blogs4God - a Semi-Definitive List of Christian Blogs Rate this blog

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?



a real american hero

if there are any medals for heroism that our government can give to a non-citizen, this guy should get one.

if not, locdog thinks they need to invent one


yet more bad news for democrats

heh heh heh...

locdog expects i-told-you-so's aplenty to be forthcoming from the whitehouse


locdog's three point insanity test

are you lost in a mental malaise? ever wonder if you've got a few bats roaming about the ol' belfry? have you been set adrift in a sea of existential angst as what few moorings to objective reality you had left disintegrated in a blaze of relativism? are you nuts? here's an easy way to find out. simply answer the following three questions yes or no, and tally your scores at the end.

1. is william saletan in possession of anything even remotely resembling a clue?

I don't mean to be callous or unpatriotic, but why are we celebrating so loudly? Before this war began, Jessica Lynch was safe and unharmed. Now she's safe and harmed. She went into Iraq with a 15-member company. She came out alone. Her company didn't take its casualties while fighting for a bridge or an airfield. It took them because it made a wrong turn.

Worst of all, Lynch isn't one of the millions of Iraqis we're supposed to be liberating. She's one of the putative liberators. We've said this war isn't an invasion. We've said it isn't for us but for Iraq. And yet, while the average Iraqi's liberation gets no Pentagon fanfare and no air time, the liberation of Jessica Lynch is a 24-hour mediathon. We're celebrating her rescue for the worst of all reasons: because she's American.


first they tell us the "elite" republican guard ain't so elite after all, now they tell us we're all a bunch of jingoists because we like seeing daring commando raids where a pretty american teenager is rescued from her iraqi torturers. no, nothing newsworthy there. can't figure out why people would want to watch that. must be racism.

2. do these remarks by ex-presidential hopeful john f. kerry keep with wartime standards of loyalty, patriotism, human decency, or even political common sense to any degree?

What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States.


there's a reason i called him ex-presidential hopeful john f. kerry...

bonus question: who has a more reasonable facsimile of an identity: john f. kerry or al gore?

3. could anyone who is not currently sleeping with madonna possibly believe this?

At the end of Madonna's new "American Life" music video, the singer tosses a grenade into the lap of a President George W. Bush look-alike who uses it to light a cigar.

The singer said that the controversial clip simply uses humor to convey her anti-violence stance. "It's not me being anti-Bush--it's me being ironic and tongue in cheek," she told NBC's Access Hollywood during an interview taped on Thursday (March 27).

"It's my kind of wish for peace and my desire to sort of turn a weapon of destruction, which is a grenade, into something that is completely innocuous," added Madonna. "It's my wish to finding an alternative to violence, to war and destruction."


you want a hint?

the results

give yourself one point for each correct answer.

1. no

2. no

3. no

bonus question: trick question. they share an identity, or lack thereof

if you got anything less than a perfect score, well...let me just say that i hope you really enjoyed one flew over the cuckoo's nest

locdog is glad to be of service



am i reading al jazeera here or what?

for two weeks now you media hacks have been prophesying unbridled bloodletting at the hands of saddam's well-motivated republican guard--guaranteed to rack up untold thousands in american deaths.

as allied forces hunkered down under the gloom of an iraqi sandstorm, the media's spirits were darker still. "we're meeting unexpected resistance! the iraqis are putting up too much of a fight for our troops! we're stuck in a quagmire!" and yet we are precisely fourteen days into this war and we are now on the outskirts of baghdad, poised for a victory of ease virtually unprecedented in the annals of warfare. had one believed the media, though, he would have thought we were poland before saddam's blitzkrieg. half the time, i was convinced the new york times was taking copy from iraq's minister of b.s.

predictably, the press has changed its tune. the vaunted republican guard now ranks somewhere between the daughters of the american revolution and the reserve forces of luxembourg. but as one of my fellow fraysters has pointed out, iraq's forces would have defeated nearly any other army on earth, meaning "The Republican Guard was not overrated so much as the US military was undervalued."

some may think that the media's flip-flop on the fortitude of the "elite" iraqi divisions entails a contradiction. negative. they've been perfectly consistent: they have, and will continue to, smear american forces at every opportunity.

locdog thinks that peter arnett's big mistake was not candy-coating his cyanide like the rest of his colleagues do


in a perfect world...

...saddam hussein would rule france, and all those who oppose this barbaric war of aggression war would be sent to live under his wise and benificent counsel.

one of several changes locdog would like to implement


tyranny of the minority

here's something i've never quite got about these undemocratic, anti-american "peace" protesters. seems like every time they march some sort of mischief breaks out. when the protesters are asked to explain their hypocrisy, we are invariably treated to some starry-eyed blond who looks like her grasp on world affairs extends to what she's learned in her freshman poli-sci lectures, and her ruminations on the role of the modern american demonstrator:

"since president bush won't listen to the people, we'll make him listen!"

fascist thugs.

how is it that these protesters--activists is a better word--then retch whenever they are described as anti-american? what is it, exactly, that gives them the right to force our political leadership to heed them through acts of lawlessness when over two thirds of our population hold to the view they oppose? it sure ain't the constitution, not the one that gives them the right to peaceably assemble, anyway.

it sure wasn't the last time locdog checked



a minor detail: france's anti-semitic war protest

in the murky, pre-iraq history of april, 2002, french neo-fascist and noted anti-semite jean-marie le pen posted horrifyingly strong poll numbers and gave jacques chirac a genuine scare in france's presidential elections. le pen, who trivialized the holocaust as a "detail of history," (a lesser racist would have simply denied it occured) became the choice of a new generation as he "finished first in nine of France's 22 regions and displaced the Socialists and Communists as the choice of working class voters."

perhaps just as frightened as chirac were american bystanders, who looked on with gathering dread as french anti-semitism peaked once more to 1939 levels and europe flirted again with a madman. le pen vs. hitler? hitler wins hands down in any comparison, but the similarities were strong enough that any foie gras munching frenchman worth his weight in frog legs ought to have run screaming from le pen's scathing rhetoric. they didn't.

why not? hatred of jews played a roll that cannot be ignored--but that's not for lack of trying.

now granted that france has the largest muslim population of any western european state (around 4 to 5 million, depending on the source), and granted they have the largest jewish population of any european nation period (about 700,000), and, clearly, the most visible acts of violence against jews in the past few years has been perpetrated by pro-palestinian groups, but still, where is the outcry from the rest of the french people? where is the outcry from france's leaders? they have been implicated by their silence, or their passive protests which may as well have been active support.

during the last few years jewish schools, cemeteries, and synagogues have come under increasing fire as jewish citizens repeatedly cry out for protection. chirac ignored them as long as humanly possible, but when the violence had become such an international embarrassment that his policy of denial was no longer tenable, the long-awaited response came in the form of a few feckless condemnations and bolstered security at synagogues and schools--not that the latter is anything to scoff at, but when jews are routinely mugged or beaten simply for walking down the street and french authorities seem unwilling to lift a finger in their defense, the new measures seem largely symbolic. chirac has done just enough to get the violence off the front pages of the world's papers: the worst thing he could have done. at least when the world was talking about it, french jews had cause to hope for improvement.

instead, jewish emigration from france to israel reached a high that has not been seen since the six day war according to israeli authorities, and the violence against jewish citizens has maintained its brisk pace. folks, things are pretty damn bad when you've got to flee to israel to avoid terror, but then, if it wasn't for european anti-semitism, there wouldn't even be any israel.

yesterday, french nazi thugs desecrated the grave site of british soldiers who had died in defense of france. the nazis spray-painted swastikas and demands for the british government to come and dig up their dead, who were said to be defiling french soil, and called for "death to the yankees!" there's a corellation between anti-semitism and french war protest, folks. you can say that this incident is atypical, and that's so, but the frequency and severity is increasing, and the public remains largely apathetic. they are looking the other way, because when it comes right down to it, many of the french people are just as anti-semitic as the neo-nazis are, if not as brazen in their approach.

it seems that every one of these so-called middle-eastern experts has pretty much the same thing to say about the emotional state of the arab street: "everything that happens over there is viewed through the lens of the palestinian/israeli conflict." such a pleasant way of saying that all judgments are tainted by the profound hatred of jews that dominates the arab world. well, it dominates france, too.

chirac and his government have lots of reasons to oppose this war: chirac has been buddies with hussein since the seventies, they have sweetheart oil deals with iraq, french companies secretly sell weapons to the hussein regime, etc. but factoring heavily in chirac's calculations, no doubt, is the fact that his poll numbers blast off like a tomahawk cruise missile every time he sticks it to george w. bush. oh, the french hate americans. everyone knows that. (a recent poll states one in three frenchmen hope saddam wins the war.) but their fabled contempt for us is driven by something far more malignant than typical euro-snootiness:

The woman, talking nervously at a kosher restaurant not far from the school, said she fears the atmosphere will darken with the war in Iraq. "When they say `America' they think `Israel' and when they think `Israel' they think `Jewish,' " she said. "Who is going to assure our safety?"

Swastikas, slogans and physical assaults against Jews in Europe have reached a frequency not seen since the 1930's when Fascism was on the rise. But in the vast majority of the cases today, the assailants are young Muslims of North African heritage whose parents emigrated to Europe in the 1960's and 1970's.

from the earlier cited new york times story, published less than a month ago.

the intellectually and morally superior french have regressed to pre-world war II levels of jew-hating. it was these very attitudes that created the climate in which a young predecessor of saddam's could burgeon unimpeded by the alarms that should have been clanging inside of every oh-so-enlightened european mind. the surging levels of french anti-semitism attest to the fact that america is increasingly hated in france--and europe in general--not because of anything we've said or done, but because of our support for israel. the solution? some would say throw israel to the wolves. i'll bet the french would. but no, the solution is to squash the bad guys like the cockroaches they are and ignore the hygienically challenged bigots who live across the pond. they only have power if we give it to them.

locdog thinks it's safer in the hands of the iraqi people



ye are gods

the debate over this war reminds me a lot of the debate over abortion. in the abortion debate, religious conservatives are frequently accused of hypocrisy for supporting the "sanctity of life" on one hand, while condoning capital punishment on the other. similarly, religious conservatives are routinely bashed for their "hypocritical" or even "un-Christian" support of the american-led war against saddam hussein. to the world, and i use that word in the Biblical sense, a Christian is a person who should sacrifice any principle in the name of unity, and handle cutthroats with a mixture of pleasant sounding platitudes and soothing euphemisms. sort of like the pope, sans his reproductive rights and homosexuality positions.

i'm sure it's fun for the anti-war crowd to bash Christians, and indeed, when you look at the various splinter groups who have aligned under the broad misnomer of "peace protesters" it's easy to see why: short of al qaeda, you aren't going to find more hostility toward Christian values anywhere on earth. Organized by communists, peopled by atheists, anarchists, red-greens, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-islamist, pro-, pro-, pro-... they have consistently, and correctly, labeled the Christian as the biggest threat to their goals and singled him out for attack more than any other. judging by the nature of the "peace" constituency then, i'm inclined to feel that my support for this war is Biblical by virtue of their antagonism alone, and i'm fairly certain that no explanation, however carefully argued and Biblically documented, could convince them that it is indeed possible to be both an iraq hawk and a Christian.

nonetheless, i think that there are some who are not motivated by prejudice but who are all the same mystified by the wide-spread support for the war among those who claim to be followers of Christ, particularly among evangelical believers such as myself. isn't Christianity supposed to be a religion of peace? isn't that why Jesus came to the earth? actually, no. Jesus didn't come to make life here on earth better, and He in fact assured us most explicitly that His coming would bring conflict, both spiritual and physical. Jesus came to reunite us with God, to make our eternities better, so much better, in fact, that the sufferings we experience here on earth wouldn't be worthy of comparison. He offered that future to any who would believe on Him. does that mean that we are to forget about our fellow man and live with our heads in the clouds? far from it. who would believe on Jesus if His followers were unjust, or cowards, or lacking in compassion? furthermore, God loves justice, and He expects all men to act justly regardless of their faith. but if you really want to know why so many conservative Christians support this war, then you should consider the following psalm, quoted in part by Jesus in the gospel of John.

1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

now, i don't know how the Word of God could possibly be more clear than this. God has given us both the god-like power and responsibility to carry out judgment on this earth, to arise and defend the needy, to deliver them "out of the hand of the wicked," and not only that, God will judge us if we are lax in our duties: "ye are gods...but ye shall die like men."

rest assured that God judges the wicked, but be equally certain that those with power are commanded to use it on behalf of the oppressed and held accountable if they do not. for ignoring hitler, the united states, great Britain, and the soviet union had years of hardship and millions of dead before they once more saw peace. for ignoring terrorists and the governments that foster them--some of the most brutal, repressive regimes on earth--thousands of innocent people died on september 11th. for ignoring saddam hussein for twelve years, hundreds of thousands of iraqis have perished, but perhaps we have finally woken up. there are consequences for overlooking evil. there are consequences for pretending that it can be talked away. millions have died because of these fallacies, but hopefully, thousands, if not tens of thousands, will be saved because of the action we are now taking against saddam hussein. some of you atheists have shook your fist at the heavens and demanded to know where God was during the holocaust. where were you? God eventually put an end to the madness, and preserved His chosen people as He has always done, but how many lives could have been saved if we gods had but obeyed? we have been given such a chance once more.

i don't want to be dogmatic about this. i'm just giving my opinion here, and although i believe i'm right, i understand that people of good conscience can disagree on this matter. many Christians maintain a principled opposition to this war and their faith is not tarnished by it. but one thing should be very clear to all: God has commanded all nations, not just the united states, to defend those who cannot defend themselves, and God takes that command seriously.

locdog wishes we had taken it more seriously in the past



any of you guys got a set of jumper cables?

a poster from the fray offered the best epitaph i have yet encountered to those four american troops recently killed in a car bombing. it's also about as good a tribute to our troops in general, and as good a slap in the face to their detractors, as you you are likely to see during this war.

If your car stalled in iraq would you ask 4 Iraqi Soldiers for help?

Think about why the Iraqi tactic of posing as a civilian having car trouble worked? Would it work against a force that was hell bent on occupation? hell bent on stealing oil? would it work on merciless killers?

They know the character of our military folks better than some in the US.

thanks, JTF.

locdog loved it


you fire someone for habitual tardiness...

...arnett should be imprisoned or, better still, deported.

Our reports about civilian casualties here, about the resistance of the Iraqi forces, are going back to the United States. It helps those who oppose the war when you challenge the policy to develop their arguments.

folks, this is treason. treason.

yeah, yeah. "here come the patriot police with their hysterical hand wringing and fascist crackdowns."

not this time, chump.

i know you libs have a hard time grasping this, but just because a conservative says someone is behaving in a treasonous manner doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't.

arnett, first of all, was giving an interview to state-run iraqi television. you cannot tell me that a reporter of his caliber doesn't realize that he's aiding saddam's propaganda mill (wonder why the iraqis asked an objective, american loving guy like arnett anyway...) secondly, he came right out and said that his reporting "helps those who oppose the war" and it's clear that this is by design. at the very least, he's admitting to ideologically driven journalism which, all-pervasive though it is, you liberals want to pretend does not exist. well you can't pretend this away. so even if arnett wasn't a traitor, he's still a lousy reporter who richly deserves to be canned if for no other reason than that.

but who, exactly, are "those who oppose this war?" anti-war protesters, of course, but who else? hmm...let me think about this. the pope? yeah, definetely the pope. martin sheen? yeah, put him on the list for sure. michael moore? another no-brainer. who else could he mean?

gee, you think maybe he could mean--no! it couldn't be! it couldn't be that! he couldn't mean them! could he? well, it would explain why he's doing an interview on their t.v. station...

locdog knows aid and comfort to the enemy when he sees it

update: as reader and fellow blogger le renard subtil points out in the comments below, geraldo has gotten himself into a bit of a mess as well. the big difference, as i see it, is that whereas arnett was motivated by malice, rivera was just being dumb.