You are hereThe Ann Coulter column USA Today spiked: Put the speakers in a cage

The Ann Coulter column USA Today spiked: Put the speakers in a cage


By Virgil - Posted on 26 July 2004

By Ann Coulter

Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston, conservatives are deploying a series of covert signals to identify one another, much like gay men do. My allies are the ones wearing crosses or American flags. The people sporting shirts emblazoned with the "F-word" are my opponents. Also, as always, the pretty girls and cops are on my side, most of them barely able to conceal their eye-rolling.Democrats are constantly suing and slandering police as violent, fascist racists – with the exception of Boston's police, who'll be lauded as national heroes right up until the Democrats pack up and leave town on Friday, whereupon they'll revert to their natural state of being fascist, racist pigs.

A speaker at the Democratic National Convention this year, Al Sharpton, accused white police officers of raping and defacing Tawana Brawley in 1987, lunatic charges that eventually led to a defamation lawsuit against Sharpton, and even more eventually to Sharpton paying a jury award to the defamed plaintiff Steve Pagones. So it's a real mystery why cops wouldn't like Democrats.

As for the pretty girls, I can only guess that it's because liberal boys never try to make a move on you without the U.N. Security Council's approval. Plus, it's no fun riding around in those dinky little hybrid cars. My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie-chick pie wagons they call "women" at the Democratic National Convention.

Apparently, the nuts at the Democratic National Convention are going to be put in cages outside the convention hall. Sadly, they won't be fighting to the death as is done in W.W.F. caged matches. They're calling this the "protestor's area," although I suppose a better name would be the "truth-free zone."

I thought this was a great idea until I realized the "nut" category did not include Sharpton, Al Gore, Bill Clinton and Teddy Kennedy – all featured speakers at the convention. I'd say the actual policy is only untelegenic nuts get the cages, but little Dennis Kucinich is speaking at the Convention, too. So it must be cages for "nuts who have not run for president as serious candidates for the Democratic Party."

Looking at the line-up of speakers at the Convention, I have developed the 7-11 challenge: I will quit making fun of, for example, Dennis Kucinich, if he can prove he can run a 7-11 properly for 8 hours. We'll even let him have an hour or so of preparation before we open up. Within 8 hours, the money will be gone, the store will be empty, and he'll be explaining how three 11-year olds came in and asked for the money and he gave it to them.

For 20 years, the Democrats wouldn't let Jimmy Carter within 100 miles of a Convention podium. The fact that Carter is now their most respectable speaker tells you where that party is today. Maybe they just want to remind Americans who got us into this Middle East mess in the first place. We've got millions of fanatical Muslims trying to slaughter Americans while shouting "Allah Akbar!" Yeah, let's turn the nation over to these guys.

With any luck, Gore will uncork his speech comparing Republicans to Nazis. Just a few weeks ago, Gore gave a speech accusing the Bush administration of deploying "digital Brown Shirts" to intimidate journalists and pressure the media into writing good things about Bush – in case you were wondering where all those glowing articles about Bush were coming from.

The last former government official to slake his thirst so deeply with the Kool-Aid and become a far-left peacenik was Ramsey Clarke and it took him a few years to really blossom. Clinton must have done some number on Gore. Then again, with his yen for earth tones in a man's wardrobe, maybe Gore's references to "Brown Shirts" was intended as a compliment.

Only one major newspaper – the Boston Herald – reported Gore's "Brown Shirt" comment, though a Bush campaign spokesman's statement quoting the "Brown Shirt" line made it into the very last sentence of a Los Angeles Times article. The New York Times responded with an article criticizing "both" Republicans and Democrats for using Nazi imagery. Democrats call Republicans Nazis, the Republicans quote the Democrats calling Republicans Nazis and "both" are using Nazi imagery. (It's a cycle of violence!)

The nuts in the cages are virtual Bertrand Russells compared to the official speakers at the Democratic Convention. On the basis of their placards, I gather the caged-nut position is that they love the troops so much, they don't want them to get hurt defending America from terrorist attack. "Support the troops," the signs say, "bring them home."

That's my new position on all government workers, except the 5 percent who aren't useless, which is to say cops, prosecutors, firemen and U.S. servicemen. I love bureaucrats at the National Endowment of the Arts funding crucifixes submerged in urine so much – I think they should go home. I love public school teachers punishing any mention of God and banning Christmas songs so much – I think they should go home.

Walking back from the convention site, I chatted with a normal Bostonian for several blocks – who must have identified me through our covert system of signals. He was mostly bemused by the Democrats' primetime speakers and told me he used to be an independent, but for the last 20 years found himself voting mostly Republican. Then he corrected himself and said he votes for the "American."

I'd say I love all these Democrats in Boston so much I want them to go home, but I don't. I want Americans to get a good long look at the French Party and keep the 7-11 challenge in mind.

jcarter's picture

Painting with a large brush here, aren't we?
Anybody who isn't like me is a nut, un-american, crazy, spawn of satan? How is this helpful?

There is no life without prayer. Without prayer there is only madness and horror. - Vasilii Rozanov

JL's picture

I don't think you understood the point of her nut comments. The "nuts" are the ones effectively defined as such by the Democrat Party. They are placed in a certain place where they are allowed to protest.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

SciotaMicks's picture

"Anybody who isn't like me is...un-american,"

/Teresa Heinz?

Parker's picture

How is this helpful? Well, if one reads through the article one learns the following:

(1) Certain Democrat activists in Boston take pleasure in sporting shirts emblazoned with the "F-word"

(2) Democrats are constantly suing and slandering police as violent, fascist racists [note: I live in a city that sees this reality year-round -- It's tragic, and I wish the mayor would put an end to the politicizing of our good law enforcement people]

(3) Female Democrats are mostly rabid feminists who measure their femininity in their rebellion against men and the number of children they murder live while yet in their wombs

(4) Democrats made sure that protesters of the convention were sectioned off away from the center and placed in actual cages

(5) Democrats are historically soft on defense and law enforcement -- bringing back Jimmy Carter is proof that they plan to keep it this way

(6) Democrats indeed seek to compare Bush to Hitler, and even the moveon.org Democrat gang keeps a commercial with this chilling propaganda on its Web site. Dems got mad at Republicans for making a protest of it.

(7) Democrats promote and defend "art" such as Jesus Christ submerged in a jar of urine (National Endowment of the Arts) while violently opposing any sacred prayer offered to Him on public school grounds

For those that pay attention to the Democrat party and its ungodly, anti-American positions, this article is very, very helpful indeed. Time to protect our children, our faith, and our future by voting these people out of government. Now is the time. We must unite in this effort before its too late and the Christians are forced to leave.

EWMI's picture

Maybe so but it looks a lot like you will need to get used the phrase "President Kerry"!

Sam's picture

ahem, Bush is still leading in the Electoral College states, as API recently reported. This race is not over until the last ballot is counted.

Sam

Sam's picture

ahem, Bush is still leading in the Electoral College states, as API recently reported. This race is not over until the last ballot is counted.

Sam

Virgil's picture

Of course, when talking about the economy, Carter forgot to mention last night that the interest rates during his own presidency were what, about 20%?

spiritualmechanic's picture

Haha Virgil.

We got to give credit where credit is due: Carter discovered stagflation.

Steve

Ed's picture

No Virgil, I believe you are thinking of the unemployment rate in the heavily unionized industrial states, like Michigan (and I am not BSing - I lived through it).

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

Virgil's picture

Wow...that is almost as bad as eastern european countries today.

It seems to be true though..interest rates really did hit about 20% during Carter:

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0810628.html

Virgil's picture

Apparently USA Today hired Ann Coulter to do daily reporting from the Democrats Convention, and also hired Michael Moore to report from the Republican Convention. Of course after she filed her first column, they fired her saying "it wasn't funny". I think this is actually very funny. Using humor and colorful language, she does a great job at laying out the platform and the makeup of the Democrats today: i.e. a bunch of anti-God, anti-American crazy people, promoting almost every anti-Biblical value there is to promote, so "spawn of Satan" is actually a pretty accurate description.

Sean Hannity reported from the floor of the convention last night, and he was surrounded by security guards. Not to state the obvious here, but a reporter wouldn't have to worry about his personal safety on the floor of the Republican Convention for example.

This is a great article!

leslie's picture

As it is said in the Bible"Beware of the Dogs". In the area that I live, most of the Democrats like to call themselves, "Yellow Dogs". They say that they would vote for a yellow dog before they would vote for anyone, but a Democrat. I am what is called a Blue Dog Democrat. Blue Dogs, vote for the 'person', and not the Party. Virgil all Democrats are not 'bad'.But I guess we are all dogs.Ha,Ha. "Beware of the Dogs".Yip, Yip. I hate the Left drift of this party and am working to pull it back to the Right. I vote mostly Republican. But I vote for the person and not the Party. In Christs Love Leslie

Brother Les

Virgil's picture

Well you and Zell Miller are wasting your time - ditch this party and find something more compatible with Christianity.

sunflower's picture

Virgil,

At least Democrats don't give lip service to conservative Christian values (in the platform), and then when once elected by conservatives, wield the proverbial knife. You KNOW where Democrats stand! Who is worse ~ the wolf (dems) or the wolf in sheep's clothing (gop)?

By the way, I'm working to help elect a very conservative Republican to a state office, and will be attending his watch party this evening. Just wanted to make you aware that I don't think all Republicans are unsavory ~ just the leadership.

Virgil's picture

That's right...you know what the democrats stand for...abortions, homosexuality, denial of school prayer, big government, trial lawyers, no personal responsibility...etc...and you know this by listening to them very well...they would never admit such things. I think you got things a little backwards there...

sunflower's picture

Virgil,

I don't think I have it backwards. It is a well-known fact that the wolf in sheep's clothing is the more dangerous of the two.

Christians keep delivering votes to the GOP and are continually being deceived and sold out by them. I'm not saying the Democrats are any better; their agenda is just more visible and therefore easier to combat. However, if we can't have Constitutional leadership, I will pray for gridlock. A Democratic President and Republican Congress is the next best scenario, I think. There was less damage done during the Clinton administration than during the Bush administration because the GOP had a majority in Congress and, of course, our president was a Democrat.

Here are just a very few examples of how the GOP has not represented our views.

It wasn't Democrats who gave us Roe ~vs~ Wade (1973), the American holocaust. Republicans appointed 7 of the 9 members of the Supreme Court that delivered that decision. Even Bush has stated that he will not use abortion as a "litmus test" for judicial appointments.

It was Bush who gave us Hillary-Care, not Bill Clinton. "Capitalism Magazine" calls President Bush's expansion of Medicare at its core premise "an exact application of the Clinton health care philosophy." Bill Clinton could not get this passed!

GW Bush has given us the "No Child Left Behind Act" (NCLB) which was an unprecedented increase in federal spending and federal control of public schools. Under the guise of "improving education" it continues and expands the plan for a Socialist America. A sidenote: The Christian God is not allowed in our public schools, but our "Christian" president can bow to a pagan idol with hardly a peep from the Christian community! (http://www.cephasministry.com/nwo_bush_goes_to_shinto_worship.html)

Both President Bush and Senator John Kerry say they are pro "civil unions" for homosexuals. In fact, Bush signed the bill that authorizes our government to pay health benefits to "married" homosexuals." 45 REPUBLICANS, including important GOP leaders voted to pass the bill. (The bill was signed by Bush on December 12, 2001) Bush has also appointed several homosexuals to leadership positions in his administration. (References omitted for brevity.)

The Bush administration has increased federal spending by $300 billion over Bill Clinton's last year. Anyone can see that this isn't smaller government.

I've been called a "purist" (among other things). But, someone has to hold to a non-compromising standard. I serve a God who throughout history has helped people like me (and my fellow laborers in the Constitution Party)...those who have "unrealistic expectations." Perhaps someday He will reward our efforts. And let us not forget that the GOP began as a "third" party.

My apologies to any I've upset. You are my brothers and sisters and that is not my aim. Many of you at this site have helped me and I'm reminded of the Proverb about "iron sharpening iron." There's also another excellent proverb: "The truth will make you free, but first it will make you angry."

leslie's picture

I do like the Populist Party and support most of what they stand for. In Christs Love Leslie

Brother Les

sunflower's picture

Are they still around? I thought the Populists fell apart and the members found homes within the Constitution Party (Conservative Christian) and Libertarian Party (Moderately Christian).

leslie's picture

The Populis are gone in name only. The ideas have not. As with Preterism, the ideas of the Populist Party went too far for some people. People did not want to get out of their comfort zone and vocally stand up for Life, Liberty and God and Godly values. Most Preterists are still in their comfort zone and will remain closet Christians. For we are a new people under a new name.Come out of the closet. I remain a Democrat, a Blue Dog Democrat. Do not say all Demos are for every Left wing Liberal idea. We are not. Things can not always be changed from the outside, most of the time they must be changed within. All Parties as in all Denominations have bad "Spot". Most Parties and Denominations have a lot of good "Spots". It is what is within you as to how your Spots"look. In Christs Love Leslie

Brother Les

Virgil's picture

Why do you put this ultra right wing stuff on this forum, Virgil?

Not enough hate in America for you?

Ed's picture

"Why do you put this ultra right wing stuff on this forum, Virgil?"

Maybe because it is his website? Duh!!!

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

Virgil's picture

Oh, come on now! I didn't hear you complain when the Bush=Antichrist article was posted...lighten up! Plus, I have a crush on Ann Coulter...

sunflower's picture

Virgil, you were raised as a communist and never played baseball growing up. So you'll never get it. You want one side to kill the other - but that's not America - that's Romania.

Sam's picture

Virgil,

Some people will never "get" sarcastic rhetoric because they have no 'wit' about them. They monitor papers and look for 'hate' language. I have encountered these emotional, politically correct, let's all talk about flowers gang in here many times. If it were up to them, there would be no free-speech.

Samuel

Virgil's picture

Yes Sam, you got that right...they can't take it...they can only dish it out.

Virgil's picture

Man...that's a mouthfull. Where are you getting the idea that I was raised "as a communist" and that "i want one side to kill the other"?

Where am I? What year is this? Plus...don't you know that Romanians actually invented baseball? We've been playing OINA hundreds of years before baseball even showed up here...do your research man! :)

http://www.sportbiz.ro/froina/

Parker's picture

We don't want them killed...just put out of office permanently. Let the Democrats oversee highway maintenance, sturgeon populations management, and tourism programs. Anything along those lines should be okay.

Just keep them away from governmental offices of real import and influence over our society. Drive them out of entertainment and news media through the proliferation of conservative journalism and family-oriented entertainment and programming. Watchdog the watchdogs by keeping public pressure and scrutiny on Dan Rather, Tom Browkaw, and P. Jennings. Protest the obvious liberal activism going on among members of the press--which is 90% Democrat by the way.

We'll get back our country if we work hard and have faith. Either that, or we'll abandon the Democrats to their own self-destruction and find a new state to start over fresh.

coderguy's picture

Zorro,

Your out of line with the kill comment. I think Virgil has a good understanding of our political structure. The sides over here DO want to kill each other. The nation is polarized and it is the Dems and their politicalization of the war and every other issue that is bring that about. Name one positive thing that John Kerry stands for. You can't, he doesn't stand for anything positive, rather he is simply claiming that he is not Bush or he would do it better. Liberals only hope to regain power is that something tragic happens to the country and people put them back in.

coderguy's picture

Give me a break! PlanetPreterist is a hate-site. If it isn't the Democrates, it's the creeds; if it isn't the creeds, it's the Church itself. This is not a particularly christian site - political gnosticism would be more accurate. Of course, it's all done in Christ's name...

Division STARTS here, it's a breeding ground for a reform that has nothing to do with Christ's Church since the neo-gnostic-preterist stance is outside her. So what are you all reforming?

Virgil's picture

Hey...don't make me start deleting comments...you ARE out of line...

coderguy's picture

Division isn't inherently bad. Everyone has division, even those who say we shouldn't. They are divided from those who say we should. Since division is the way things are, the question is, are you on the right side of division? I don't agree with most of this site, but it is far from hateful. If you want to watch hate tune into the Dems Convention. They, like I said, have nothing positive to offer. They are complaining about 2 Americas and all the old liberal plays from the past 50 years. The only way they can win this is if something bad happens to America, that is a sad place to be.

Apollos's picture

Zorro,

I am far to the right of the article Virgil posted. The position I hold is one which was considered centrist 50 years ago. One can be on the "far-right" today and still be on the left as the GOP clearly demonstrates. Left-wingers JFK, LBJ, and HHH, were all far to the right of GOP leadership and practice today. Most folks claim to be centrist, but they define that as centrist between the two major parties, not in terms of political thought - big difference. They need to realize the media touted "center" is a moving target.

The "hate" you say you see here is in evidence in Christian circles everywhere. Planet Preterist is merely a microcosm of the larger Christian community. Are you so outspoken against it in all venues?

Your charges of division starting here, and neo-gnosticism ARE hate speech. Better watch out for that mote and beam thing. :-)

Jim

jowl's picture

"In my distress I cried unto the LORD, and he heard me. Deliver my soul, O LORD, from lying lips, and from deceitful tongue. What shall be given unto thee? or what shall be done unto thee, thou false tongue? Sharp arrows of the mighty, with coals of juniper. Woe is me, that I sojourn in Mesech, that I dwell in the tents of Kedar! My soul hath long dwelt with him that hateth peace. I am for peace, but when I speak, they are are for war." PSALM 120

(concerning Carter)"...Maybe they just want to remind Americans who got us into this Middle East mess in the first place."

Surveying the republican record of support Iraq invasion into Iran, but not Kuwait, secret sales of weapons into Iran (allying with Cocaine Traficers and money launders in the process) - it is just a little unfair to make it sound like the Middle East would still be the garden of eden if not for Carter.

peace,
joel

Islamaphobe's picture

Notices that Jimmy Rosalind Carter had Michael Moore in their box at the convention last night. I guess that the the Carters are so dedicated to the pursuit of peace that they are willing to support someone who blatantly lies in support of an objective of which they approve. Moore, by the way, apparently believes that rescuing Iraq from Saddam Hussein was not worth any American lives. Are we to conclude that no American lives should ever be lost in order to save other people from a murderous tyrant? By the way, thanks in part to the resistance fostered by those the Contras, the people of Nicaragua voted those delightful Sandanistas that Reagan opposed out of office. To his credit, Jimmy Carter was one of the election monitors on that historic occasion.

jowl's picture

I do not know what Moore believes, and I do not care if the Carters support him.

What the Carters do understand, I believe anyway, is most people's ignorance to the cost of the war(s) against iraq. The peacenik Carter unquestionably believes that wars must be fought with full understanding and as a last resort. You might think that the loss of american lives are worth instituting a democracy, but...

Forget the roughly 600 american lives lost taking saddam out of power, let's consider the 1.5 million Iraqis that lost their lives taking him out of power. No matter how ruthless a man Saddam could be made out to be - he never approached that death toll. The highest estimates are around 5000 in gassings. We easily have slaughtered more than that with poorly aimed bombs.

These 1.5 million lives i am talking about are a result of the drastic increase in infant mortality rates after post 1991 sanctions were imposed. They also include numbers of children dying of lukemia in Iraq today - in areas 5 times as high rates as before the gulf war - largely due to US depleted uranium rounds. (But then again, maybe saddam fed them the missing WMD to hide it from inspectors - after all - sanctions also starved tens of thousands to their deaths).

How many car bombs killed innocents in Iraq while Saddam was in power? Are these people safer?

I survey all this, and with my knowledge that the republican neo-conservatives that are in control today are the same ones that supported Reagan in his support of Saddam in the first place. When someone makes executive decisions that end up being a huge mistake - why is their no outrage?

My whole point is - how can people be so brutal against Carter and his opinions about peace - when an honest look at the "middle east mess" has been created not because of peace seekers - but because of war fighters.

peace,
joel

Virgil's picture

How many car bombs killed innocents in Iraq while Saddam was in power? Are these people safer?

No, during Saddam's reign they were being killed by the tens of thousands with bullets...a little more efficient.

And are these people safer? You bet they are! Talk to actual Iraqis instead of listening to the media BS reports...

jowl's picture

Any blood on Saddam's hands is also blood on anyone that ever supported him.

There is a ton of evidence that many members of the current administration did.

I am unaware of how Carter created this monster.

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/iraqwar/timeline/timeline_02.html

But I am aware of how Reagan fed the beast and made it grow out of the desert.

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/iraqwar/timeline/timeline_03.html

Again - who got us into all this middle eastern mess - Ann?

peace,
joel

Virgil's picture

But I am aware of how Reagan fed the beast and made it grow out of the desert.

So what? We also rebuilt Germany and France after WWII and they now hate us...what's the big deal? Is our fault that an old ally turned on us? Your reasoning makes absolutely no sense! 50 or 100 years from now there will be new friends and new enemies in this world...you deal with it one at a time as the geopolitical context dictates whatever is best for our country.

Islamaphobe's picture

Once again I am provoked into posting under the Coulter article. The roots of our problems in the Middle East go back many years, and neither political party can claim to have been 100 percent right. I'd score it about 80-20 in the Republicans' favor. For those posters who find something admirable in Jimmy Carter, however, I have to point out that it was under his magnificent stewardship that the Iranisn government of Khomeini seized our embassy and held our people hostage in defiance of all norms of international behavior. What did Carter do? After trying his can't we all just get along approach to no avail, he went along with a nutty scheme to try to raid the embassy and rescue the hostages. He could have said--and should have, in my opinion--release the hostages or the bombing begins as of such and such a date. Given that the government of Iran decided to make America "the great Satan" and to do everything it could to kill Americans, I think it is understandable why our government favored Saddam over the ayatollahs in the ill-fated Iran-Iraq war. When Reagan became president, the Iranian government released the hostages. Warmongers like myself suspect that the ayatollahs released the hostages because they knew Reagan was no Carter.

Our support for the government of Saddam's Iraq certainly cooled after he gassed the Kurds and it became clear that he was using gas against the Iranians. But Saddam was able to cultivate friendships with French, Russians, and Germans, among others, friendships that our liberal friends in the media seem and elsewhere have managed to overlook.

jowl's picture

Hold on now, As far as what Carter was going to do about all this...

The last thing he was going to do was give them arms in return for a political victory,

but reagan did!

And your comment about "Our support for the government of Saddam's Iraq certainly cooled after he gassed the Kurds and it became clear that he was using gas against the Iranians.".

Wrong.

In October, 1989, Bush I issued a national security directive, declaring that "normal relations between the United States and Iraq would serve our longer-term interests and promote stability in both the Gulf and the Middle East."

That is a full year after he gassed the Kurds.

I recognize Reagan as a great contributer to the words of peace, backed by great capability in strength. He educated the world on the concept of freedom. He taught me the dangers of depending on the state to make my life better. He called communism what it was - evil. And he for the most part was a peaceful president. He would have never been taken seriously in the world invading Afghanistan or Iraq. And I think this is Bush's problem. I think it is our problem. He has gotta go - and be replaced with a much more peace minded individual with an emphasis of reaching out to the world to educate, not to simply demand / buy their allegiance.

peace,
joel

Ed's picture

What is interesting is that, in spite of the BS that you believe, the truth is found somewhere in the Middle East, not in the American press.

It was funny that at the same time you guys were discussing Mr. Carter, I heard an IRANIAN, who is old enough to REMEMBER pre-Ayatollah Iran, on the radio. She BLAMED Jimmy Carter for the problems in the Middle East, because it was CARTER that, through his "peace-minded" foreign policy, brought an end to the Shah's regime, and ushered in the "World According to (Khomeini)". With Khomeini being the threat that he was to the western world, our government backed Hussein in Iraq. Keep in mind that through all this, FRANCE was telling us what a great guy Hussein was (funny, ain't that what the Frogs are still telling us?). Why shouldn't our government back the guy so lauded by our "ally", France? We have since learned our lesson.

If you disagree with Bush, fine...but let's not talk of Jimmy Carter in glowing terms. Some of us had to live through his presidency - we didn't just read about it in the New York Times.

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

JL's picture

Ed,

I met an Iraqi Christian last winter who blamed Carter and Khomeini for all of the problems.

I went to college during the Carter administration with a lot of anti-Shah Iranians who learned the hard way that things were infinitely better under the man they helped overthrow.

We had discussions in classes about what would happen. Most states had usury laws that forbade interest rates above 12%. The banks either ignored those laws or quit lending. In 1980 and '81, builders of new homes in Southern California were paying banks $10,000 or more to buy down the interest rate on home loans to 16 and 18%.

Government can't fix anything. All it can do is destroy. Carter was the worst destroyer of my lifetime. He belongs near the top of the US all-time list with Hoover, FDR, Lincoln, and Grant.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

sunflower's picture

Jowl,

You make some very good points. And I, too, am concerned about the neo-cons who are in control. But most of my frustration is due to the fact that my fellow-Christians don't want to know the truth about them.

This war is such a complicated issue. However, we serve the "Prince of Peace" and I believe that peace, and not war, is the position we Christians should take...unless there is absolutely no other way to avoid being overtaken by a foreign power. (You and I know that there are other ways of dealing with "terrorists" than invading sovereign nations which have no connection to said terrorists.)

I would like to see our leaders choose to follow the advice of our founding fathers, specifically George Washington, who said we should avoid foreign entanglements. Perhaps if we had followed his advice in the very beginning, we wouldn't be having to make these difficult decisions (with which I disagree, by the way). Why must invasion and war be the solution?

Blessings and peace to my brothers and sisters in the Lord.

Islamaphobe's picture

Since this article has attracted so many comments, I shall inject my two cents worth. I am no great fan of Ann Coulter, who is a little acerbic for my tastes, though I do find her suggestion of invading the Middle East and engaging in a forcible conversion to Christianity to have some merit. At least Ann and some of the posters to this site perceive something that I believe to be manifestly true. There is a struggle going on in this country between the forces of an essentially atheistic liberalism and those who accept the idea of a Bible-based morality that is far more important than the factional disputes we Christians have among ourselves. When we take the entire world into account, we can add militant Islam to the mix. A Jimmy Carter-like "can't we all just get along" approach will never bring anything but disaster in this situation because our opponents will take advantage of our weaknesses to run right over us.

alberto's picture

In other words, Blessed are the war-mongers.

albert burke

Virgil's picture

Jesus never promised peace through Christianity - many wars have been fought on this planet over religion...and Christianity. Obviously, allowing Islam to prosper doesn't help anyone, especially Christians, so unless you are ready to convert to Islam, you don't really have any other choice, but to go to war.

Islamaphobe's picture

To me a warmonger is someone who advocates going to war as an act of aggression or conquest. While Christianity has a checkered past in terms of being associated with aggressive wars, those Christians of today who are willing to go to war in order to defend what they believe in see themselves, quite properly I think, as defending their faith against aggressive enemies who want to destroy their faith. Needless to say, pacifists will not agree with this and will insist on finding all war to involve aggression on the part of all parties involved. I do not believe that is factually correct, and I do not believe that Jesus taught passive submission when you have the means to defend yourself.

EWMI's picture

Islamaphobe, early Christian missionaries saw Islam as an abberant form of Christianity. They found Mulsims quite easy to preach the Gospel to. I think there is merit to the view that Western policies in the Middle East have enforced militant Islam's position. Saladin was noted for his openness to the other "People of the Book" He allowed Christian worship and actually built Synagogues. Noteably, Iraq under Saddam and Syria today were/are reasonably tolerant of Christians. That has changed in Iraq. Today for the first time in many years are Iraqi Christians living in fear of persecution.

I do not defend Saddam or his cronies but rather question the value of preemptive war. (Especially if that war looks like it is eschatologically motivated!)

PS, if you are an American remember that the most recent preemptive war has cost 1000 American lives, killed as many as 30,000 Iraqis (Bringing the total Iraqi death toll since 91 to over 2 million) AND cost almost $200 billion Dollars?

Seems like a high cost to remove one man from power.

Virgil's picture

Because the Bible is already an established book in many muslim's minds, and they already accept Jesus as a historical person, yes, preaching would be easy, especially from a preterist perspective.

While I do disagree with your take on Iraq, I agree that the US policy towards Israel really hurt the influence of Christianity in the Middle East - maybe some day, we'll put a preterist in office and everything will be better, but as long as christian zionists havea strong lobby here, the US will continue on this dangerous road until something really bad will happen, like a nuke attack here or in Israel, or who knows what other scary stuff the militants are working on?

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
24%
No only registered users should comment
76%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 41