- The Washington Times - Tuesday, September 7, 2004

God and presidents

“[During] Bill Clinton’s [Aug. 29] talk at the radical Riverside Church in New York … [he] accused Republicans of bearing ‘false witness’ and being ‘the people of the Nine Commandments.’ The pastor introduced Clinton as part of an announcement of the church’s Mobilization 2004 campaign, the kind of political activity that drives liberals wild when done by Republicans or conservative churches.

“Liberals in the media must ignore the Clinton-Riverside incident. Otherwise, they would not be able to portray George W. Bush as a man who, uniquely in their view, drags God into politics for his own purposes. …

“An examination of the mentions of Jesus Christ by George W. Bush and Bill Clinton showed that through 2003, Bush cited Jesus, or Jesus Christ, or Christ in 14 separate statements, compared to 41 by Clinton during his eight years in office. On average, Clinton mentioned Christ in 5.1 statements per year, which exceeded Bush’s 4.7.”

Grove City College professor Paul Kengor, writing on “Talking About God: Rev. Clinton vs. Rev. Bush,” Friday at www.gcc.edu

Thought crimes

“Homosexual activists … are reduced to accusing their opponents of ‘hatred’ and silencing those brave enough to speak about the consequences of sexual anarchy on children, the family and society.

“Their latest gambit is a federal ‘hate crimes’ bill, passed recently by the Senate, in which 18 Republicans joined the Democrats. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act, sponsored by Ted Kennedy [Massachusetts Democrat], and Gordon Smith [Oregon Republican], was an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill, which passed the House without any ‘hate crimes’ language in it. …

“If Americans don’t want to see ‘thought crime’ invade the nation’s legal system, they had better get on the phones to members of Congress. This kind of dangerous bill succeeds when cowardly congressmen think nobody is looking.”

Robert Knight, writing on “If all else fails, silence them,” Sept. 1 in WorldNetDaily at www.worldnetdaily.com

Manly, not macho

“We live in an unmanly age. That might sound strange given all the violence, both real and fictional, in America today, but that’s because people mistake macho for manliness. Hollywood’s stereotypes, for example, seem to run from wimp to grunting killer, with nothing in between.

“Manliness has nothing to do with aggressive behavior, loud talk and muscle shirts. If we are going to stick with Hollywood for examples, then manliness is personified by Jackie Chan, Jet Li and Chuck Norris in their private lives. All three are men of proven toughness … yet all three are quiet, unassuming gentlemen.

” ‘Gentlemen’ is the key word. In the traditional definition, a gentleman was a Christian knight — brave and bold, even fierce, in combat, but humble, generous, kind and, above all, honorable. The best example I know of is Robert E. Lee, the great Confederate general. …

“Such was his fame that after the war, he received many lucrative offers, including an English estate and a job that paid $50,000, a fortune in his day. He turned them all down and accepted the post of president of Washington College for $1,500 a year.

“In turning down the $50,000 offer, Lee wrote: ‘I cannot leave my present position. I have a self-imposed task. I have led the young men of the South in battle. I must teach their sons to discharge their duty in life.’ ”

Charley Reese, writing on “Unmanly Age,” Saturday at www.lewrockwell.com

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide