Back HomeAboutContactLinksSearch this SiteSue Bob's Diary
October 31, 2004

The above is the title of an article posted by The Currency Lad describing the difference between John Kerry and George W. Bush. Here are some excerpts:

Decorated for shooting a fleeing enemy soldier in Vietnam and haunted by the trophy-hungry ease with which he did so, the young Kerry returned to the United States and found that his fantasy was dead in the water. He sniffed the anti-establishment breeze and re-invented himself as a veteran’s PT 109Malcolm X. For this to work, all honour and dignity had to be taken from the men who had fought the North Vietnamese. Thanks largely to his agitprop and fraternisation with the enemy, his brothers-in-arms were transmogrified into war criminals and baby-killers. Unlike Bill Clinton in this respect, he didn’t so much feel their pain as personally cause it. Last week, Senator Kerry did something – trivial in itself – which symbolised his career perfectly: decked out in fatigues for the sake of political self-promotion, he shot a goose but wouldn’t carry the carcass.


I watched the SBS Cutting Edge special about the two presidential candidates aired on Wednesday night. I dare say the makers intended their audience to abandon any remaining illusions they might have had that George W. Bush had redeeming characteristics. Kerry, however, was portrayed as a deep-thinking seer and profound intellect. I found myself, regardless, being drawn to the nonchalant rebelliousness of the young Bush. The young Kerry was a nerdish blowhard. George wanted a good time so he drank, partied, played Rugby and got himself elected president of Delta Kappa Epsilon. Earnest John lectured people, played soccer, opposed the Vietnam War and so – naturally – went there anyway to see if he couldn’t write himself an heroic Kennedy coconut story. Ironically, GWB had far more in common with the real JFK than Kerry. Still does. Sorry to return again to the Goose Incident but this is not a man likely to “bear any burden.”

One of the many reasons I like this essay is that I recently read George and Laura; Portrait of an American Marriage by Christopher Anderson. The book has some hilarious chapters about Bush as a young man.

I particularly liked reading about Bush’s return to Midland after Harvard Business School and before his marriage. For a rich kid, Bush was certainly no materialist when it came to his clothes. According to Anderson, Bush would wear clothing his friends had cast off. If he had to dress up, he would wear his father’s hand-me-down suits that were two sizes too big for him. The funniest part was that when the tassels fell off his Bass Weeguns, he reattached them–with tape. I was laughing aloud at this when it occurred to me that the author’s intent behind his recounting of all this was not necessarily benign toward President Bush. All I can say is that after reading the book, I had far more respect for and warm feelings toward the President. He is authentic–unlike Kerry who’s life has been scripted for this moment since before he went to Viet Nam.

But–I can’t say it nearly as elegantly as The Currency Lad has:

Chesterton wrote that when Our Lord was establishing his Great Society “he chose for its corner-stone neither the brilliant Paul nor the mystic John, but a shuffler, a snob, a coward – in a word, a man.”

Smart move.

Hat tip: Powerline

By: Sue Bob @ 7:34 pm in: Uncategorized | Discussion (0)

I just watched retired Senator Bob Kerrey on Meet the Press. He made the disgustingly disingenous statement that the Swift Boat Vet ads are going to discourage young men and women from enlisting in the military because they will fear being treated badly in the future should they decide to run for office. Just like poor widdle John Kerry is presentlybeing treated by the Swift Boat Vets”.

Senator Kerrey, I certainly do hope these ads discourage enlistment by a certain type of person. You know–poseurs who enlist solely to pad political resumes and, as a result, earn the eternal emnity of their peers. I would love it if the Swiftee ads discourage enlistment by anti-war traitors who return from war and–for political gain– betray fellow soldiers– causing those soldiers to be spat upon, marginalized and treated with contempt for decades afterward. Does that kind of “bad treatment” count?

I used to respect you Senator Kerrey. With that statement–you just sold out your fellow veterans for pure partisanship.


Here is the transcript. This is the section to which I refer above:

But look, we’re now in an unpopular war again, where young men and women are having to make the decision, “Do I sign up? Do I volunteer?” And what kind of signals does it say when the president and the vice president, who didn’t serve in the Vietnam War, don’t condemn these advertisements and ask their friends, Boone Pickens and others, to take these Swift Boat ads down? What kind of message does it send? It says, “You’re better off not going and fighting an unpopular war because if you want to run for public office later, it may come back and haunt you.” That’s a terrible message, in my view, to be sending to our young men and women right now who are trying to decide, “Should I join the Army National Guard? Should I get in the reserves? Should I join the active duty military forces?”

The rest of the interview–especially the answer to the question of whether John Kerry should apologize to Vietnam Veterans is equally obnoxious. Read the whole thing.

By: Sue Bob @ 8:27 am in: Uncategorized | Discussion (0)

A True Hero Posted by Hello

Patriette writes about a Marine Officer’s heroic actions for which he was awarded the Silver Star.

This is the level of heroism that merits a Silver Star unlike a certain overblown example from 35 years ago.

As Patriette points out, Chief Warrant Officer 2 Thomas F. Parks saved not only our own soldiers–but risked his life for Iraqi civilians as well:

“MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. (Oct. 28, 2004) – He’s credited with singlehandedly wiping out an enemy tank, a sniper and two other enemy fighters – in rapid response to an ambush against his commanders. He killed numerous other enemy fighters, too, during the march to Baghdad. But he didn’t just help his own. He risked his life to save Iraqi families, escorting them to bunkers as bullets flew in their midst. His selfless response in the heat of battle is being dubbed “heroic” — and earned him the Silver Star, the nation’s third-highest combat award for heroism. Chief Warrant Officer 2 Thomas F. Parks, 39, of Dover, N.H., accepted the award Monday at 1st Marine Division Headquarters.”

For more insight into the character of this brave man, read this:

“Parks dedicated the award to the Marines in 1st Battalion, 4th Marines who are still fighting in Iraq, where I should still be,” he said. He also credited his wife — Chief Warrant Officer Christine Glynn — and four children with his success. “

What a profound difference there is between this man’s instincts and John Kerry’s.

This is the face of true heroism.

By: Sue Bob @ 7:25 am in: Uncategorized | Discussion (0)

October 30, 2004

Why did Tony Blair marry a woman like Cherie Blair? Why would any man with political aspirations marry a woman who is absolutely compulsive about proving that her marriage is not some kind of traditional bondage –even if it hurts the supposed “love of her life”?

Cherie Blair is now touring the United States making insulting statements about our President.

Given that Tony Blair and George Bush see eye-to-eye about what the response of the Western World should be against terrorism, and given that there is an excellent chance that Bush will be re-elected as President–what could possibly be Cherie Blair’s motivation for coming over here to insult him? I don’t think that Tony sent her over here to do this. Quite frankly, I think Tony Blair is somewhat cowed by his wife. After all, she provided the economic support while he ran for office.

Does that sound familiar?

Okay, Cherie Blair is a “high-powered civil rights attorney” in her own right. Shouldn’t we all assume that even though she wasn’t elected as Prime Minister–her education and position as a professional woman entitle her to yap about whatever she wishes–even if it hurts her husband. She has certainly taken that position. I mean–to hell with diplomatic relationships–her fear that her husband will try to make her iron a shirt for him propels her to come over here to trash her husband’s professed friend, President Bush. And, although Tony Blair is a leftist–I don’t believe that he is stupid enough to have encouraged his wife to do this. After all, she had never had any reluctance about embarrassing him.

Think about this. Suppose you work for a Fortune 500 company and you are on the fast track for a coveted executive position–how would you feel if your spouse went out and shot off her mouth about how your company was contributing to pollution–or something like that? Or, what if your spouse decided that–even though she wasn’t an employee of your company– she was entitled to head a committee charged with a major project–and you knew that her radical ideas were eventually going to screw you? What would you do?

Why do men of the left willing to put up with this kind of stuff? Are they so seduced by leftist feminist principles that they are willing to accept treachery from those who purport to love them?

Cherie Blair has been a total embarrassment to Tony Blair. She claims equality and a right to speak–though it wasn’t her who was elected–and then claims immunity from being held accountable for her blatherings.

She holds herself out as a strong, independent and competent professional woman and then cries like a ninny when held accountable for her actions.

why Posted by Hello

Why do men with high political aspirations marry women like this?

Can you imagine what public opinion would have been if Margaret Thatcher’s’ husband had expressed his opinion about American or British foreign policy?

Realize, there is a double standard at work here. Women who marry men who seek position of power are entitled to flap their lips. Men who marry similarly powerful women must remain silent.

By: Sue Bob @ 9:28 pm in: Uncategorized | Discussion (0)

October 29, 2004

At Feeding Me Softly, Karena discusses a meal consisting of delicious comfort food–chicken and rice.

Thanks to Karena, I’m no longer subsisting on crackers and cheese. Here’s a sample:

I heated a little olive oil and cooked some green onions while I cut the chicken thighs into large chunks. It took just a few minutes to brown the meat. I set the chicken aside while I added some leftover short grain rice. When it was heated through, I stirred in the chicken, a little stock, and some leaves of fresh thyme. I transferred everything into a casserole and slid it into the oven while we had our spicy soup.


By: Sue Bob @ 7:57 pm in: Uncategorized | Discussion (0)

Winds of Change has an absolutely inspiring post on Humalia Akrawy a twenty-three year old Iraqi woman who has continued working as an interpreter for U.S. troops despite death threats, an assassination attempt that killed her sister, and the blowing up of her home and resultant injury of her brother. She states:

“Democracy is not cheap! Your own revolution did not happen overnight. We Iraqis think that the current deaths are nothing, a small price to pay for being free of Saddam and having our own country again.”

This part of the interview impacted me the most:

She spoke of seeing many Iraqis break into tears when they heard President Bush speak of democracy and freedom as a “gift from the Creator” meant for all people – a message that resonated deeply with many of her countrymen.

This cuts out the heart of the argument made by “the anointed” that people outside the Western World aren’t ready for freedom and representative government. Kerry, who has believed since his youth that he is of “the anointed”, displayed this worldview in his 1971 testimony before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee:

We found most people didn’t even know the difference between communism and democracy.”

In 1985, after reprising his earlier traitor role by negotiating with the Sandinistas in order to undermine President Reagan, Kerry said this about the people of Nicaragua:

“‘[I]n all our talks,’ said Kerry, ‘we found no enthusiasm, even among those who are for the contras, for keeping this war going.’”

“These are just poor people, no money, no food, just like Vietnam, and they are just trying to stay alive.”

“They just want peace.”

Silly us for believing that “little foreign brown people” are smart enough or interested enough to understand the benefits of a representative form of goverment and personal liberty and are willing to fight to have them. So let’s all just sit on our big national veranda sipping mint tea as we discuss whether or not the “kaffirs” of the world are deserving of and competent enough to run their own affairs in free societies. Let’s just assume that, unlike us, they aren’t sophisticated enough to believe that freedom is worth dying for–all they understand and are capable of is planting crops and living under a “strongman”.

Kerry was proven wrong in Nicarauga when the people prevailed over the Marxist Sandinista Dictatorship in an upset so stunning that the Birkenstock-clad sandalistaswho thought they knew what was best for the little brown people– cried into their Margaritas.

Coming back to present times, we now have a twenty-three year old Iraqi woman and her fellow Iraqi citizens showing an absolutely profound understanding of freedom, what it takes to achieve it and from where it comes.


She spoke of seeing many Iraqis break into tears when they heard President Bush speak of democracy and freedom as a “gift from the Creator” meant for all people – a message that resonated deeply with many of her countrymen.

The Iraqi’s and Afghans understand something that John Kerry and his cohorts don’t–freedom is a gift from God to all people–not a benefit doled out by the government—not a point to be negotiated about with Islamic or Marxist savages. It is immutable, irrevocable and non-negotiable because it is sacred.

By: Sue Bob @ 2:30 pm in: Uncategorized | Discussion (0)

October 28, 2004

I just got Haloscan in order to have trackback. All of my reader’s comments have disappeared as a result and I don’t know how to get them back. Sorry.

By: Sue Bob @ 8:13 pm in: Uncategorized | Discussion (0)

A stark contrast.

From the Daily Recycler . Created by
Protein Wisdom, INDC Journal and the Daily Recycler.

By: Sue Bob @ 4:45 pm in: Uncategorized | Discussion (1)

October 27, 2004

Drudge is reporting that ABC news is holding a tape of an Islamic American terrorist clearly stating that a terror attack is planned because we elected George W. Bush!!

“The terrorist claims on tape the next attack will dwarf 9/11. “The streets will run with blood,” and “America will mourn in silence” because they will be unable to count the number of the dead. Further claims: America has brought this on itself for electing George Bush who has made war on Islam by destroying the Taliban and making war on Al Qaeda.”

Why has ABC held this tape–it’s had it since the weekend?

“ABCNEWS strongly denies holding the tape back from broadcast over political concerns during the last days of the election.”

Yeah. Right.

Send a message to these barbarians who are attempting to influence our votes through violence.

Vote Bush!!


BAGHDAD — Leaders and supporters of the anti-U.S. insurgency say their attacks in recent weeks have a clear objective: The greater the violence, the greater the chances that President Bush will be defeated on Tuesday and the Americans will go home. “If the U.S. Army suffered numerous humiliating losses, [Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John] Kerry would emerge as the superman of the American people,” said Mohammad Amin Bashar, a leader of the Muslim Scholars Association, a hard-line clerical group that vocally supports the resistance.

By: Sue Bob @ 10:10 am in: Uncategorized | Discussion (2)

October 26, 2004

The New York Times will stop at nothing, including unfairly trashing our troops on the ground, in order to effect the defeat of George W. Bush.(hat tip Powerline and Michelle Malkin and Hugh Hewitt) Ann Althouse, guest blogging for Instapundit refers here to the story and the timing of its breaking. At the beginning of her post Ann states:

“I’VE NEVER READ A CODE OF JOURNALISTIC ETHICS, but it seems to me that this much is clear: it is absolutely intolerable for a news organization to hold onto a story for the purpose of breaking it so close to an election as to prevent a fair investigation and response.”

Ann would be exactly right. The Code of Journalist Ethics discussed by Beldar and by me in previous posts is here.

Here are some applicable sections from the Code:

  • Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible. (emphasis added)
  • Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing. (emphsis added)
  • Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context. (emphasis added)

After this election, we should all advocate that the Society of Professional Journalists supplement its Code with the following:

By: Sue Bob @ 5:16 pm in: Uncategorized | Discussion (3)

October 25, 2004

Earlier this month, I answered a question posed by Orin Kerr at The Volokh Conspiracy. Orin asked bloggers to answer questions concerning our support for the war in Iraq. One of the points that I made concerned the fact that Iraq sits on 15% of the world’s known reserves of oil. My point was that it was insupportable to allow Saddam Hussein to continue to control this oil, especially in light of the fact that he was bribing France, German and Russia to both keep us from attacking–and to eventually lift the sanctions designed to keep him from continuing his weapons program.

In that post, I mentioned Colin Campbell and his theory about oil production peaking by 2010 to make the case that it was important that we prevent Hussein, France, Germany and Russia from controlling the supply through the chicanery of the U.N. Oil for Food program. I would also emphasize that it is important that we not leave Iraq early and leave the control of the oil in Iraq to terrorists like Zarkawi or Al Sadr–with whom France, Germany and Russia would willingly negotiate for lucrative oil contracts.

I want to discuss the idea of Peak Oil in more depth in light of this article, Pity the Poor Winner–found in the automotive section of the Fort Worth Star Telegram. In the article, Ed Wallace, discusses the meteoritic rise of oil prices and opines on the impact on the auto industry–which is only making money on SUV’s at this point. So I ask, are the projections of Colin Campbell and his supporters correct in terms of the world soon reaching peak oil production and is a severe oil shock soon in the works–or are we merely in the midst of another market situation common to the history of oil?

By writing on this subject, I know that I am ceding the state of the Presidential election to other bloggers. For information on the election I direct you to Beldar, Hugh Hewitt , Powerline and others on my blogroll. I want to talk about oil–as it is an issue that will outlast and transcend the election.

I have always been interested in the oil business. As I wrote in my previous post, my father is a retired Petroleum Engineer. My first memories about his job came about as a result of Daddy, in the late 1950′s, taking my three-year old sister and me–at four years old, to a rig he was working outside of Winters, Texas– which is located in West Texas. I still remember trying to clomp through the muddy fields of the farms where the rig was–becoming so exhausted and mud encrusted that, upon our return home, I fell on my back in the yard of our little wood-framed house, thinking that I would be unable to ever move again.

When I was nine–we moved back to my birthplace, Midland, Texas for the third time in my short life. Almost every kid I knew in Midland had a father working in the oil business. Later, as drilling offshore became major aspect of the oil business, we moved to Corpus Christi and then on to Houston.

I begin attending Texas A&M University during the fall of 1973, the year of the first “oil crisis” of my lifetime. It also became the year marking OPEC’s ascendancy in ability to set oil prices. During the fall of 1973, OPEC instituted an oil embargo against the United States and other countries friendly to Israel. Also, during the fall of 1973, Gerald Ford–still Minority whip in Congress–spoke on the campus of Texas A&M. I went to his speech–and when he asked for questions–I rose and asked whether or not the OPEC embargo would be successful in its intended purpose of harming the United States. I still remember Congressman Ford acting somewhat surprised at the question. He replied that cartels rarely work in the long run and that the embargo would eventually be ineffectual. Regardless of that economic maxim, the embargo had a severe impact in the short-term and was exacerbated by price controls, which caused disincentives for exploration and production. During that period, the Texas Railroad Commission, which had been controlling the price of oil by controlling production, lifted all restrictions on production. From that moment on, the Texas Railroad Commission ceded control of oil prices to OPEC.

The memory of the two oil crises of the 1970′s and the shifting of control of pricing to archaic dictatorships in the Middle East has long fueled debate about oil dependence on those foreign sources and has exacerbated fears about the possibility of future shortage. Those fears did not abate after the 1970′s, though oil glutted the market in the mid-1980′s causing the prices to plunge so low that domestic independent producers were almost completely decimated. Even as politicians were bemoaning our oil dependence, others, during the 1980′s and up to the present, such as Colin Campbell, were predicting the end of cheap oil and rapid economic growth.

Now, we see famous fixtures in the oil business, like T. Boone Pickens sounding the alarm that worldwide oil production is decreasing on a permanent basis–due to depletion of that resource. Recently, Pickens was quoted as saying:

“We will have to produce 30 billion barrels of oil a year just to keep up with usage,” Pickens said. “I don’t know where we can add production that would materially affect that supply. I’m very grim on the idea that there’s going to be supply showing up somewhere we can’t account for at this time.”

However, throughout the history of the oil industry, there have been predictions that the world was near the end of oil supplies. After the discovery of the first major fields in Pennsylvania in the mid-1800, experts were opining that the end of oil was near within just a few years of discovery. Are the predictions of Colin Campbell and Boone Pickens a repeat of that? And, even if we are running out of oil–is depletion slow enough that we will transition from oil to other sources of energy in the same manner we did from whale oil to kerosene. I will be addressing those issues in this blog this week.

I am pleased to announce that I have been granted the opportunity to interview a noted expert in the field, Michael Lynch, President of the Global Petroleum Service. Mr. Lynch will answer questions regarding this issue. The results of the interview will be posted on this blog later this week.

By: Sue Bob @ 4:59 pm in: Uncategorized | Discussion (0)

October 21, 2004

Beldar discusses the stunted morality of Kerry when the latter stumped for embryotic stem-cell research today, flanked by Christopher Reeve’s widow. Beldar cites this paragraph.

“Kerry, appearing with Dana Reeve, widow of the “Superman” actor, portrayed the Republican president as out of touch. He suggested Bush would have sided “with the candle lobby against electricity, the buggy makers against the cars and the typewriter companies against computers.”

Beldar responds:

“But let’s pick a more apt analogy. Dubya would have sided with the Gypsies, the mentally retarded, and the Jews against Hitler’s sterilization and genocide. Whatever one thinks of abortion, whenever one thinks meaningful human life begins, it’s ugly — outrageous — to compare human embryos to typewriters and buggy whips.”

I agree. Yesterday, I read an article by Jill Stanek on this very subject entitled: Michael J. Fox is a Cannibal. The piece is about Fox’s support of embryonic stem-cell research. Jill says:

“So we learned through Fox’s affliction that he has either extremely poor judgment or a diabolical character flaw. He supports human embryonic stem-cell experimentation, thus contending that some humans are subhuman and expendable for others’ personal gain.

We know there is nothing new under the sun. So Fox’s character flaw is not new, just a variation of the worst of human behavior throughout history.”

Jill’s insight about there being “nothing new under the sun” struck a chord with me. One of my most enduring “literary” memories is of reading James Michener’s, The Source. The book is about Israel from the time of the Cave Man to 1960’s modern Israel. I have lost count of the number of times I have read the book-cover to cover.

To me, the most memorable chapter was the one about an ancient agricultural community that worshiped the pagan god, Molech. This community, in order to ensure its physical safety from warring tribes, forced its members to sacrifice first-born sons to the fire of Molech. Although Michener’s work is fiction, the premise is true. There were worshipers of Molech—and they did sacrifice live infants to the fires of that god. And though the prophet, Jeremiah, acted to rid Israel of the curse of Molech, the cult returned again and again.

It is has always been a terrible temptation for humans to sacrifice the most helpless among us for gain or convenience. That is why the Bible, the best chronicler of human weakness, discusses the cult of Molech in the Book of Jeremiah.

The lesson of the Book of Jeremiah, is that once a moral boundary is breached and that breach justified, human perfidy is almost unstoppable. The Israelites–even having benefited like no other people from the beneficence of God–flocked to the temples of Molech.

So have we.

We were sold a bill of goods when it comes to abortion. Supporters represented that it would stop at the removal of a cluster of cells—(a characterization and distinction I now deem as irrelevant and wrong). Legal abortion ultimately included, and became, the murder and dismemberment of recognizable babies who are capable of life outside the womb, exterminated as they emerge from the birth canal. We have repeated the sins of Israel as described in the Book of Jeremiah.

We now progress to the stage of sacrificing humans to the cult of victimology.

Human foibles never change—no matter the state of technology.

My baby sister is profoundly retarded. I would give almost anything for that condition to have been discovered and reversed in the womb. However, I would not sacrifice another human life to that end because I am acutely aware that —as Beldar points out—there have been others in history who would have sacrificed the life of my baby sister for different reasons–such as for the “purity” of a nation.

By: Sue Bob @ 6:39 pm in: Uncategorized | Discussion (5)

October 20, 2004

Though I have been blogging only for a short time–I have been reading the blogs of others for much longer. I have discovered that participating in the blogosphere–whether by writing or reading–poses the risk of developing a condition that I have labeled as “Blogger’s Behind”. I recently became acutely aware of this risk while racing in Fall Regatta which I wrote about here. My months of giving short shrift to exercise or eating right– in favor of sitting on my behind at the computer– caused me noticeable problems when “going out on the wire” or coming back into the boat as the wind laid down. In fact, I-at least in part–blame “Blogger’s Behind” on the fact that we placed Third instead of First. We were tied for first on Day 1–but sailed into a “hole” on Day 2. I blame “Blogger’s Behind” for our slow escape from that “hole”.

It is fortunate that I have discovered an inspiring antidote to “Bloggers Behind”–on, of course–a blog. Karena at Feeding Me Softly is blogging about food. Her posts make me actually want to learn to cook–a desire I have never had in the past. She is the “Seer of Scratch”, the “Luminary of Leftovers” and she actually knows what it means to “deglaze” a pan.

Reading Karena’s blog is a pleasant respite from reading about the Presidential race or other political issues. Her posts cause my mouth to water and my heart rate to go down. Her writing is as exquisite as the dishes she describes. AND–the food is healthy–in the Julia Child tradition–as opposed to the low-fat, fake- butter method. Reading her blog motivates me to get up from my chair to cook some “glazed green beans” or some “pesto pasta“–much healthier and less fattening than a plate of cheese and crackers or bowl of Blue Bell ice cream gobbled in front of the computer while reading Hugh Hewitt, Powerline or Beldar.

So–take a break from the political blog and go visit Karena– prepare yourself to be inspired to get up from that chair in front of the computer and go to the kitchen to cook a Karena-inspired masterpiece . Your mind, stomach and “behind” will thank you.

By: Sue Bob @ 1:28 pm in: Uncategorized | Discussion (1)

October 19, 2004

Hugh Hewitt is sponsoring a Weekly Symposium for bloggers on the following issues:

Why vote for Bush and what’s wrong with Kerry?

I will vote for Bush because he, like Ronald Reagan, recognizes that there are “Evil Doers” in this world who must be defeated. He sees this clearly—as did Reagan—and has never lost his focus on that mission—just like Reagan. Terrorists are evildoers and wasting valuable time attempting to “understand the root cause” of the actions of these savages will only endanger this country. Bush sees clearly what must be done to defeat the minions of Islamofacism—and he is acting.

Kerry doesn’t have the guts to do what it takes to fight these barbarians. I have been convinced of that since the moment I read P. J. O’Rourke’s article on Kerry’s “wimp-out” in the Philippines in the mid-1980’s. Senator Kerry had the chance to be a true hero in the Philippines during the race between the dictator Marcos and Cory Aquino. He wimped out. Instead, “all Kerry did was walk around like a male model in a concerned and thoughtful pose.”

By: Sue Bob @ 7:31 pm in: Uncategorized | Discussion (9)

October 17, 2004

This weekend, I finished reading Lest Innocent Blood Be Shed by Phillip Hallie. I previously discussed the book here and here. The book is about the village of Le Chambon whose people actively worked to save Jews from the Nazis. All week I have noticed events that make me reflect back to quiet, peaceful and courageous resistance put up by the people of Le Chambon against the program to capture and deport Jews which was being carried out by agents of Vichy and the Nazis. One such event was the savaging of Lynne Cheney by Elizabeth Edwards for Mrs. Cheney’s objections to the public exploitation for political gain of her daughter’s sexual orientation. Liberals continue to write “apologia” for the actions of Kerry and the Edwards. (Hat tip, Hugh Hewitt) They try to make the case that if you cannot celebrate the discovery that one’s child is gay—you cannot truly “accept” the child. The acts of people of Le Chambon disprove this and show how important it is to “accept” but “admonish.”

The deeply religious people of Le Chambon were motivated to save Jews by their absolute and unwavering commitment to the commandment of Jesus to “love one another”. I happened to find and begin reading this book in the midst my church’s congregation-wide study of the commandment of Jesus to “love one another”. It is sometimes referred to as the 11th Commandment. Jesus taught the meaning of “love one another” through thirty-five declarations called the “one anothers”, such as “comfort one another” and “forgive one another”. Today, my Sunday School class studied “accept one another.”

Scriptural examples of Jesus modeling “accept one another” abound, and include His kindness to the Samaritan Woman at the well, described in John 4:1-42. Jesus asked for a drink of water from her, which was a shocking thing to do in that culture. The Jews despised the Samaritans for their pagan past and doctrinal differences seen as heresy by the Jews; further, she was a woman and it was considered inappropriate for a man to approach a woman in that manner; and, she was a sinful woman, having had many husbands and the fact that she was, at the time, cohabitating with a man not her husband. Another example “accepting another” is His intervention to save the prostitute from being stoned to death.

But Jesus did more than accept the two women as fellow humans worthy of God’s love and concern. He also gently and lovingly admonished each of them. He confronted the Samaritan woman about her five husbands and the fact that she was co-habitating with a man not her husband. To the prostitute He said: “Go and sin no more.” Thus Jesus modeled another variation on “love one another” which is to: “admonish one another.”

The two “one anothers”–“accept one another” and “admonish one another” are opposite sides of the same coin, and it is destructive and ineffective to practice one without the other. Both were inseparable and of equal importance in the work of the people of Le Chambon.

In order to follow His instruction to “love one another” by saving the Jews, the villagers first had to accept Jews as worthy of God’s love. France was heavily anti-Semitic as was demonstrated by the Vichy police chief I wrote about here. Just as Jesus, the Jew, rejected prejudice against Samaritans, so did the Chambonnais reject murderous prejudice against Jews. Moreover, some villagers who favored helping French Jews did not want to help German Jews—and the Pastor Trocme had to admonish them for their limited view of to whom the commandment “love one another” applies.

It was how the villagers practiced the “one anothers” toward the Germans that was most astonishing. The villagers for the most part, rejected the guerilla tactics of the Maquis. Most of them were pacifists who did not believe in killing even under the circumstances of Nazi occupation. But they did resist—and in their resistance—they demonstrated what it means to “accept” even those who were their enemies. After the allies landed and the Germans were being pushed back to the Rhine, they acted to save individual German soldiers from the lynch mobs forming to exact revenge against both Germans and collaborators–but, that was not the most profound exhibition of the Chambonnais’ “one anothers” toward the Germans. Throughout the occupation, the Chambonnais repeatedly admonished both the French of Vichy and the Germans for their failure to follow God’s laws. They did this by reminding Vichy and the Germans that the Chambonnais would continue to shelter Jews in defiance of the law and without regard for personal safety. It was a gentle, yet effective way to admonish—as would become clear at the end.

One of the Chambonnais, Le Forstier, stood before a German military tribunal, where he was being prosecuted by the Gestapo, and proclaimed: “We in Le Chambon resist unjust laws, we hide Jews, and we disobey your orders, but we do this in the name of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” This gentle but forthright admonition inspired the head of the tribunal, Major Schmehling to attempt to save Le Forstier.

What the people of Le Chambon were trying to accomplish was not only to save innocent Jewish lives, but also to save the Germans from violating God’s commandment against killing through admonitions acted out in both non-violent acts of resistance and repeated verbal reminders about why they were resisting which was because of God’s law. Despite the fact that it was clear that the Nazis knew that Le Chambon was a refuge for Jews, God protected it from total destruction by the Nazis. God did this by acting through Major Schmehling. He was a devout Catholic who was capable of understanding that the Chambonnais were acting not only to save the Jews from deportation and death—but also to save the Germans from committing sin. While imprisoned after the routing of the German army from France, Major Schmehling told the leaders of Le Chambon that Le Forestier’s words motivated him to find ways to prevent the SS from moving on Le Chambon in a punitive expedition to destroy the village because of the Jews the SS knew were hidden there.

Had the Chambonnais only shown “acceptance” of the German, it is almost certain that the village would have been destroyed. Schmehling’s Christian ethics were actively engaged by the gentle admonitions of the Chambonnais– for it was those admonitions that actually showed the depth of the Chambonnais’ “acceptance” of the Germans as fellow men worthy of loving guidance.

To me, this book and the present study of my church underscores how important it is to stand up to those who would accuse Christians of “hate crimes” for reminding the world of what God commands. The necessity of coupling “acceptance” with “admonition” explains some of the complexities of the love that we have for others, including our children. We accept our children as they are—but we are told by God to remind them of his law. If we do not do the latter, the former will prove ineffective. But it does not stop with our children. Jesus, by instructing us to “admonish one another” places the duty upon us to do what we can to remind others of what is right and wrong in order to prevent them from falling into sinful ways. The author of Lest Innocent Blood Be Shed writes of the statements of Edouard Theis, one of the leaders of Le Chambon, who made this very point to the author:

“Edouard Theis has taken great pains to show me that he and Trocme were trying to prevent the Nazis and Vichy from violating the commandment against killing. They were trying to protect the victims, but they were also trying to stop human beings who were hell-bent on becoming victimizers, hell-bent on doing evil. Trocme and Theis believed that if they failed to protect those in Le Chambon, they, the ministers, would share the guilt of the evil ones who actually perpetrated the harmdoing.”

Liberal elites want us to lay aside that part of “loving one another” which requires admonition. They tell us that admonition reflects hate and shame and precludes acceptance. Thies proves that to be false. Although the Chambonnais had ample reason to hate the Germans, to feel ashamed of occupation by them. and to refuse to accept them as men deserving the love of God—they most effectively showed their acceptance by attempting to stop them from violating God’s law. To understand this is to understand the Cheney’s desire for privacy in the matter of their daughter.

By: Sue Bob @ 3:00 pm in: Uncategorized | Discussion (0)