News, News, and More News

Where to begin?

First Item: Let's get the Chick-fil-A story out of the way: reports about Chick-fil-A caving to the bully alderman in Chicago was enough to send me into a funk...until I got "the rest of the story," or perhaps it would be better to say, until I got the actual story. The phrase "the rest of the story" (RIP Paul Harvey) is now becoming quaint, since the mainstream media no longer actually report on the news (see next item). Here's the actual story from the Baptist Press.

Next Item: A recent Gallup poll reveals that 60% of Americans don't trust the media "very much" or "not at all." Gee, I wonder why (see next item).

Next Item: So here it is, nine days after the attacks on the U.S. embassy in Libya and the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, and the Obama administration finally acknowledges that these attacks were, in fact, terrorist attacks. We had to endure endless hand-wringing and apologizing about the offensive YouTube video from Hillary Clinton, Jay Carney, and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, even Barack Obama himself, all of whom blamed the 10-minute amateur video clip of a movie that apparently nobody has actually seen (is there even an actual movie? See next item).

Nine days later, the administration is saying this violence, committed on the anniversary of 9/11, was a planned terrorist attack! Ya think? About 52% of the country had already figured this out. So the question is not, Why did it take the Obama team so long to figure this out but rather, What did they know, when did they know it, and why wouldn't they tell the American people what they already knew? Equally important: why weren't the media asking these questions?

Next Item: Great article in the Wall Street Journal by Bret Stevens called "Muslims, Mormons, and Liberals," sub-titled, "Why is it OK to Mock One Religion but Not Another?" Noting that the Broadway hit musical "The Book of Mormon" won nine Tonys, Stevens points out that Hillary Clinton actually attended last year "without registering a complaint" (see previous item). Meanwhile, he writes, "the administration is falling all over itself denouncing...a film that may or may not exist; whose makers are likely not who they say they are; whose actors claim to have known neither the plot nor purpose of the film; and which has never been seen by any member of the public except as a video clip on the Internet."

Dennis Prager was in rare form yesterday, responding to this article. I wish I knew how to upload the podcast. It's worth listening to. It's a scathing, seething, rebuke to the spineless left and this pandering president. I just listened to it again, transcribing as he spoke. Here's most of what he said:

The obsequiousness vis-à-vis the Islamic world is disgusting. You would think liberals would be really big on freedom of speech and freedom of the press… nah. 

 If you mock Mormonism, you get awarded. If you just make a picture, don’t even mock, Mohammed, you get potentially killed. Does that tell you anything? Is there anything left to be said? 

 On Hillary Clinton attending a performance of "The Book of Mormon": Do you think Hillary Clinton would have attended a performance of a play called "The Book of the Koran"? 

 Commending the left-wing newspaper in France for publishing cartoons of Mohammed: I give them complete credit, they are an absolute exception to the rule, I want to salute them. 

 I have no interest in mocking Muslims, or Islam, or Mormons. But I believe in freedom of speech. You want to mock my religion? You are free to do so. 

 Referring to a piece in The Onion: It was hilariously obscene. The most ridiculously vulgar picture depicting Moses, Jesus, Buddha, and Ganesh, the Hindu elephant god. The ending of the article is so brilliant. Religious Jews, religious Christians, religious Buddhists, religious Hindus, rolled their eyes, shrugged their shoulders, and went on with their day's work. Get it? Get it? If Mohammed had been added to this obscene cartoon, what would have happened? 

 Commenting on recent events in the Middle East, the killing of our ambassador and his security detail, the ongoing riots: This notion that is being expressed by the administration that the entire reason for the deaths of our diplomats and these explosions of violence all over the Middle East is this little snippet of a film that nobody saw of a video on the Internet. And you know why the administration wants you to believe that? Because they have spent the last four years doing whatever it could to placate the Islamic world. 

 And we were assured, weren’t we, Hey, we get out of Iraq, they’ll love us. The only reason they hate us in the Middle East is because of our war-like stance. Of course, we died to liberate them from their own butchers. But it doesn’t matter. Even if we hadn’t gone to Iraq, the hatred would still be there. 

 Maybe, maybe the conservatives were right, when they said that 9/11 took place because they hate our freedom, they hate our prosperity, they hate our values. Maybe that’s true. All of these riots? Because of one video? No other religious group on earth does this. None. Anything to be learned? Or is the question unfair? 

An entire evening laughing at Mormonism wins nine Tony awards. Any riots in Salt Lake City? We would be stunned. If one Mormon acted out, one, we would be stunned. But you’re not allowed to draw one conclusion from that. You’re only allowed to apologize for something you didn’t do. 

Yep.

Next Item: Mohammed is now being officially referred to as "The Prophet" Mohammed by this administration and the media. So the obvious question becomes, If Jesus Christ is brought up in conversation, will President Obama and the media now refer to Him as "The Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"?

New Item: Romney plays by his own rules, or, as Guy Benson so aptly pust it, "Democrats, Media Get Punk'd: Romney Releases Tax Returns." Touchdown, Romney, plus 2-point conversion.

Last Item: Am I the only one creeped out by this?

"Eat Mor Chikin," or, Why I Believe People Should Support Chick-fil-A Even if They Disagree with the Owner's Views on Marriage

Important perspective expressed by Michael Scherer in Time Magazine on Boston and Chicago mayors' attempts to deny Chick-fil-A a business license in their respective cities because Dan Cathy, the CEO of Chick-fil-A, said he supports traditional marriage. “Generally speaking,” Scherer writes, “governments have a responsibility to not discriminate against businesses on the basis of personal beliefs, just as restaurant chains cannot discriminate against employees on the basis of personal beliefs (or sexual orientation).”

When government officials begin denying business owners the right to open a business in their cities because they supposedly don’t reflect their city’s values, as Rahm Emmanuel (Chicago mayor) and Thomas Menino (Boston mayor) have said, we’ve moved dangerously away from one of America’s most treasured liberties—the right to express one’s views without government repercussion.

I like what Dennis Prager had to say the other day, commenting on the matter: “If you love freedom, buy Chick-fil-A. Even if you support gay marriage, buy Chick-fil-A. Even if you’re a vegetarian, buy Chick-fil-A (you can always give your sandwich to a homeless person, if you don’t want to eat it).”

Prager is right. This issue isn’t about whether you agree or disagree with Dan Cathy's views. It’s about preserving our Constitutionally-protected, fundamental right to free speech. This should trump any disagreement over gay marriage.

Scherer concludes his article by writing, “Presumably, many business owners in both states are among those who oppose same-sex marriage. Should those businessmen and women worry that their hopes for city permits or mayoral cooperation could be jeopardized if they express their opinions publicly?”

Answer? Absolutely not. This is America, for heaven's sake. There’s a time-honored approach to expressing your disagreement with a company over its stated values—it’s called boycott. If you don't agree with Cathy, fine. Don't buy his product! However, that's not what's at issue here. Now is not the time to boycott Chick-fil-A. Now is the time to stand with this company in solidarity over the right to speak your mind freely and openly without government oppression. 

"Chick-fil-A Meets a First Amendment Buzzsaw in Chicago" (Michael Scherer, Time)