Cindy Sheehan, It’s Time to Stop

I had originally written this post earlier today and saved it as a draft since I wasn’t sure I would actually post it. Since this was written, Reuters has released a story that Cindy’s husband has filed for divorce. Of course her response to the press is that they had decided this before she camped out in Crawford. However, since their son was killed over a year ago, my guess is that she has allowed her grief or her selfish need for attention (I’ll leave it up to you to decide which) completely consume her life. So I find it unlikely that her husband’s decision is totally unrelated.

Interestingly, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I recently finished reading C.S. Lewis’ “The Great Divorce” which, if you haven’t read it, is not about divorce (at least, not in the usual sense of the word). There is a very apropos section of the book where we are introduced to a mother that is so consumed with the death of her son, she not only allowed it to destroy her earthly family, she also refused to accept God’s eternal love. Rather than try to explain, I’ll just say read the book. It’s worth the read.

Anyway, the rest of what I wrote is below, unedited. Take from it what you will…

When Cindy Sheehan first hit the news, I admit that I did have some sympathy for her plight. What real human being wouldn’t? The woman lost her son in war. She deserves to grieve.

But as the Bush-hating media has glommed on to exploit her, she has shown her true colors. She has shown that she is a willing participant in her own exploitation. That says to me that, since she is willing to cheapen the death of her own son, she obviously has an agenda. Given what has been pouring out of her mouth, her request to meet with the President isn’t to gain closure or ease her pain. In fact, if Bush did meet with her, it would likely take the wind out of the sails of her real agenda, which is clearly becoming an extremist agenda.

Consider this from IBD this week:

Grief is something to be endured, not exploited. Those who use it to push their agendas end up cheapening it. A mother’s grief becomes just one more emotional lever to manipulate the media and the public. That’s where compassion ends and cynicism properly starts. [read the entire editorial here]

Also consider her recent statement, “You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you’ll stop the terrorism” indicates that she has now somehow become an expert on foreign relations and international diplomacy. Yet to do that would only reinforce the belief among the terrorists that we are weak and without resolve, encouraging further attacks. It is abundantly clear that Sheehan has absolutely no concept of militant fundamentalist Islam. To them, every citizen of the world must either be Muslim or be destroyed. There is NO middle ground.

What I think is the worse than dishonoring the death of her son is that she cheapens the ultimate sacrifice of every soldier who has died in Iraq. She is saying to the parents of every fallen soldier in this war, “My son died in vain and so did yours.” To say you support the troops and then illigitemize their sacrifice is hypocritical.

So the question to me has become, “Has Cindy Sheehan completely lost her sanity due to her pain and grief, or is she truly that selfish that she will allow her self to exploit her son’s death to achieve her 15 minutes of fame?” I’m going to give her the benefit of the doubt and say that she has lost it. I will submit as evidence the following:

  1. Claims George Bush killed her son, so she doesn’t owe a penny of 2004 taxes.
  2. Claims Bush should be impeached and tried for war crimes.
  3. Her family has issued a letter of NONsupport for her tirade

You Can’t Live With Wishy-Washiness

Since I am on the subject of the growing persecution of anything Christian in the United States, here is an interesting story from Bill O’Reilly about the importance of the battle against secularism.

This is an important time to take a stand.

They Just Don’t Get It

I have never been a registered member of any political party. I always thought of myself as a “vote the man” kind of guy instead of a straight ticket voter. But in recent years, the political left has done a great job of helping me narrow that down – and it isn’t making me warm and fuzzy towards the DNC. For a party that portrays itself as the champion of tolerance and acceptance, we must realize that means everyone – all races, sexual orientations, and religions, with the exception of Christians. Instead, Christians are now grouped in to some kind of made up “Religious Right” and are to be shunned as a group. That’s ok with me because come election time, it makes the decision that much easier.

Take for example an editorial in the 8/8/05 edition of Investor’s Business Daily. In the column “On The Left”, syndicated columnist Richard Cohen basically says that Christians are a bunch of dopes with no common sense. (Actually, he doesn’t say “Christians”. Instead, he uses the term “Religious Right” but its pretty clear who he means.) The point of his column, right or wrong, was to discuss the flip-floppiness of politicians like NY Governor George Pataki and Mitt Romney, governor of Massachusetts. These so-called moderate Republicans were elected on platforms that left-leaning swing voters could be comfortable with – a woman’s right to choose. Now with GOP presidential primaries on the horizon, they are changing their view.

I am ok with Cohen pointing this out. I don’t like chameleon candidates on either side. I want someone that will stand for what he believes in. (Incidently, it was pretty convenient for Cohen to leave out some other well known chameleons like Ted “Chappaquiddick” Kennedy, John “I voted for it before I voted against it” Kerry, and Hillary Clinton. But to include them wouldn’t have allowed Cohen enough room to bash the Christians.) But Cohen takes it too far, and in doing so has should make it easy for any Bible believing Christian to make a political choice. It is becoming abundantly clear that the left seeths with hate of what we stand for. And whats more, they clearly have no understanding of it. As an example, here are Cohen’s own words:

It has now become clear that a viable Republican presidential candidate must oppose abortion, stem cell research, the morning-after pill, gay marriage and, for good measure, evolution.

At the very least, you have to offer a good word for intelligent design, as the president did just the other day in the single dopiest statement of his presidency.

These are positions that defy logic – not each and every one of them, but as a totatlity. Taken together, they require GOP presidential candidates to take a kind of loyalty oath to ignorance, to see virtually every issue through a religious prism.

So there you have it. The Richard Cohen considers Christians to be ignorant dopes. Appearantly one is supposed to take a position on moral issues based on Cohen’s definition of “logic,” which seems to be “as long as you leave religion out of it.”

Recess Appointments

One Hundred and Forty. That is the number of recess appointments made by President Clinton during his two terms in the oval office. I have no recollection of anyone, Democrat or Republican, screaming that it was an abuse of power. Yet, when our current President uses the Constitution to direct his actions, he is accused of “a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent” [Kennedy] and that this is “the latest abuse of power by the Bush White House” [Reid].

This kind of grandstanding disgusts me. I am growing weary of the continued antics of some extremists in the Democratic Party who throw words around like they actually mean something. Unfortunately, their arguement doesn’t hold water according to the Constitution. It seems to me that often times the rhetoric is based on the fact that a lot of people in America are either too lazy to read the Constitution for themselves, or simply uneducated, or a combination of both.

In this age of the Internet, there is simply no excuse for not reading the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They have been made readily available to the public on many web sites, including the site of the U.S. Senate. Kennedy and Reid should do themselves a favor and actually read it.

Here is the clause in question for anyone who can’t look it up themselves:

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

US Constitution, Article II, Section 2

I have more respect for the statement from John Kerry, since he seems to have actually read the Constitution:

“The president has the right to make this recess appointment.”

But then he goes on to attempt to manipulate the minds of those that won’t do their own research:

“John Bolton has been rejected twice by the Senate to serve as our Ambassador to the United Nations. This is not the way to fill our most important diplomatic jobs.”

REJECTED by the Senate? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that to be rejected, one must be put up for a vote. Bolton was filibustered, not rejected. Now there is nothing in the Constitution about filibusters. It is strictly a Senate rule.

When I hear Senators Kerry and Dodd saying that Bolton doesn’t have the support of the Senate, it just doesn’t hold any credibility with me because we don’t know if he did or he didn’t. There never was a vote. The vote was stonewalled by a minority party. Why would they do that? Certainly if Bolton didn’t have the support of the MAJORITY of the Senate (and I mean majority of the Senate, not the majority party), there wouldn’t be a need to filibuster. So I can only conclude that Bolton actually did have enough support in the Senate to be appointed.