God Has His Ways of Getting a Nation's Attention

When Old Testament Israel strayed from following God, Yahweh had unique and painful ways of getting the Hebrews’ attention. His first line of attack was to send in His prophets—who were not the shiny, happy-clappy, cliché-spewing, aphorism-addicted mega church pastors who are more interested in hawking their books than bearding the priests of Baal.

No, the prophets were wrecking cranes to wayward Israel’s facades. They were imperfect, difficult dudes who called a spade a shovel for a perfect God. They didn’t give a crap who you were, who your mommy was, if you were the King or Pastor Whoop-Dee-Frickin’-Do. They were fiercely devoted to God and His ways. Janet Napolitano would call these truth-tellers “terror threats” because they loathed godless governments and butt-kissing priests and had no problem whatsoever letting those entities have it verbally.

Yep, if you were out of sorts with God because of practicing whacked stuff or preaching Oprah instead of Obadiah, you were about to be publically roasted via the prophets’ sizzling invectives.

Need a mental image? Imagine Rush, Beck, Coulter, Miller or O’Reilly on steroids.

This skewering, to be sure, was about as fun for the rebel recipients as watching Nancy Pelosi do an interpretive dance of “Riders on the Storm” (the extended version) would be for Simon Cowell.

A humiliating open rebuke, however, was a mere love tap when compared to an eternity of misery and the coming decades-long national butt kicking Israel was in line to receive should they remain contumacious.

The prophets’ messages were never complicated. These gruff and holy critters offered God’s people two choices: turn or . . . burn. If Israel obeyed, they’d be blessed. If they disobeyed, well . . . let’s just say things didn’t go that well for the next four decades.

You see, if Israel turned from their profane BS (belief systems) and back to God, Yahweh would chill and relent from the attention-grabbing calamities He was heatin’ up on heaven’s back burner. The prophet, unfortunately, was officially out of a job if the Hebrews went the repentant route. Yep, Amos had to go back to fig picking.

However, when Israel blew the prophets off by condemning the messenger, categorizing the message as hate speech, jailing the prophet(s) or, as in some cases, killing the prophetic salvo, God would in turn switch to plan B to get His insubordinate group’s good ear.

God, not the one to run out of advanced repentance techniques, would allow Israel’s economy to go to hell, plagues to ravage their land, nature to convulse, and enemies the ability to pulverize them.

Yep, unless I’m reading the Bible upside down, it seems that when the nation went astray from God’s law and wouldn’t listen to the prophets’ calls to repentance and instead vilified the saving voices, God allowed one (or more) of the four aforementioned hammers to pound them until Israel became all ears.

This is, at least to me, a plain prophetic pattern within the Scripture. The $64,000 question you gotta ask yourself is this: If there is a God, and if the Bible isn’t a bunch of fairy tales written by a stack of whack jobs, then does God still roll today like He did with Old Testament Israel as He interfaces with 21st century nations that spurn His values to His face?

I’m guessin’ God hasn’t had an extreme makeover and that He is the same yesterday, today and forever, which could mean in our current culture—where evil is good and good is evil—that we might be in line for grave negative sanctions because, apparently, America’s new favorite pastime is whizzing on that which is holy, just and good.

WRITTEN by Doug Giles for TownHall.com and published there on May 10th, 2009

What a Hateful Liberal Bigot Looks Like

They have always existed, but they have become more emboldened with the recent leftward lurch in American political direction. I am talking today about liberal bigots, those lefties who are not only obstinately or intolerantly devoted to their own opinions and prejudices, but who also regard and treat those who disagree with them with vitriolic hatred. You frequently hear them harping about wanting freedom of speech, the right to express their opinions and viewpoints publicly, even the right to have their alternative lifestyles accepted by the mainstream public as 'normal' or at least 'acceptable'. But this freedom of speech, this right to express opinions and viewpoints, can never, ever extend to those who disagree with them. Perfect case in point came this past weekend with the Miss USA pageant questioning incident. As I previously discussed in another recent post, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was a contestant in the pageant. She is a beauty queen, a model, and she had a simple goal, to win a beauty pageant title. She wasn't looking to change the world on Sunday night, and certainly when it came to the question-answer stage she did not expect a controversial question on an epic hot-button sociological and moral topic. In any event, that is exactly what she received from pageant judge Mario Lavandeira, who goes by the professional name of 'Perez Hilton'. Lavandeira is a gay activist and celebrity blogger, and basically asked Prejean whether she supported 'gay marriage', and to give the reasons behind whatever her feelings were on the issue. Carrie Prejean simply replied from her heart, basically saying that she did not support the idea, that she believed marriage should only be between a man and a woman, and that basically this was how she was raised, taught, and now fundamentally believed. In the immediate aftermath of the pageant, at which she nearly won, finishing as the first runner-up, Hilton said that Prejean was a 'cunt', and then took to the internet and video-blogged that Hilton lost because she was "a dumb bitch." So in other words, Hilton as a gay activist has a right to voice his opinion on the issue, and the mainstream American public is supposed to tolerate not only that viewpoint, but also his public expression of it. But the same right is not extended to Carrie Prejean. Because she disagrees with Hilton on this issue, and because she had the audacity to answer his question with honesty, she is pilloried as some sort of bigot and neanderthal thinker, and then called names as well? How far does this freedom of expression, this right to your own viewpoints go, Mr. Hilton? And it wasn't just Perez Hilton, but also most of the 'gay rights' movement, and in fact most liberals as well, who ganged up on Carrie Prejean. In doing so they exposed themselves publicly for what they really are, a group of hateful bigots, everything that they claim to be against. This is the United States of America, and we are supposed to celebrate, support, and grow from the expression of differing opinions, not denounce them with hatred, ignorance, and profanity. It isn't as if Carrie Prejean said that any gay who actually got married should go to hell. She didn't say they should be arrested, tortured, or even publicly embarrassed if they tried to marry. She did not express that she didn't like gay people in general, and didn't call them any names. In short, she said nothing that would incite hatred or intolerance of gays. She simply answered the question put to her regarding the issue of marriage, stating that it should be between a man and a woman, which it should. Not an opinion, but a fact since the early days of man, and one that has only gained any public forum at all since the fringe gay element of society began imposing it's radical views on the vast mainstream 'straight' majority just a few decades ago. Carrie Prejean simply answered a direct question without lambasting or profaning anyone, but the response that she received in reply has been what we have come to typically expect from the liberal community. We conservatives love an open debate, love ideas expressed in public, and embrace the notion of having them put to the test of a vote. That is the true spirit of American freedom and diversity and exceptionalism at work. There are groups who have wanted that freedom of speech repressed in the past: Nazis, Communists, and brutal dictators of all stripes go this way. Add now to that group the ultra-liberal bigots who want anyone shut up and shut down who does not agree with them, from Rush Limbaugh to Sean Hannity to Ann Coulter to Carrie Prejean. For anyone out there who agreed with Perez Hilton's response to Carrie Prejean, not his view on the topic of gay marriage, but with his response to Sunday night's question-answer session, then you can count yourself in that group of liberal bigots. NOTE: As with every entry at this Blog, there is a 'Comments' button below. You can do so anonymously, but it would be appreciated if you had the courage of your convictions to add at least a real name.

Obama's Partisans Go After Limbaugh, Specter

There is a new political radio commercial airing frequently on local stations, particularly those with news and news talk formats. In the commercial a smarmy female voice sulks at the audacity of Republicans and in particular the popular talk show host Rush Limbaugh to oppose President Barack Obama's economic stimulus package. The commercial highlights that every single Republican in the House of Representatives voted against the package. It also plays a clip from Limbaugh's show wherein Rush says "I hope he fails!", in relation to the Obama stimulus bill. The commercial equates opposition to the Obama stimulus bill with being against jobs. The evil, rich Republicans with their 'big business' allies lining up against the 'little guy' to keep him down. Do Democrats really believe that most people are as shallow as to believe that Republicans don't care about people having jobs? About people having the 'American dream' of home ownership and security? Here is what Obama and his liberal Democratic Party partisans want done. They won the election, and so they want Republicans to roll over and take it. They want Republicans in the House and Senate, all of whom were freely elected by their constituents in their home communities, to throw away their own values and beliefs and just cave in to the Obama-mania. Unfortunately for President Obama the simple fact is that while he won the election comfortably, almost 60 million Americans voted against him. Large sections of the country in no way support the radical liberal agenda that he wants to pursue. In fact, millions of Americans stated that they cast their ballot as a protest against the George W. Bush administration as much as for Obama and his plans. The Democrats and their media allies are incensed at Limbaugh for his stand. Why should they be surprised? People like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and many others are diametrically opposed to everything that liberals stand for, and these people's names are known to everyone who reads this for a reason. That reason is because almost every single one of those 60 million who voted against Obama, and some of those who voted for him as a protest, see these talk show hosts and authors as their own voice. They have made these people popular by agreeing with and supporting their programs, articles, and books. Of course Rush Limbaugh wants Barack Obama to fail, and for the exact same reasons that I want Barack Obama to fail, and fail miserably. Because we understand that Obama and the liberals solution to every problem is more government. Create a new agency, a new level of bureaucracy. Create a new department. Finance some new project. All of these things will create new jobs. Sure they will, but who is paying for those new jobs? Those salaries, those benefits? We the people, that's who. And these jobs won't last. They are partisan jobs set up by a partisan liberal administration. The next time that a conservative Republican administration comes to power, and trust me that will be in our lifetimes (possibly as soon as four years from now), those jobs will go out the window. We understand that the real key to significant, long term job creation comes from keeping taxes low, reducing spending in certain areas, keeping the size and scope of Federal government to a minimal level, and allowing the market to create lasting jobs. Making businesses strong results in their expanding and hiring new workers with jobs that last, and that are paid for by those businesses, not we the people. In the political commercials now airing, the real target is Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter. The commercial asks whether Specter is going to 'support Rush Limbaugh' and vote his way when the Obama stimulus package goes to the Senate. It is an obvious threat to Specter: vote against us, and you will pay the next time you are up for election. The fact is that Pennsylvania Republicans would be far better off with Specter out and a real, true, conservative-leaning Republican in office. Specter has been called a 'RINO' (Republican In Name Only) for years, and for good reason. The American Conservative Union (ACU) tracks and rates all members of the Congress on their actual voting records. Senator Specter is consistently one of the 2-3 lowest rated Republicans in the entire Senate. He already votes with the Democrats about half the time. For them to threaten him after all the support that he has given them over the decades is political partisanship at its worst. But that appears to be what the Obama folks want. President Obama speaks of breaking down barriers, reaching across the aisle, being inclusive, wanting bipartisanship, ending the political rancor. Then he accuses any Republican who does not support his programs of exactly that. How about this, President Obama? How about you and all of your liberal allies supporting the Republican plans instead? That would show a bipartisan spirit and end political rancor. But it isn't realistic, is it President Obama? The fact of the matter is that the United States remains a divided country. Divided between those who see capitalism and the free market as the best solution, and those who believe that government should be a 'nanny' who takes care of us all. Those who believe that America is the greatest power and force for good that mankind has ever seen, and those who believe that we should be more 'European' and gentile. Those who believe that life is important at every stage and age, and those who believe we should have the choice to selfishly kill another human being when it doesn't suit our lifestyle. Those who believe that the Constitution does not provide freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. Those who don't believe in throwing hundreds of billions of dollars of tax-payers hard-earned money at every problem and burdening our grandchildren with paying off that debt, and those who are trying to force this exact 'stimulus' program down our throats. Those who dare to take up the mantle of American greatness, and those who fear and even loath its responsibilities. President Obama and his political partisans can go right on attacking Rush Limbaugh, the Republicans in Congress, and conservatives in general. Go ahead, give it your best shot. We're big boys, we can take it. But count on the one thing we absolutely will not do, and that is roll over for the President when we whole-heartedly believe that he is wrong and his program will ultimately hurt America. Barack Obama is overplaying his hand and resorting to the very political partisanship that he claims he is trying to put to an end. As with most people who overplay their hands in any contest, he will find in the end that he wasted a valuable opportunity.

Ann Coulter is Guilty as Charged

For over a decade now, conservative writer Ann Coulter has been directing her sharp wit and keen mind as well as her biting sense of humor at everything that liberals hold dear. She has emerged as the single most articulate and beloved voice of the far right in American politics, and the honesty and clarity of her works has gained her fans across the vast conservative Republican populace. Her latest book titled "Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault on America" generally covers just what it says in that title. "Guilty" speaks of the 'victim mentality' prevalent in all liberal quarters, and that has been particularly embraced by the Democratic Party over the past few decades. The libs and the Dems take segments of society that feel they have been victimized by the American culture and government, embrace them, and tell them that they, the Dems, will take care of all of their problems. They care about the 'victims', and will make sure that these 'lowly' have a 'voice' if elected. What the liberal Dems never mention, of course, is that the vast majority of these 'victims' have created or exacerbated their own situations. The 'culture' or 'government' or 'the man' or 'the system' had absolutely nothing to do with it. Did 'the government' stick that needle in their arm, or that crack pipe in their mouth, or that pill down their throats? No. Did 'the man' force them to buy that bottle and drink it down? No. Did 'the system' distract them in school and keep them from going to classes, paying attention, studying, and doing their homework? No. Did the 'culture' get them pregnant? No. If you are poor and have little or nothing as you are being raised, why on earth would you want to continue that into your adulthood and for your entire life? That is exactly what you are asking for when you don't emphasize school and instead turn to drugs, booze, and sex as a way out. Fact is, those are no ways out, they are road blocks and in some cases life enders. They are also choices, things that the 'victims' never, ever want to admit. Then you have the 'enablers' as well. These are the people who may recognize that people are victims of their own choices and decisions, but ask the question of "now what?" Do we throw these people away, or do we help them come back? That is indeed a complex question that these 'victims' have made even more so over the years as the vast majority have either abused or misused or turned away what help has been offered. Their perpetual cycles of self-destruction leave those of us who are politically and culturally in the center and on the right throwing up our hands in frustration. But there is no stopping those on the left and their continued romance with the 'victims', and this is the eloquent target of Ann Coulter's "Guilty" work. Coulter's previous books are an endless barrage of clever quips, elegant prose, and sometimes over-the-top comments against all that is Left. In "High Crimes & Misdemeanors" she looks closely at the crimes and immorality of the Clinton White House. In "Slander" she points out the attacks on conservatism by the left-controlled former mainstream media, and highlights the lies they perpetuate. In "Treason" she shows how liberalism has consistently undermined traditional American values in recent decades. In "How to Talk to a Liberal" she speaks their language in a way that only a conservative could love. In "Godless", Coulter hits hard in defending one of the left's biggest targets - God Himself - and takes on their own church-like causes. "If Democrats Had Any Brains They'd Be Republicans" is a strong political statement for conservative causes highlighting the pure lack of common sense in liberalism. This new work in "Guilty" is another in this incomparable string of modern conservative political and cultural thought. As with all other Coulter works it both sings and bites, sometimes in the same paragraph. Ann Coulter was born just three weeks after me, so maybe there was something in the air or water here in the northeastern United States back then. I find her extremely attractive, humorous, and articulate, and I challenge anyone who believes they are in the 'center' politically to actually fully read a couple of her books, especially "Godless" and "How to Talk to a Liberal", and see if you still feel that way afterwards. Try to point out instances where Coulter goes over some imaginary 'line' in her descriptions of certain people or circumstances, and you will find them easily. Try to find instances where Coulter actually lies about something and your job will be impossible. Ann Coulter's critics charge her with being ultra-right win in her orthodoxy and approach, and to that I say, and she would undoubtedly be proud to say, that she is guilty as charged.