Will was investigating. Will’s last act, before he was run down and dragged, was to save the life of a bystander that would have been struck as well if not for the officer’s selfless actions. The suspect fled the scene and was soon caught. Johoan Rodriguez, who is charged with the officer’s death, is a twice deported illegal immigrant.
Houston is known as a “sanctuary city” where, for decades, mayors and city council representatives have adhered to a policy that prohibits police officers from not only taking aggressive actions towards arresting illegals but forbids arrests when illegal residence is the only crime. When illegals are arrested for other crimes, very few are reported to ICE. In 2006 HPD Officer Rodney Johnson was shot and killed by an illegal immigrant. In 2009 HPD Officer Rick Salter was critically injured when he was shot by yet another illegal immigrant, Wilfredo Alfaro. Alfaro was ordered out of the U.S. by an immigration judge in March 2001, returned illegally and was arrested three times before the shooting.
The mayor at the time, Bill White, begrudgingly implemented the ICE 287(g) jailer training program to properly identify and report illegals who were jailed, but did so only after the ensuing outrage over the Salter shooting. The program was later deemed too controversial and was scrapped. In fact, illegal immigrants are responsible for five out of the last seven HPD officers to have been killed or critically injured in the line of duty. Not to mention the countless crimes against civilians committed by illegals in the city, such as the gunning down of 14 year old Shatavia Anderson in 2010 or the numerous DWI deaths caused by illegals. Current Houston mayor, Annise Parker, who was city controller under White, has shown no willingness to change the current sanctuary city policies in Houston.
Unfortunately, stories like these are not isolated to Houston, but are actually commonplace throughout the United States. Yet, just over two weeks before Officer Will’s death, President Obama stood in El Paso joking about putting moats filled with alligators on the border. The common thread between the three cop killing illegals mentioned in Houston, besides being in the country illegally of course, is the fact that they managed to get right back in after being deported. Yet, Obama insists that the borders are secure. The fact is that they have never been secure. Obama refuses to meet with Texas governor Perry to discuss adding additional manpower to the borders. He sues Arizona, who due to lack of federal action, has tried to take it upon themselves to arrest and deport people for the crime of being in this country illegally. The simple logic being, if they aren’t here, then they can’t commit the crime. One preventable death, is one death too many. He invites Felipe Calderon to speak in front of Congress who proceeds to lambaste Arizona to the applause of Democrats. No foreign head of state has ever done such a thing, and yet silence by the President.
Kevin Will took an oath to protect the citizens of Houston and he did so in the most honorable way. Mayor Annise Parker and President Barack Obama also took an oath. As did countless other city, county, state and national leaders who either have ignored or have facilitated illegal immigrants. Their oath is to protect the citizens of their respective jurisdictions. They break that oath daily. For them and those who support them, there is no honor.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Tiki't Easy, America... Former Football Star Not an Anti-Semite
Tiki Barber has come under media fire for recent comments he made. Apparently, not wanting to deal with the media or his ex-wife after their separation, he holed up in his Jewish friend and agent's attic for nearly a week to avoid being seen. He told Sports Illustrated that the event was sort of like a "reverse Anne Frank thing."
Anne Frank, of course, was the poor Jewish girl who hid in an attic to avoid Nazi detection, and penned her journal of the horrifying events that has now become an integral part of Western culture. So the Anti-Defamation League and others are going nuts over this comment, alleging that his comments were “perverse,” and that "the Frank family’s experiences, as recorded in Anne’s diary, are a unique testimonial to the horrors of the Holocaust, and her life should never be debased or degraded by insensitive and offensive analogies."
Rabbi Jason Miller takes it a step further in the Huffington Post, and wonders if this "PR nightmare will mark the end of his television career."
Were his comments insensitive? Well, yeah, they would be to someone who's desperately looking to see it as offensive. But I can assure you, Tiki did not mean to liken his plight to that of the Jews in the Holocaust. Even his agent suggests the inanity of any such claim, and reminds us that Tiki was a guest of Shimon Peres five years ago in Israel. The truth is, he just wanted to make a witty observation about an unusual scenario. And if you don't focus on the offensive undertones, you might say that he succeeded. I mean, it is sort of an ironic reversal of a common perception. Rather than a Jew being allowed to hide in an attic for protection, an image we have come to know well from twentieth century history, Tiki's Jewish friend was protecting him by allowing him to hide in the attic from the media and his ex-wife, whom he apparently feels were as adamant pursuers as Nazis.
Now, is that an exaggeration? Certainly. But what comedy does not rely on a bit of hyperbole? Go to a boardwalk and have a caricature drawn of your likeness, and the artist may draw your nose, ears, or teeth as much larger than they are for comic effect. Or consider that stand-up comics exaggerate nearly every situation they describe on stage for the same reason.
And Tiki is far from the first to use Anne Frank as a source of comedy. In an episode of Family Guy, Peter Griffin is shown in Anne Frank’s attic, loudly eating potato chips and clueing the Nazi’s to their presence, leading to their capture. In the show South Park, Eric Cartman is shown in one episode to corral cats into his attic to avoid their slaughter at the hands of townspeople, the irony of course being that the character is a fervent anti-Semite.
The fact that Tiki is being crucified for this is rather interesting, though, and exposes how misplaced American sensitivities are. Tiki's not being targeted by the media because he said something that could be construed as anti-Semitic- he is being targeted because he is a celebrity that has said something unexpected and controversial, and in our culture that is overloaded with gossip media, that sort of thing draws viewers and hits as honey draws flies.
Think about it. Tiki Barber simply made a bad joke involving Anne Frank and he receives an incredible amount of focus for his insensitivity. Yet when true anti-Semites and hatemongers spew their venom in this country, they are invited to speak at universities as honored guests. Mahmoud Ahmedinjad, for example, denies the Holocaust altogether, which is not only the least academic thing one could suggest but also the most insensitive. He has called for the genocide of the Jews in Israel. Yet when he visited America, how did our prestigious institutions like Columbia University greet him? He was invited to speak and given the opportunity to slather his anti-Semitic rhetoric upon impressionable youths.
Anti-Semitism is only a story when there’s a celebrity involved. And that is the sad state of affairs we have come to in this country. When a sports figure tells a joke in poor taste, people are aghast and offended. Yet when a genocidal madman spouts anti-Semitism in it's purest form and suggests genocide before their very eyes, they couldn't be less interested and just chalk it up to free speech.
I think the Anti-Defamation League and Rabbi Miller need to just lighten up- they have much bigger fish to fry. So you'll be alright, Tiki. When the next celebrity spirals down a Sheen-esque vortex, your flubbed joke will be forgotten by most Americans. And if we have an NFL season, I hope to see you there.
William Sullivan
Anne Frank, of course, was the poor Jewish girl who hid in an attic to avoid Nazi detection, and penned her journal of the horrifying events that has now become an integral part of Western culture. So the Anti-Defamation League and others are going nuts over this comment, alleging that his comments were “perverse,” and that "the Frank family’s experiences, as recorded in Anne’s diary, are a unique testimonial to the horrors of the Holocaust, and her life should never be debased or degraded by insensitive and offensive analogies."
Rabbi Jason Miller takes it a step further in the Huffington Post, and wonders if this "PR nightmare will mark the end of his television career."
Were his comments insensitive? Well, yeah, they would be to someone who's desperately looking to see it as offensive. But I can assure you, Tiki did not mean to liken his plight to that of the Jews in the Holocaust. Even his agent suggests the inanity of any such claim, and reminds us that Tiki was a guest of Shimon Peres five years ago in Israel. The truth is, he just wanted to make a witty observation about an unusual scenario. And if you don't focus on the offensive undertones, you might say that he succeeded. I mean, it is sort of an ironic reversal of a common perception. Rather than a Jew being allowed to hide in an attic for protection, an image we have come to know well from twentieth century history, Tiki's Jewish friend was protecting him by allowing him to hide in the attic from the media and his ex-wife, whom he apparently feels were as adamant pursuers as Nazis.
Now, is that an exaggeration? Certainly. But what comedy does not rely on a bit of hyperbole? Go to a boardwalk and have a caricature drawn of your likeness, and the artist may draw your nose, ears, or teeth as much larger than they are for comic effect. Or consider that stand-up comics exaggerate nearly every situation they describe on stage for the same reason.
And Tiki is far from the first to use Anne Frank as a source of comedy. In an episode of Family Guy, Peter Griffin is shown in Anne Frank’s attic, loudly eating potato chips and clueing the Nazi’s to their presence, leading to their capture. In the show South Park, Eric Cartman is shown in one episode to corral cats into his attic to avoid their slaughter at the hands of townspeople, the irony of course being that the character is a fervent anti-Semite.
The fact that Tiki is being crucified for this is rather interesting, though, and exposes how misplaced American sensitivities are. Tiki's not being targeted by the media because he said something that could be construed as anti-Semitic- he is being targeted because he is a celebrity that has said something unexpected and controversial, and in our culture that is overloaded with gossip media, that sort of thing draws viewers and hits as honey draws flies.
Think about it. Tiki Barber simply made a bad joke involving Anne Frank and he receives an incredible amount of focus for his insensitivity. Yet when true anti-Semites and hatemongers spew their venom in this country, they are invited to speak at universities as honored guests. Mahmoud Ahmedinjad, for example, denies the Holocaust altogether, which is not only the least academic thing one could suggest but also the most insensitive. He has called for the genocide of the Jews in Israel. Yet when he visited America, how did our prestigious institutions like Columbia University greet him? He was invited to speak and given the opportunity to slather his anti-Semitic rhetoric upon impressionable youths.
Anti-Semitism is only a story when there’s a celebrity involved. And that is the sad state of affairs we have come to in this country. When a sports figure tells a joke in poor taste, people are aghast and offended. Yet when a genocidal madman spouts anti-Semitism in it's purest form and suggests genocide before their very eyes, they couldn't be less interested and just chalk it up to free speech.
I think the Anti-Defamation League and Rabbi Miller need to just lighten up- they have much bigger fish to fry. So you'll be alright, Tiki. When the next celebrity spirals down a Sheen-esque vortex, your flubbed joke will be forgotten by most Americans. And if we have an NFL season, I hope to see you there.
William Sullivan
Friday, May 27, 2011
This Week at Congressional U.- Netanyahu Gives Lesson on History and American Values
Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to Congress this week. To say the speech was epic is a brash understatement. I will limit my accolades to a brilliant Netanyahu- but suffice it to say that I lament that we Americans cannot have so strong and respectable a leader.
I would suggest that all read this transcript or watch the video, whatever your pleasure. But in a speech full of gems and pearls, here are a few that stand out.
--"This path of liberty is not paved by elections alone. It’s paved when governments permit protests in town squares, when limits are placed on the powers of rulers, when judges are beholden to laws and not men, and when human rights cannot be crushed by tribal loyalties or mob rule.
Israel has always embraced this path in a Middle East that has long rejected it. In a region where women are stoned, gays are hanged, Christians are persecuted, Israel stands out. It is different."
Yes, it is nice to be reminded what liberty is all about, and to be reminded that Israel is the beacon of such liberty in the Middle East.
--"Now, the threat to my country cannot be overstated. Those who dismiss it are sticking their heads in the sand. Less than seven decades after 6 million Jews were murdered, Iran’s leaders deny the Holocaust of the Jewish people, while calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state.
Leaders who spew such venom should be banned from every respectable forum on the planet.
Now, there’s something that makes the outrage even greater. And you know what that is? It’s the lack of outrage. Because in much of the international community the calls for our destruction are met with utter silence.
It’s even worse, because there are many who rush to condemn Israel for defending itself against Iran’s terror proxies.
Not you. Not America.
You’ve acted differently. You’ve condemned the Iranian regime for its genocidal aims. You’ve passed tough sanctions against Iran.
History will salute you, America."
I hope you are right, Mr. Netanyahu.
--"Throughout the millennial history of the Jewish capital, the only time that Jews, Christians and Muslims could worship freely, could have unfettered access to their holy sites, has been during Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem."
Seriously, need any more be said than this?
And finally, Netanyahu explains what the conflict is all about to our lawyers in Congress who could benefit from knowing a thing or two about history.
Enjoy.
William Sullivan
"So now here’s the question -- you’ve got to ask it -- If the benefits of peace with the Palestinians are so clear, why has peace eluded us?
Because all six Israeli prime ministers since the signing of the Oslo accords agreed to establish a Palestinian state, myself included. So why has peace not been achieved?
Because so far the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it.
You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It’s always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about.
In 1947 the U.N. voted to partition the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews said “Yes.” The Palestinians said “No.”
In recent years, the Palestinians twice refused generous offers by Israeli prime ministers to establish a Palestinian state on virtually all the territory won by Israel in the Six-Day War.
They were simply unwilling to end the conflict.
And I regret to say this: They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after terrorists. And, worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy the Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees.
My friends, this must come to an end."
-Benjamin Netanyahu
I would suggest that all read this transcript or watch the video, whatever your pleasure. But in a speech full of gems and pearls, here are a few that stand out.
--"This path of liberty is not paved by elections alone. It’s paved when governments permit protests in town squares, when limits are placed on the powers of rulers, when judges are beholden to laws and not men, and when human rights cannot be crushed by tribal loyalties or mob rule.
Israel has always embraced this path in a Middle East that has long rejected it. In a region where women are stoned, gays are hanged, Christians are persecuted, Israel stands out. It is different."
Yes, it is nice to be reminded what liberty is all about, and to be reminded that Israel is the beacon of such liberty in the Middle East.
--"Now, the threat to my country cannot be overstated. Those who dismiss it are sticking their heads in the sand. Less than seven decades after 6 million Jews were murdered, Iran’s leaders deny the Holocaust of the Jewish people, while calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state.
Leaders who spew such venom should be banned from every respectable forum on the planet.
Now, there’s something that makes the outrage even greater. And you know what that is? It’s the lack of outrage. Because in much of the international community the calls for our destruction are met with utter silence.
It’s even worse, because there are many who rush to condemn Israel for defending itself against Iran’s terror proxies.
Not you. Not America.
You’ve acted differently. You’ve condemned the Iranian regime for its genocidal aims. You’ve passed tough sanctions against Iran.
History will salute you, America."
I hope you are right, Mr. Netanyahu.
--"Throughout the millennial history of the Jewish capital, the only time that Jews, Christians and Muslims could worship freely, could have unfettered access to their holy sites, has been during Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem."
Seriously, need any more be said than this?
And finally, Netanyahu explains what the conflict is all about to our lawyers in Congress who could benefit from knowing a thing or two about history.
Enjoy.
William Sullivan
"So now here’s the question -- you’ve got to ask it -- If the benefits of peace with the Palestinians are so clear, why has peace eluded us?
Because all six Israeli prime ministers since the signing of the Oslo accords agreed to establish a Palestinian state, myself included. So why has peace not been achieved?
Because so far the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it.
You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It’s always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about.
In 1947 the U.N. voted to partition the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews said “Yes.” The Palestinians said “No.”
In recent years, the Palestinians twice refused generous offers by Israeli prime ministers to establish a Palestinian state on virtually all the territory won by Israel in the Six-Day War.
They were simply unwilling to end the conflict.
And I regret to say this: They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after terrorists. And, worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy the Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees.
My friends, this must come to an end."
-Benjamin Netanyahu
Monday, May 23, 2011
This Week at Presidential University - Netanyahu Gives Lesson About Middle East
This video must be seen.
Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel visited President Obama immediately after the president's suggestion that Israel be willing to withdraw its borders to the pre-1967 lines that existed before the Six-Day War. This means returning Gaza and the West Bank that Israeli citizens have settled.
Netanyahu calmly gives our president a history lesson, which I can only assume he had never heard before this day- for if he had, there is no possible way he could make the suggestion that he did. Either that, or he is willfully colluding against Israel.
But obviously, Benjamin Netanyahu has faith that Obama's horrible judgment was simply ignorance of history, for which he can be forgiven.
In watching Netanyahu speak, I see strength and resolve. Outward and genuine respect. Compassion for his people. Intelligence and prudent foresight. I see a leader that is worthy of my admiration, a leader that I would gladly follow, and I am thankful the Israelis elected. In watching Obama, I see a man reciting political rhetoric, as we now know, from a teleprompter. Incitement to envy and class welfare. Murky ambition in supporting Middle Eastern uprisings. And in his befuddled face, as Netanyahu deconstructs Israeli history for him, I see him thinking of the political ramifications of what he is saying, not thinking of the substance.
Like our president, all Americans need to listen to this man explain why, as I have suggested before, Israel cannot possibly negotiate with Hamas and why retracting it's borders would leave Israel indefensible to the threats that will inevitably strike.
William Sullivan
In case you cannot view the embedded video below, it can also be found here.
Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel visited President Obama immediately after the president's suggestion that Israel be willing to withdraw its borders to the pre-1967 lines that existed before the Six-Day War. This means returning Gaza and the West Bank that Israeli citizens have settled.
Netanyahu calmly gives our president a history lesson, which I can only assume he had never heard before this day- for if he had, there is no possible way he could make the suggestion that he did. Either that, or he is willfully colluding against Israel.
But obviously, Benjamin Netanyahu has faith that Obama's horrible judgment was simply ignorance of history, for which he can be forgiven.
In watching Netanyahu speak, I see strength and resolve. Outward and genuine respect. Compassion for his people. Intelligence and prudent foresight. I see a leader that is worthy of my admiration, a leader that I would gladly follow, and I am thankful the Israelis elected. In watching Obama, I see a man reciting political rhetoric, as we now know, from a teleprompter. Incitement to envy and class welfare. Murky ambition in supporting Middle Eastern uprisings. And in his befuddled face, as Netanyahu deconstructs Israeli history for him, I see him thinking of the political ramifications of what he is saying, not thinking of the substance.
Like our president, all Americans need to listen to this man explain why, as I have suggested before, Israel cannot possibly negotiate with Hamas and why retracting it's borders would leave Israel indefensible to the threats that will inevitably strike.
William Sullivan
In case you cannot view the embedded video below, it can also be found here.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Arrogance Unbound
What is the most handy way for a president to circumvent checks and balances necessary for America to engage in foreign military action? Pretend they don't exist.
Of course, to do this you have to have a propaganda machine deeply within your pocket, champing at the bit to deflect all criticism as right-wing lunacy. And it helps to have formerly anti-war liberals and RINOs of the establishment defect to your cause.
The rationale behind the interjection of American military influence in Libya could be a lengthy discussion. The proposed presence of Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood alone should be enough to warrant a detailed debate as to the merits our actions as they pertain to American interests. But like anthropogenic climate change, the left positions the discussion as "over" despite having never taken place. The verdict is in, and it says that Gaddafi must be out.
"Shoot first, ask questions later" seems to now be the policy of Barack Obama, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, and John Kerry. For the latter to even have an influential opinion on American foreign intervention represents an enduring travesty for Congress, after having accused his fellow soldiers of fabricated crimes as a member of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War organization. But nonetheless, it's curious how quickly these former peaceniks have shifted position on foreign intervention to oust dictators since the Iraq War that had Congressional and international support.
And now Obama is suggesting that he doesn't need Congressional support to intervene in Libya; our efforts is too limited. But the fact is, regardless of how limited our role is in the war, it is costing a tremendous amount of American money and effort, and has now been going on for a substantial amount of time. And as our role in Libya shapes the perception of our nation, America and it's elected officials as a whole should be represented. Many of whom would disagree with his course of action.
Perhaps Barack Obama needs to be reminded that the country's path was never meant to be at his discretion alone. But somehow, I think he knows that. He just doesn't care.
William Sullivan
Of course, to do this you have to have a propaganda machine deeply within your pocket, champing at the bit to deflect all criticism as right-wing lunacy. And it helps to have formerly anti-war liberals and RINOs of the establishment defect to your cause.
The rationale behind the interjection of American military influence in Libya could be a lengthy discussion. The proposed presence of Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood alone should be enough to warrant a detailed debate as to the merits our actions as they pertain to American interests. But like anthropogenic climate change, the left positions the discussion as "over" despite having never taken place. The verdict is in, and it says that Gaddafi must be out.
"Shoot first, ask questions later" seems to now be the policy of Barack Obama, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, and John Kerry. For the latter to even have an influential opinion on American foreign intervention represents an enduring travesty for Congress, after having accused his fellow soldiers of fabricated crimes as a member of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War organization. But nonetheless, it's curious how quickly these former peaceniks have shifted position on foreign intervention to oust dictators since the Iraq War that had Congressional and international support.
And now Obama is suggesting that he doesn't need Congressional support to intervene in Libya; our efforts is too limited. But the fact is, regardless of how limited our role is in the war, it is costing a tremendous amount of American money and effort, and has now been going on for a substantial amount of time. And as our role in Libya shapes the perception of our nation, America and it's elected officials as a whole should be represented. Many of whom would disagree with his course of action.
Perhaps Barack Obama needs to be reminded that the country's path was never meant to be at his discretion alone. But somehow, I think he knows that. He just doesn't care.
William Sullivan
Saturday, May 7, 2011
A Scourge Has Been Eliminated- And To Rejoice is Proper
“The western dogs are rejoicing after killing one of our Islamic lions. From Al-Aqsa Mosque, where the future caliphate will originate with the help of God, we say to them – the dogs will not rejoice too much for killing the lions. The dogs will remain dogs and the lion, even if he is dead, will remain a lion.”
These are the words of the Al-Aqsa mosque’s imam. They are meant to describe that the "dogs" of America should not celebrate the killing of Osama bin Laden, who in this metaphor, is a "lion."
Typical fundamental Islamic rhetoric; America is evil, Islam is righteous. But pertinent to note are two things.
First, we notice that once again Glenn Beck has been proven correct in his assessment that fundamental Islam seeks to reestablish a caliphate. As this is directly from the horse’s mouth, it is now quite beyond dispute. But don't hold your breath for the mainstream media to repudiate their own false and irresponsible assault on Beck for making that claim. That would take a modicum of integrity. And they don't have it.
Second, we notice the glaring implausibility of the metaphor. The lion has for thousands of years been a symbol of heroism, bravery, and strength. To conclude that Osama bin Laden exemplified any of these things can only be a perversion of reason. The animal kingdom has no representative that could be compared to bin Laden without insult to the animal he is compared to. To find such sickness, we have to look to our own species.
His disease showed amalgamated symptoms of cult leaders and serial killers. He was capable of corralling young followers to worship in his twisted manner, but rather than being solely self-destructive like the Heaven's Gate or Jonestown cults, bin Laden found personal value and happiness by sending indoctrinated children on suicide missions meant to bring sorrow and death upon thousands of innocent people.
Osama bin Laden was no lion. He was a scourge upon the Earth; the worst mankind is capable of becoming. And yes, we rejoice in his death, because this means his life cannot continue poisoning humanity. I am delighted in the manner in which he was killed- meeting an American bullet to pay for his enormous crimes against our country. And I am equally contented to think that he was laid to his torment in the sea, drifting fathoms below humanity, rather than putrefying the ground of some accessible grave that would only become a monument to his followers.
William Sullivan
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Jesus was a liberal? Guess again...
Recently, I was reminded by friends of some dated writings in which liberals work against all odds and logic to convey that Jesus Christ, both Biblically and historically, would be considered liberal by today's standards.
In almost all cases (two good examples found here and here) the authors relate the basic definition of liberalism. Then, that definition is set against cherry-picked quotes that are taken entirely out of context in order to prove the argument correct. Where Jesus' words were meant to shape people's ideology, these authors have shaped Jesus' words to meet their established ideology. This, expectedly, calls the intellectual and Christian integrity of the argument into serious question.
But rather than jumping to the defensive and crying, "Jesus was quite obviously a conservative," I will simply point out one story that proves that Jesus' ideology doesn't fully jive with that of today's liberal.
The American left as a whole generally decries the disproportionate distribution of wealth in America. Despite having a robust middle class and a poorer class that enjoys a fantastic standard of living by global standards, liberals incessantly decry the "obscene" wealth of the top 10% of American earners. This is generally followed by a call to extract more tax revenue from the wealthy. That revenue will then be redistributed to the less wealthy, and thereby the rich will be become less rich and the poor will become less poor.
But does Jesus think it's okay for the government to steal money from the wealthy to redistribute among the masses? Liberals think so. In fact, this is likely the first thing that you'll hear when liberals want to convey that Christ shared their opinion. Jesus didn't like rich people just like the liberals don't like rich people, so shouldn't the act of taxing the wealthy be justified, even to conservative Christians?
It is true that Jesus warns of the dangers of greed and against being miserly. Note that in Matthew, chapter 19, Christ relates to the apostles: "Truly, I say unto you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." (19:23) Now, it is at this point that your average liberal will set down the book, entirely convinced: "Well, that's all I needed to hear. Jesus was obviously liberal."
This is likely what Gary Vance was thinking when he penned his article conveying that Christ is a liberal. "The labor movement of the early twentieth century was aided significantly when major Christian denominations got behind it. No average American would have a fair wage today if it weren't for liberal Christians and labor activists."
In other words, if unions and the government hadn't overcome greedy businessmen like Christ would have wanted, we'd all be worse off. But if Mr. Vance were to read past the previously quoted verse, he may find how wrong he is. He would find that in chapter 20 of Matthew, the parable Jesus tells is entirely antithetical to very notion of unions and the "tax-the-wealthy" mentality of today's liberals.
In the Parable of the Vineyard, we discover how Jesus feels about compensation for labor and the private property of the wealthy. One day, a farmer went out at sunrise to seek workers for the vineyard. Those he found he told that he would pay "1 denarius" for a day's labor, which was the going rate for such work. Three hours later, he hired more workers telling them that he would "pay them what is right." At 12, 3, and 5 o'clock he again hired more workers, each time telling them the same. At the end of the day, he called the workers to be paid:
“The workers who were hired about 5 in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’
“But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’
If American labor unions were involved, do you think the landowner could have gotten away with this? Certainly not. He would have to pay more because that is what would be "right" for those who labored all day. They would strip from the landowner the right to pay the wage he would choose. How, again, are labor unions the result of Christian doctrine?
And as far as redistribution of wealth, can you possibly read this and think that Christ would advocate the government taking the landowner's wealth and distributing it to all in Judea that did not work on his fields? Envy is the root of such an argument. American liberals are envious of the wealthy and do not feel they are entitled to their property because others have less, which leads to the belief that their property can be taken and distributed among the masses. And this parable warns against such envious ambition.
Beyond a warning about envy and a verifcation of Jesus' opinion that a man has a right to his property and to do with it what he pleases, this parable is also a lesson about charity. It is important to note that the landowner is a private landowner- not Caesar or his appointed representatives. It is he who is charitable, not the government. This is a lesson much better practiced by conservatives, as the charitable giving of conservatives eclipses that of liberals.
In truth, as Christians believe that Christ is God and not man, to paint Him entirely in the box of either liberal or conservative is to do Him disservice. But for the sake of argument, I will say that there is no question that Christ would have been viewed as a liberal in the Roman province of Judea in his time. And I would be dishonest to say that Christ did not share some values that the common liberal of today holds dear. But the truth is, as this one parable suggests, Christ did not believe, as American progressives do, that government redistribution is a justified course of action, and he would not agree with a union strong-arming a business owner. So the calls of liberals saying that Christ believes the same as a modern liberal needs to be taken for what they are: inconsistent and illegitimate political rhetoric.
William Sullivan
In almost all cases (two good examples found here and here) the authors relate the basic definition of liberalism. Then, that definition is set against cherry-picked quotes that are taken entirely out of context in order to prove the argument correct. Where Jesus' words were meant to shape people's ideology, these authors have shaped Jesus' words to meet their established ideology. This, expectedly, calls the intellectual and Christian integrity of the argument into serious question.
But rather than jumping to the defensive and crying, "Jesus was quite obviously a conservative," I will simply point out one story that proves that Jesus' ideology doesn't fully jive with that of today's liberal.
The American left as a whole generally decries the disproportionate distribution of wealth in America. Despite having a robust middle class and a poorer class that enjoys a fantastic standard of living by global standards, liberals incessantly decry the "obscene" wealth of the top 10% of American earners. This is generally followed by a call to extract more tax revenue from the wealthy. That revenue will then be redistributed to the less wealthy, and thereby the rich will be become less rich and the poor will become less poor.
But does Jesus think it's okay for the government to steal money from the wealthy to redistribute among the masses? Liberals think so. In fact, this is likely the first thing that you'll hear when liberals want to convey that Christ shared their opinion. Jesus didn't like rich people just like the liberals don't like rich people, so shouldn't the act of taxing the wealthy be justified, even to conservative Christians?
It is true that Jesus warns of the dangers of greed and against being miserly. Note that in Matthew, chapter 19, Christ relates to the apostles: "Truly, I say unto you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." (19:23) Now, it is at this point that your average liberal will set down the book, entirely convinced: "Well, that's all I needed to hear. Jesus was obviously liberal."
This is likely what Gary Vance was thinking when he penned his article conveying that Christ is a liberal. "The labor movement of the early twentieth century was aided significantly when major Christian denominations got behind it. No average American would have a fair wage today if it weren't for liberal Christians and labor activists."
In other words, if unions and the government hadn't overcome greedy businessmen like Christ would have wanted, we'd all be worse off. But if Mr. Vance were to read past the previously quoted verse, he may find how wrong he is. He would find that in chapter 20 of Matthew, the parable Jesus tells is entirely antithetical to very notion of unions and the "tax-the-wealthy" mentality of today's liberals.
In the Parable of the Vineyard, we discover how Jesus feels about compensation for labor and the private property of the wealthy. One day, a farmer went out at sunrise to seek workers for the vineyard. Those he found he told that he would pay "1 denarius" for a day's labor, which was the going rate for such work. Three hours later, he hired more workers telling them that he would "pay them what is right." At 12, 3, and 5 o'clock he again hired more workers, each time telling them the same. At the end of the day, he called the workers to be paid:
“The workers who were hired about 5 in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’
“But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’
If American labor unions were involved, do you think the landowner could have gotten away with this? Certainly not. He would have to pay more because that is what would be "right" for those who labored all day. They would strip from the landowner the right to pay the wage he would choose. How, again, are labor unions the result of Christian doctrine?
And as far as redistribution of wealth, can you possibly read this and think that Christ would advocate the government taking the landowner's wealth and distributing it to all in Judea that did not work on his fields? Envy is the root of such an argument. American liberals are envious of the wealthy and do not feel they are entitled to their property because others have less, which leads to the belief that their property can be taken and distributed among the masses. And this parable warns against such envious ambition.
Beyond a warning about envy and a verifcation of Jesus' opinion that a man has a right to his property and to do with it what he pleases, this parable is also a lesson about charity. It is important to note that the landowner is a private landowner- not Caesar or his appointed representatives. It is he who is charitable, not the government. This is a lesson much better practiced by conservatives, as the charitable giving of conservatives eclipses that of liberals.
In truth, as Christians believe that Christ is God and not man, to paint Him entirely in the box of either liberal or conservative is to do Him disservice. But for the sake of argument, I will say that there is no question that Christ would have been viewed as a liberal in the Roman province of Judea in his time. And I would be dishonest to say that Christ did not share some values that the common liberal of today holds dear. But the truth is, as this one parable suggests, Christ did not believe, as American progressives do, that government redistribution is a justified course of action, and he would not agree with a union strong-arming a business owner. So the calls of liberals saying that Christ believes the same as a modern liberal needs to be taken for what they are: inconsistent and illegitimate political rhetoric.
William Sullivan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
