[Peggy Noonan, NEA, ' Piss Christ ', Homosexuals, Christmas Bashing, Bush Speech]
[Added note, 3/25/05-- Good Friday: Despite Noonan's piece regarding Bush's speech, the South Boston Phoenix salutes her defense of Terri Schiavo's life. FReegards....]
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” (Edmund Burke)
written by Arthur March
1-23-05
Did GW Bush make a 'God drenched speech'? Not in my opinion, but that is what one conservative critic is saying. He dared to invoke the 'G' word three times in his inaugural speech.
At the risk of being branded histrionic:
In my estimation, at long last, one of our Founding Fathers' greatest dreams has come true in this speech. There are imperfections, populist flaws and diplomatic maneuvers, which reflect the mistakes we inherited. Nonetheless, there are precious gems ensconced in this speech that will be cherished by the Free World from now until our next Dark Age, and perhaps beyond. Only ignorance, itself, can destroy these words. Warts and all, there are parts of this speech that are a careful distillation of freedom's philosophers through the ages.
Hey, but that's just my take.
The most talked-about reaction came from Peggy Noonan. The irony is how low the Bush Administration has sunk in order to not look 'overly'-Christian:
1. In his speech, the President, OUR President, spoke well of the Koran, the religion with scriptures that demand the killing of any infidels too weak to retaliate and too 'proud' to submit to the mullahs of Islam. President Bush previously referred to the Muslims as a 'religion of peace'. Wrong thing to do? I didn't say that. But not what I would call 'too Much God' when other religions are being invoked.
2. In an effort that appears to not offend anti-christians, references to God were frequently in coded terms in his speech. Not that I mind, they were very clever, inspiring, and perhaps less offensive to anti-christians all at the same time, but he wasn't exactly trying to 'cast out any she-demons wearing pants'.
3. Our First Lady, Laura Bush, wanted to see Judge Roy Moore and hear one of his legendary speeches. But [best I can tell, just taking a guess here], someone calculated that, considering the Alabama controversy of whether those 'nasty 10 Commandments' should be placed in government property for all to see, it might offend anti-christians if she brought attention to the judge who refused to elevate our baby killing law above the very foundation of our formerly civilized law. So, she was denied that treat, the chance to see and hear someone talk about God and Country. If only she had gone to a Whoopi Goldberg speech, to hear vulgarities about our President, her husband, perhaps the anti-christians would have praised our First Lady for such a choice.
4. President Bush even tried to make nice with the National Endowment of the 'Arts', a foundation that uses tax payer money to fund such abominations as 'Piss Christ'. [Explained later.] Last year, he allowed passage of a bill that INCREASES the tax payer funding of this [choking] 'art' endowment. How low does he have to go to get anti-christians off his back?
5. President Bush supported Senator Specter's reelection campaign during a tough primary fight, even though he knew full well that would make his judicial appointments more difficult. I would only guess this is to make the GOP tent 'wider', more 'inclusive', etc. In short, it was appeasement to anti-christians. Did that make any difference? Not a bit.
I do not attempt here to be critical of our president's efforts to appease the anti-christians. This is not the time or place. In fact, in my private life, I'm nowhere close to GW Bush when it comes to having a model, traditional Christian image. But clearly, GW Bush is not the 'Jesus Freak' that anti-christians are trying to make him out to be. That takes us back to Peggy Noonan and her controversial op-ed.
I first read it in the Free Republic Forum, the page linked here if you would like to read it for yourself , along with hundreds of comments by those who read it [past 800 posts there at this point].
PEGGY NOONAN wrote an op-ed , "Way Too Much God" [Wall Street Journal], slamming Bush's inaugural speech.
Reading this, my first reaction was, "Maybe Satan should run for president."
People were surprised at Peggy Noonan's lashing out against what she called "a God-drenched speech". She has many Christian Conservative fans who are puzzled by her op-ed. Perhaps she fears looking 'too Christian'. That's a problem with many conservatives who spend much time in political circles. Whether she intended it or not, she's at the tip of the sword of the anti-christian movement, an effort to drive a wedge between conservatives and God. But there are so many anti-christian attacks, I doubt she will have that confusing role for long.
Here's the 'nut' of her op-ed:
...The president's speech seemed rather heavenish. It was a God-drenched speech. This president, who has been accused of giving too much attention to religious imagery and religious thought, has not let the criticism enter him. God was invoked relentlessly. "The Author of Liberty." "God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind . . . the longing of the soul." ....
I heard the Speech. Did he sound like a Baptist Preacher? No. I'm sick of Christian bashing. I listen to AC/DC, Led Zeppelin, and worse things than that. I haven't set foot inside a church for over five years, other than the temple of my own soul. I'm a Rock-and-Roll Christian, not exactly some Bible thumping 'fanatic' [although I can't think of anything better to be fanatical about]. Bush even spoke well of the Koran. Too close to God? In the words of James Traficant, BEAM ME UP!
Noonan also complained about the music:
. "...But whoever picked the music for the inaugural ceremony itself--modern megachurch hymns..."
Is she scared that a bunch of us are possessed or something? A little church music is dangerous? Does it make our heads spin around 360 degrees? Maybe she thinks we would have preferred ZZ Top's "She's Got Legs", or AC/DC's "Dirty Deeds". Those two tunes might be Hillary Clinton's choice, if she has an inaugural. I personally would choose Iron Man [a heavy metal tune about the Battle of Armageddon, sung by Ozzy.] But that's just me. That would offend almost everyone.
She also wrote:
"But he did it in a way that left this Bush supporter yearning for something she does not normally yearn for, and that is: nuance."
Nuance is a code word for deception, trickery. My first impression returned. "She would be happier if this were Satan's inaugural. No one is more nuanced than the Devil, himself. And a Clinton or Rodham could be his running mate, if nuance is so important."
I guess that was an unfair thought, on my part. People on the Free Republic Forum took me to task for posting it. Noonan, they generally say, is right 9 times out of 10. I hope they are right. Actually, she wrote what many conservatives think: a dire fear of bringing up 'too much God'. A FReeper who offered useful advice to me wrote, "There are two choices in life: to serve God or to serve man. One cannot have two masters." The funny thing is, when you try to serve man over God, you are doomed to failure. What God wants and the people want always winds up merging in the end. God wants us to love one another. God wants the best for us. God wants us to have freedom to choose within certain boundries [such as not to murder]. In the end, that's what people always want.
This Peggy Noonan op-ed is now [unwittingly] a weapon of anti-christians, seeking to drive God not only out of politics, but our entire culture. It is only one of many attacks aimed at a dart board, with us strapped to it. Homosexuals have been particularly busy, crashing Christmas parades, Saint Patrick's Day parades, and any other Christian event they think they can help 'celebrate' in [more like essentially urinate on with men French kissing men]. Homosexuals sued to become school teachers, scout masters, and adopting 'parents', bringing their boyfriends for show-and-tell, camping out with vulnerable young boys, and there have been sodomous rapes and debaucheries reported already as a result.
The ACLU has been helping the sodomites, along with other anti-christians. Very recently, the ACLU sued to have a tiny cross symbol removed from the Los Angeles city seal. The city, cowed by the lawsuit threat, removed the cross with hardly a whimper. There was also a lawsuit to block the inaugural prayer! Thank God that one failed!
To look at the even larger picture, anti-christians are hypocrites when it comes to foreign wars. In Kosovo, the anti-christians generally supported that war. Is it a coincidence that the pacifists were practically silent and unheard when US bombers deliberately blew up Christian civilians? Is it a coincidence when the 'ethnic Albanians', who happen to be Islamic, are now killing and raping Christians all over Kosovo and burning their churches, schools, and hospitals, as a result of anti-christian support for Clinton's war? Is it a mere coincidence that the 'genocide' claims of Kosovo were a false accusation against Christians, that Clinton allowed us to be duped by some slanderous scheme? Now compare Kosovo with Iraq. Need I say more on that?
There are also examples of how Christians have been slaughtered and deliberately starved in Africa by the hundreds of thousands, while anti-christians ignored horrors that edge close to the Jewish Holocaust.
Last but not least, there is a huge political fight raging between Catholic hospitals and anti-christians. When I went to the google.com search engine, I found that there are 79,600 web pages that include all of the following words: "catholic hospital abortion required". Can you figure out what the debate is about? The anti-christians want to require religiously-run hospitals to offer abortion-on-demand services. Future mothers who wish to avoid stretch marks, for example, will be able to tell a Catholic hospital that she wants them to kill her baby to keep her tummy flesh unmarked when she wears a bikini, if the anti-christians get their way.
Imagine what a pro-life, Christian hospital might end up going through when faced with a stark choice-- either kill that baby or pay severe consequences. How severe would the consequences be? It all depends on how powerful we let the anti-christians become.
Christians are just beginning to fight back, particularly at the Grinch. In case you didn't know, we've found the Grinch. It's the Left. His color is blue. He hates crosses and the name 'God', as well as Christmas. Governor 'Conan the Barbarian' gave the Grinch a bloody nose last Christmas.
"...Known for breaking the mold, the Republican governor is calling the 56-foot white fir outside the Capitol a “Christmas tree.” Former Democratic Gov. Gray Davis had renamed the display a “Holiday tree” in 1999. Schwarzenegger said the Capitol would have a “Christmas tree” as long as he’s in office..."
Free Republic Discussion thread about Arnold and "Exhibit A", the California Christmas Tree.
Perhaps you heard about the Christian boycott of Grinch-Member, Target [store chain], when Target kicked out the Christmas bell ringers of the Salvation Army. Maybe you heard about the school children who defiantly stood up to the Grinch, singing Christmas carols in the halls of a public school. I am also heartened to know that the First Lady ever intended to see Judge Roy Moore. Whether her plans fell through or not [and I have no inside scoop as to why], the silver lining is, she did initially plan to see him, right? She's curious. He has a 'seat at the table'. That's excellent news.
Sure, we Christians have plenty of fight in us. The only problem was, many of us have been in some dream world all this time, pretending that this was the USA, and that the Grinch was just a cartoon character. But people have been waking up recently. And we want America back. We stood up to the Grinch last Christmas with mocking laughter. But onward, Christian Soldiers! I will not let us rest for too long, enjoying our small victories, or we might lose out on the big ones yet to come!
At the risk of redundancy....
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” (Edmund Burke)
Back to the question I asked earlier: how can GW Bush get these anti-christians off his back? There's only one way:
Defeat them.
He cannot defeat them without activism from the right. I don't mean defending Bush here or defending Bush there. All we would achieve would be to slow down the anti-christian advance. While other conservatives will maneuver 'with nuance', some of us need to push back, and push back hard! It will be a thankless task. We will be criticized not only by left, but also by posturing from the same conservatives who left Judge Roy Moore to the wolves. Just as democrats distance themselves from the extreme left, republicans will distance themselves from the extreme truth. But the extreme truth must be unleashed. They have been spitting on truth for a long, long time. It's a knee-jerk reaction in politics these days.
Here's a good place to start. Ask a few people if tax money should pay for 'Piss Christ', a 'work of a..r...t...' that consists of the 'brilliant' urination in a jar and placing a crucifix upside-down in the jar of urine. Ask people, should our tax money pay for that? I'm pretty sure the answer will be NO!, with the exception of Hillary Clinton's New York and a few other leftist states. Down here in Virginia, it's an overwhelming 'NO WAY!', 99 times out of a hundred. Would that not be a good place to start? Just ask people what they think about OUR tax money paying for 'Piss Christ'.
Andres Serrano was the 'a...r..t...ist' who created 'Piss Christ', a photographer who put a plastic crucifix in a jar of urine. Then he took a picture of it and we, the tax payers helped pay him money for this trash.
To give you an idea of how his mind works, he took close-ups of his wife's menstrual pads, among other shock-photos. One of his pride-and-joys is “Blood and Semen II”.
Probably the best source about NEA [gag] 'art' funding is Human Events. They have written about it several times, spanning over a decade.
I hope this helps you feel well-grounded in the story behind "Piss Christ" and the NEA. People might try to tell you that the NEA doesn't fund things like that any more. Ask them about Corpus Christi, which was funded by the NEA after alleged reforms were made. Not only is vileness funded by the NEA, but also complete nonsense. [The South Boston Phoenix will bring you details about other NEA funding in the future.] Yes, libraries get some money from the NEA, but that is a cover to justify their dirty work, such as Maplethorpe being tax-funded to make homosexual pornography.
Are conservatives saying that porno and menstrual pad photos should be banned? Generally speaking, no. There are a few that want actual bans, but the vast majority of conservatives want freedom combined with free market forces. If Maplethorpe and 'Piss Christ' can't be noticed by the market, why should we, the US taxpayers, be the ones to fund the launching of their careers? Why should that garbage even be placed in government museum exhibits? Let them put up their own 'art' galleries, promote themselves with their own money, and suffer the same market pressures every other business risks facing.
As we push back, the leftists will have to defend themselves, to justify their defense of the NEA program. They will bleed all over the place defending the 'undefendable', while some of the bolder, more conservative congress members will take heart and rally with us. Attention will be drawn away from leftist agendas. We might even save a billion dollars over a span of ten years in wasted tax funding, as icing on the cake. Attention will be drawn away from petty attacks, drawn away from this Peggy Noonan nonsense. And maybe, just maybe, as a minor example, our First Lady, Laura Bush, will feel free to enjoy hearing one of Judge Roy Moore's excellent speeches, and who knows? Maybe she [and possibly her husband as well] will understand better why conservatives were right all along about the 10 Commandments controversy in Alabama.
That one question regarding NEA 'a...r...t....' is only one of many steps. In the end, I want heads to roll. The ACLU needs to be chopped off from all US tax money. The worst-of-the-worst leftist judges need to be impeached, and in a future report, I will lay out the case for impeachment hearings of almost half a dozen US senators. But the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Let us make that step, and may it be steady and sure. Whatever path you choose, God bless you, especially in your efforts to serve God and Country.
In the words of Todd Beamer in Flight 93:
'Are you guys ready? Let's roll'
===============================
47 YEARS IN PRISON FOR PREACHING? IN AMERICA?
Quick Load Page for latest in the news [including latest in the Free Republic Forum]
