A Village in Arkansas Is Missing Its Idiot

Good Lord, where to begin…
Yet another smarmy episode for the “Why Mike Huckabee Is Wildly Unfit to Be President” file: whining that Mitt Romney is mean to him, Huck prepares an attakc ad of his own, then decides to take the supposed high ground by not running it—just before airing it for reporters.
You might be surprised to hear that such defense hawks as Frank Gaffney, John Bolton, and Richard Allen are foreign policy advisors to Mike’s campaign. Y’know who else was surprised? Gaffney, Bolton & Allen.
The governor took some, uh, interesting lessons from Benezir Bhutto’s assassination.
A lot of people have things to say about the Huckster. And they ain’t pretty.

Despite what the
decreasingly-credible Michael Medved may say, it’s way past time to get this bozo off the national stage.
UPDATE: Here’s the video of Huck’s press conference to show the ad he doesn’t want you to see (think about that for a minute), as well as the revelation that—surprise!—he’s lying again. It seems Huckabee is claiming he decided not to run the ad ten minutes before making his speech, yet TV stations were told not to run the ad two hours before.

As for the ad itself, you notice that it doesn’t actually address any of Romney’s anti-Huck claims?

Around the Web

Rich Lowry says put a fork in Brownback ’08. The sooner, the better.

Jon Stewart
disgraces himself with Bolivian thug-in-chief Evo Morales.

Another day, another liberal lie campaign.
Target: Bill O’Reilly.

Michael Medved offers
some inconvenient truths about slavery to America-haters.

There’s still some justice in the world: American traitor Jack Murtha
has been ordered to testify in a defamation case pertaining to the Haditha marines.
Here’s a new site I’ve found about the original Feminazi, Margaret Sanger.

Open Letter to Michael Medved

Dear Michael Medved,

Thank you for the fine work in your recent Townhall column, “
Capturing the Language to Assure Liberal Dominance.” The piece eloquently and effectively tackles one of the chief pollutants in the national discourse. However, I cannot help but notice a little irony here—in the wake of the latest immigration bill’s announcement, you have employed the very same pollutant in the Republican establishment’s defense.

You asked, “Why did [Senator John Kyl] oppose immigration reform, but this time he’s in favor of it?” Just as “pro-choice” is a technically-accurate-yet-biased term for abortion advocacy, labeling the new legislation “reform” suggests it to be inherently good, and even worse, calling Kyl a one-time opponent of “immigration reform” dishonestly suggests he opposed doing anything to change the system, suggests that we oppose reform itself, rather than a particular type of so-called “reform.”

This is a deception you’ve put forth repeatedly.
You claim we “want so desperately to preserve the status quo of the current broken system, with all its obscene costs, hypocrisy, and security threats to our country.” You cannot possibly believe that we somehow approve of the status quo, so why write it?

Most troubling, however, is the stunning ease with which you dismiss the serious, substantive criticism of this bill as “the hysterical (and increasingly dishonest) denunciations of ‘amnesty’ on talk radio.”
On your show you said “That’s political posturing, that’s sloganeering by people who, it seems to me for their own political interests, are telling people what they want to hear. I don’t know why people wanna be upset about this.” It’s clear that you’ve made an active, concerted effort to demonize & trivialize bill opposition as fanatic, sinister, and dangerous, culminating with the obscene, demagogic characterization of Tom Tancredo as “racist” (yet Lanny Davis is OK? What a disgrace.). It’s stunning to juxtapose the Medved spin with the American reality (although I do have to thank you for one thing—your tactics provided the inspiration for a book I’d like to write someday: When the Right Goes Left).

The following is an exhaustive (but rest assured, not definitive) list of people who, according to you and
Linda Chavez, are apparently a bunch of racists, liars and/or fools. Click on each name and you’ll see or hear their stance on the latest immigration developments. Most are strong “comprehensive-reform” opponents, while some are open to the general concepts of guest worker programs & amnesty (by the way, they’re at least honest enough to call what they support by its real name), but all are united on one point: the flaws in this bill are far more severe than you are willing to admit.

Glenn Beck
Bill Bennett
Tony Blankley
Robert Bluey
William F. Buckley
Tammy Bruce
Amanda Carpenter
Ann Coulter
Jim DeMint
John Fonte
David Frum
Newt Gingrich
Sean Hannity
Hugh Hewitt
Duncan Hunter
Laura Ingraham
Terrence Jeffrey
Mickey Kaus
Charles Krauthammer
Mark Krikorian
Bill Kristol
Mark Levin
David Limbaugh
Rush Limbaugh
Kathryn Jean Lopez
Rich Lowry
Heather MacDonald
Michelle Malkin
Andy McCarthy
Edwin Meese
National Review Editors
Peggy Noonan
Kate O’Beirne
John O’Sullivan
Ramesh Ponnuru
Dennis Prager
Robert Rector
Mitt Romney
Phyllis Schlafly
Jeff Sessions
Thomas Sowell
Mark Steyn
Andrew Stuttaford
Cal Thomas
Fred Thompson
George Will

Read that list again. You’ll see a great many of your colleagues in writing, blogging & talk radio, including some enormously distinguished & admirable Americans, and conservatives whose work you personally have extolled in the past. Just like you, they’ve spent years passionately fighting for conservative values in the court of public opinion. Just like you, they’ve gone to tremendous lengths to defend President George W. Bush from liberal demagoguery. But unlike you, they’ve reached their breaking point as far as how much bull they’re willing to tolerate from this ineffectual White House and Republican Party. After just a few of their detailed, thoughtful commentaries, you ought to see that there’s no “racism” or “hysteria” in their sincere concern. Our devotion to America’s future is sincere, and it deserves better than the cheap demonization which seems to be your stock in trade.

Calvin Freiburger

Remembering Rev. Jerry Falwell

What Was It About Falwell That’s Supposed to be “Little”?

Michael Medved, 5/17/07

Secular militants have provided no shortage of intemperate, vicious, mean-spirited reactions to the death of Jerry Falwell but perhaps the most revealing came from Christopher Hitchens (author of a new book attacking religious delusions, “God is Not Great.”)

Interviewed by Anderson Cooper on CNN, Hitchens seemed oddly obsessed with repeatedly applying a single—and singularly inappropriate — adjective to the late Dr, Falwell.

In the course of the interview, Hitchens decried “the empty life of this ugly little charlatan…” and then asked “who would, even at your network, have invited such a little toad….” Shortly thereafter, he declared, “The whole consideration of this horrible little person is offensive to very, very many of us…” He also concluded that Dr. Falwell even counted as insincere in his religious faith, suggesting, “He woke up every morning, as I say, pinching his chubby little flanks and thinking, I have got away with it again.”

In what possible sense did Jerry Falwell count as a little man?

In the most obvious, physical sense Hitchens’ attempt to belittle Falwell might reflect the common envy of a small guy for a larger, stronger specimen. Aside from the late pastor’s obvious girth, he stood well over six feet tall. I’ve shared refreshments with both Falwell and Hitchens, and the Brit’s not bigger in any sense of the word.

Of course, Hitchens and his apologists might respond that describing Falwell as “little” denotes his ultimate insignificance, his limited intellectual, spiritual dimensions, not his physical size, but even here the dismissive term hardly applies.

As the driving force behind the emergence of the modern Christian conservative movement in U.S. politics, Falwell changed history – as even his most vitriolic critics concede. “The Moral Majority” which he founded played a crucial role in the Reagan landslide of 1980, and even more conspicuously led the way to the stunning, unpredicted Senate sweep that gave the GOP control of the upper house of Congress for the first time in 26 years. Twelve Republican challengers – most of them outspoken Christian conservatives – seized the seats of twelve highly entrenched Democratic incumbents (including such luminaries and former Presidential candidates as George McGovern, Birch Bayh and Frank Church). Liberals may lament the outcome of that watershed election but it’s impossible to dismiss its importance.

In other words, this purportedly “little charlatan” Jerry Falwell, managed to bring about a big shift in American politics – thereby qualifying as a major figure in all the battles of the Reagan Presiency and beyond. Everything about the man actually counted as big – big ambitions, big plans, big ideas, big impact. In addition to his well-known role in politics and media, Falwell qualified as a spectacularly successful institution builder. His Thomas Road Baptist Church, which he founded from scratch in 1951, now draws 22,000 members, and booming Liberty University (founded in 1971) educates nearly 8,000 students (more than Dartmouth or Princeton). Emerson once said that “any durable institution is nothing more than the lengthened shadow of one man.” In that context, Falwell counts as a big guy, with a big shadow.

There is one possible sense in which a major figure might be described as “small” – if even this powerful, influential individual comes across as petty, obsessed with trivialities, nursing grudges and slights.

Falwell possessed none of these characteristics of smallness, and managed to strike up unlikely friendships even with his political and religious adversaries. Opponents as diverse as Jesse Jackson and Larry Flynt remembered him on his passing as a “friend,” praising his graciousness and geniality while emphatically rejecting his ideology. Falwell engaged in frequent, sometimes furious battles in politics and pop culture but he did so, for the most part, as a proverbial happy warrior. The New York Times wrote in their obituary: “For all the controversy, Mr. Falwell was often an unconvincing villain. His manner was patient and affable. His sermons had little of the white-hot menace of those of his contemporaries like Jimmy Swaggart. He shared podiums with Senator Kennedy, appeared at hostile college campuses and in 1984 spent an event before a crowd full of hecklers in Town Hall in New York, probably not changing many minds but nevertheless expressing good will.”

The fact that some of Falwell’s critics displayed
so little good will on the occasion of his passing (“Ding Dong, Falwell’s Dead!” exulted a typical headline at CommonDreams.org) reflects their insecurity and bitterness, not their certainty. Religious believers feel no need to sneer and celebrate when a noted atheist leaves this life. If, as the skeptics believe, there’s no fate awaiting any of us beyond a future as worm food, then deeply religious people have no more reason to worry than their irreligious counterparts.

If, on the other hand, there’s a watchful God who’ll ultimately judge us all by Biblical standards, then the non-believers may face significant reasons for concern. No wonder an angry atheist like Christopher Hitchens reacts with such defensive fury to the very idea that Falwell (and, ultimately, the rest of us) will go on to some form of eternal reward.

Despite the effort to disregard him as “little,” Falwell qualified in every sense as a large figure– big hearted and cheerful, secure and sincere in his own faith, with enormous dreams and major impact. He never would have stooped to a cruel, small-minded, petty and pathetic publicity stunt like smearing one of his ideological adversaries on the very day that opponent died.

So who, then, is the real “little toad,” Mr. Hitchens?




Other remembrances:
Ann Coulter, Zev Chafes, Armstrong Williams

Abstinence Education a Failure? Not So Fast

Social lefties are giddy that a new study is making the rounds which purports to show precisely that, but dig a little deeper, and that conclusion becomes premature. For one thing, the study only looked at four such programs. For another, the report itself includes this caveat:

“Targeting youth at young ages may not be sufficient. Most Title V, Section 510 abstinence education programs are implemented in upper elementary and middle schools and most are completed before youth enter high school. The findings from this study provide no evidence that abstinence programs implemented at these grades reduce sexual activity of youth during their high school years. However, the findings provide no information on the effects programs might have if they were implemented in high school or began at earlier ages but continued through high school.

“Peer support for abstinence erodes during adolescence. Peer support for abstinence is a significant predictor of later sexual activity. Although the four abstinence programs had at most a small impact on this measure in the short term and no impact in the long term, this finding suggests that promoting support for abstinence among peer networks should be an important feature of future abstinence programs.”

It’s obvious that any meaningful effort would have to be “comprehensive” (to use a word the Left loves so much). I would also add that, for the best effect, abstinence education in schools would have to be part of a broader societal effort to take back the culture: reemphasize parenting, condemning sexual saturation in the media, reaffirming that sex has consequences by fighting abortion & free distribution of birth control, not electing moral degenerates President…Meanwhile, Michael Medved has some good insights on sex education & federal funding
here.