Bob Whitaker's Weekly Articles December 5, 1998
December 5, 1998
A MODEST PROPOSAL
December 5, 1998
December 5, 1998
ONLY THE RIGHT CAN INCITE
The United States sends some five billion dollars a year in outright aid to Israel. This does not include unrepaid loans and a few billion a year more we send to Egypt each year, mostly for their friendship with Israel.
The United States sends an absolute minimum of over five billion dollars a year to protect Israel's borders. The Christian Coalition and liberals say that is not enough.
I just noticed that, on "Christian" television, they just started advertising to get Christians to pay for Russian Jews to immigrate to Israel.
Apparently the Jewish community has no money of its own. We all know that, when it comes to supporting liberal causes, the Jewish community has lots and lots of money.
So this Christian evangelist nonsense of raising money from the Christian community to send Russian Jews to Israel is both typical and ridiculous.
Sillyass respectable conservatives really tick me off.
So what could we say that would REALLY make both the liberals and the Christian Coalition go ballistic?
How about this:
What if we proposed that, for every dollar we spend protecting Israel's border, one dollar had to be spent to protect AMERICA'S border? That would mean we would have to spend five billion dollars a year to keep out drugs and illegal aliens!!
The Christian Coalition would certainly loudly oppose such a proposal. It might offend Hispanics. Ralph Reed and his successors want to get cool with minorities. So it turns out, according to Reed, that God wants him to be cool with minorities, too. Therefore, a proposal that Americans spend as much to protect our own borders as we do to protect Israel's would really upset both the present leadership of the Christian Coalition and the liberals.
That means I just HAD to bring it up.
One thing the reader may notice about my opinions is that I never claim that God agrees with me.
I am about the only antiliberal political writer I know who does not claim that his words are dictated directly from On High.
There is nothing new about the religious right. I remember when the left claimed that everything it stood for was straight from the mouth of God. On the right, William Buckley always went straight to theology to explain his opinions whenever he was at a loss for any rational argument.
One thing I noticed about the religion Buckley and the left quoted was that it always kept up with "the times." Buckley's bedrock Eternal Truth never got out of hand. It never said anything that would absolutely alienate fashionable opinion in New York City.
Unlike other commentators, I have a problem when it comes to claiming God's sanction for my opinions. Claiming that one speaks for God is, if you take the Bible seriously, a hideously dangerous undertaking.
I was raised in a literate family in the Bible Belt. I have some familiarity with what the Bible actually says. This is much more of a rarity than it sounds like, because very few people really know much about the Bible.
I have watched well-dressed, literate, Bible-church people state flatly that the Bible says, quote, "All men are created equal." I have heard people use "The poor we have always with us" to show that Jesus' big concern was the poor, and "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" to demonstrate Jesus' attitudes on the proper distribution of money.
All this is wrong to the point of lunacy.
But to get right to the present point, I have always had a clear idea of what blasphemy is.
Blasphemy. Now there's a concept you don't ever hear about these days. The first time I ever heard the word "blasphemy" was when I was about twelve. We were talking about suicide being the only unforgivable sin, and, as sometimes happens in the literate Bible Belt, someone showed me a quote in the Bible about another unforgivable sin. It was called blasphemy.
The point was, here was a quote in the Bible that referred to blasphemy as a sin that could be unforgivable. If you claim you are God, or that you speak for God, you are taking on a supernatural responsibility. I, for one, am in no position to take on that responsibility.
It doesn't seem to bother anybody else at all.
I used the word "blasphemy" in a letter to The State newspaper a couple of years ago. I bet it was the only time that word was used in exactly its proper sense in that newspaper in many, many years. I used it in connection with the sudden conversion of Governor David Beasley. It is hard for us to remember today, but when he was first elected, David Beasley had big plans to be a vice presidential possibility on the national Republican ticket. All the respectable conservatives told him that, in order to become a vice presidential prospect, he had to get that Confederate flag down from the state capitol dome.
But before Beasley could take that flag down, he had to get the vote and active support of people who liked that flag being up there. He needed their support in 1994, to get himself elected. He needed their support in 1996, to carry the state for Dole.
In short, he needed the backing of those who wanted the Confederate flag to stay over the state capitol until November of 1996.
So in December of 1996, Beasley did what every conservative does when he decides to turn on his fellow conservatives: he declared that God told him to do it. He said that, the night before the Baptist Convention, he had stayed up until 3 AM asking God's guidance on the subject of the flag. God came through. That flag had to come down.
The clear implication was that God had told him to take the position he needed to take, and right on time.
Yes, Virginia, that is blasphemy.
I said so in my letter to The State. I have yet to hear a single other person, among all those columnists and writers of letters who claim to speak for God, mention blasphemy.
Maybe there is a reason that folks who claim they represent God don't want to talk too much about that particular sin.
ONLY THE RIGHT CAN INCITE
Obedient to respectable opinion, Britain's House of Lords has just decided that General Pinochet must be held responsible for his government's political actions in Chile. Pinochet was the right-wing dictator of Chile.
The important point, of course, is not that he did bad things, but that he was right wing. During the Cold War, Pinochet and his fellow rebels threw out an outright Communist government and killed its leader. The left has never forgiven him for this.
Pinochet went to Britain, and Spain's leftist government demanded that he be extradited to Spain for trial for acts against Spanish nationals committed by his government years ago. So the left has been after Pinochet's scalp for decades. Now, with the help of fashionable Brits, they are likely to get it.
Decades before Pinochet took power in Chile, Communists held control of a third of the world. They massacred tens of millions of people, they shot anyone who tried to escape from any area they controlled.
Below is a list of the Communist murderers and oppressors the British Government is punishing for their crimes:
Anyone who committed evil under the Nazi regime over fifty years ago is still being pursued by leftists all over the world -- with the approval of respectable conservatives, of course. Stalin and his henchmen killed a lot more people, IN PEACETIME, than Hitler did.
This went on long after Hitler was dead.
Below is a list of the Communist mass killers who are being sought for their crimes:
I have already discussed the fact that when a black man who hated whites started shooting whites in Long Island, and killed a number of them, New Yorkers blamed the guns. They did not blame the constant anti-white drumbeat in the media and in the educational establishment for inciting these murders.
New York is so routinely anti-white that a textbook was actually approved for the entire New York State school system that declared that ALL whites were racists! It was pulled at the very last minute. But naturally this had nothing to do with inciting the nightly crimes blacks commit against whites in New York.
All those crimes, you see, are not the fault of anti-white leftists. They are caused entirely by by the National Rifle Association. A wife of one of the men killed by the black gunman ran on an antigun ticket and won a congressional seat.
Only the right, you see, ever preaches hatred. Only the right incites anyone to violence. This is the standard position of the media and of opinion in areas like New York. The media say so.
Why, we are asked, was the press so fanatically patriotic in World War II, but could not be dedicated to the American cause against the Communists in the Cold War?
The reason, we are told, is because during World War II, it was clear which side represented evil and which represented good. We are told that that line was blurred when the enemy was Communism.
True, Hitler never did anything the Communists didn't do more of and for longer. But Hitler was a right winger. Communists espoused an "idealism" our left and those loyal to it had real trouble opposing wholeheartedly.
There are plenty of Communist criminals living, and living well, today. Nobody is after them. You are free to torture, enslave and kill, but it must be done in the name of the left.
Israel tried Eichmann for "crimes against humanity." Eichmann represented an anti-Semitic regime, so he was antihuman. So they grabbed him out of Argentina and executed him, not in the name of Jews, but in the name of Humanity.
Below is a list of Communists Israel has punished for killing tens of millions of human beings:
Crimes Against Humanity sounds, in practice, a lot like "Crimes Against the Left." The House of Lords, like all respectable conservative institutions, is more than willing to enforce this leftist rule.