Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Tucson--A Sign Of Our Times

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
People across the nation took time yesterday to pray for the victims and families of the shooting in Tucson.

While people grieved and prayed, the press and some politicians were hard at work, not missing the opportunity of the crises, as President Obama's former Chief of Staff defined such things.

The New York Times editorialized, "It is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority" of violent threats against politicians.

"Arizona," the Times says, "should now lead the nation in quieting the voices of intolerance, demanding an end to the temptation of bloodshed and imposing sensible controls on it's instruments."

Translated, that means silence those who disagree with the far left and seize this terrible lose of life to advance gun control.


Not to be outdone,
Joel Connelly, columnist for our own on-line newspaper, the Seattle PI reached back to create a rather long list of violent crimes against liberal politicians and activists going back to the horrific murder of Seattle attorney Chuck Goldmark and his family on Christmas Eve, 24 years ago, saying, "The killer was a deranged guy, emboldened by far-right hate literature."

Connelly proceeds to cast blame for this present darkness in society toward Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, the Tea Party, especially the group over in Asotin, and even "I'm not sure what I believe" Michael Steele, the GOP Chairman.

These kinds of folks, Connelly says, should not have a public voice and should be "ostracized from American public life."

Connelly concludes, "A bit of soul searching is in order---if these people have souls."

Ostracized? If these people have souls?

"Words have consequences," he says.

He says he is quoting Winston Churchill: "Those who sow the wind reap the whirlwind."

Actually he is quoting the biblical prophet Hosea (8:7). Hosea's teaching means every action has consequences. My point exactly.

The moral decline in America did not happen overnight. It has happened slowly.

As life has been devalued, freedoms eroded and core Judeo-Christian values deleted from our culture, we have created a new unstable relativistic cultural environment. One where every man is a law unto himself and his personal opinion can be valued more than another's life.

Indeed, Mr. Connelly, we have sown to the wind and we are reaping a whirlwind.

As the far left press opines and discusses what should be done with those who dissent or disagree with the secular left agenda,
Rep. Robert Brady, D- Pa., is now planning to introduce legislation that will make it a federal crime to use "language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress."

I must ask. Whose perception will be used to enforce this new law?

There is a better way. The media blaming those who disagree with their personal liberal views will never solve the problems of life in 2011, nor will the opportunistic legislation of Representative Brady.

It is a moral problem. From the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and the Congress' that followed, this country has come safely through many toils and snares because of our Christian consensus.

George Washington said it well, "Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that the national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious people."

A culture built on biblical values is far better than a culture built on moral relativism.

May God help us.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.


  1. Gary, twisting this event to the agendas of your obsessions is exactly what your previous out of context comment about 'clinging to their guns and bibles' was about - that your viewpoint is so polarized and narrow that EVERYTHING that happens relates to them.

    Seriously, we can't agree that crazy people shouldn't be able to walk into a store and buy Glocks? We can't agree that it is inappropriate to talk or imply about using violence against people you disagree with? Why is that?

    I seem to recall that Jesus was said to have said that even calling your brother a 'fool' was a violation of the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill'. How can someone claiming to be a Christian not speak out at even metaphoric crosshairs on candidates, talk of 'second amendment solutions' to losing elections and all the other 'violence-inferred' garbage that has become so popular?

    You aren't being persecuted - there are more churches in this country than any other. You aren't being attacked - everywhere people can buy guns for self protection but is that really something the crazy should be able to do too?

    Your rose-colored view of the past is just that - as any history buff knows violence was a hallmark of our nascent nation and it had the largest unchurched population of any nation at the time. The founding fathers we learned of in grade school were Deists, Freemasons, Free Thinkers, and even atheists in large part. For example Washington never took communion at his church, was the highest rank Freemason there was and called a Deist by his friends after his death.

    Bad things happen in any society, especially ones that involve isolated mentally ill people who have not been given the help they need. Your trying to twist it to your agenda reminds me of a YouTube video someone sent me of a TV Evangelist trying to blame the blackbird die offs on the wrath of God. A minister was with me as I watched the video and he quipped 'its more likely God is just upset by her choice in outfits' quoting a verse that required Christians to be of modest dress.

    You go looking for your reasons for bad things you will find them, that doesn't mean they really exist.

  2. Nobody wants to silence the conservative talk
    t. v. & radio. It is possible to say that you disagree and then present the reasons that you disagree in a civilized rational manner. I know that Glenn Beck doesn't like the Tide Foundation
    , George Soros and the ACLU. When he talks about these 3 subjects beck goes off his nut ranting and raving like a mad man. To hear him
    you get the impression that if the Tide Foundation , George Soros & the ACLU are left to exist that will be the end of this country.
    Promoting unfounded fear them is a very effective propaganda technique to rally citizens against them. In WWII them were the Jews.

  3. Unfounded fear? You better read the charter for the ACLU, a commumist-founded organization. Promoting unfounded fear? You mean like Bush is Hilter, a war criminal, a mass murderer. Funny how conveniently the left forgets. How about capitalism is evil and rich people should have their assets taken away and given to the poor. Worked very well for the left and gave us such enlightened soceities as the USSR, China, Cuba and North Korea.

    Looking for reasons for bad things? How about the guy was a loser who couldn't tell the difference between the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf. Was he a left-wing nut or right-wing nut or just a wing-nut. There is nowhere to lay the blame for this tragedy except on the idiot who pulled the trigger.

    I whole-heartedly agree he should never have been allowed to purchase a firearm, but short of any information about his mental condition. How was the store to know

    It was the left that cried foul at involuntary commitment for such cases. Oh...we can't lock up the poor crazy people, those institutions are so awful, whine, whine whine. We are indeed reaping the whirlwind.

    You're doing precisely what you accuse Gary of doing, twisting this tragedy to you own agenda. So... you are the arbiter of what's acceptable speech or what isn't? That idiot in AZ. made his own choice, nobody held a gun to his head.The left will milk this for all its worth, just like they did with Mcveigh, and their policies will sink our country ever deeper into moral decline. We are again reaping what we sow.

    Craig in Lacey

  4. Perfect examples of the hysteria that infects so many:

    The ACLU is not a communist organization, and wasn't founded by communists. I mean its an organization that protects the citizen's civil liberties that are supersede the rights of government - exactly what part of that is 'communist?'

    A few seriously consider Bush a war criminal and even then his actions - preemptive attack of a sovereign nation causing many civilian casualties- fits the definition. Oddly its the right that brings it up more than the left.

    Capitalism is evil? Again who says that? And who argues that those who get their money from the masses don't have an obligation to give some of it back to them? Your examples are places where all private assets were seized - what person reasonably sees that happening or even proposed in the US?

    Oh and please tell me the difference between the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf. If you actually read them you will find they both have very similar distrust of the status quo and propose alternatives - they are actually more similar than they are different.

    And as to the mentally ill you are totally off base - it was Ronald Reagan administration that opened the doors to the asylums - mental health workers (you know those liberal people) have bemoaned that fact from the moment it happened.

    Hysterical hyperbole is in itself a moral decline and in that we do agree.

  5. business as usual....nasty attitudes in the sandbox...the folks who suffer are the rest of us who wait for the dust to settle and see what they do to us. The result of this tragedy will be the opportunities the left manipulates. The result will be the apathy of the right where not much is said or done. 'We' , meaning us in the middle without power, will be the ping pong ball again while two immature and blind opponents play with our lives and the future of this country. There is indeed moral decline, so far down one can't see morals at all anymore. There is indeed name calling and blame, enough for both sides. There is indeed power grabs and scheming for the advantage. There is sickness in the heart and mind of each of us. The solution is a foundation of principles that have proven to provide order and security, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have abandoned those, most recently demonstrated in calling the reading of the constitution a mere stunt or propaganda. Shame on leadership, media, pastors, and individuals. Doesn't that mean we all share in this? So let's clean it up and get back to what is in place and move forward. If you don't like the rulebook than work within the framework and change it. Until that happens be obedient and cooperative, read some history, be thankful, be prayerful.

  6. Craig,

    Calling Bush 'Hitler' is over the top. Stating that he's a war criminal might be offensive to some, however it truly is a matter of legal interpretation. Even the Mayor of London warned Bush not to travel to England or he might be arrested. Germany, France, and England take the subject seriously.

    But calling him a war criminal is a far cry from telling people he wants to take away their freedom and their guns and give their property to the poor (ie: blacks, as reparation).

    I've not heard that capitalism is evil from the left. I've heard right wing talk radio tell people that the left believes it, but we actually don't. We do believe that wide open, unregulated capitalism is dangerous. And that monopolies are not good for us as consumers. I'm a liberal and I'm a small business person (capitalist).

    There are varying levels of socialism far from absolute communism. The happiest people on the planet live in a pretty socialistic nation - Norway. They have high taxes and many government services - but it's not communistic and never will be. btw - China is capitalistic. All societies are socialist to some degree. Why I'll bet that even you use public roads. It's just a matter of degree.

    Don't listen to the talk radio guys. Rush will fill you with total garbage about what liberals believe and what we want. For instance, I'm against illegal immigration or amnesty. Surprised? I'm not the only liberal that feels this way. But I'm not for a big wall. I think if you punish the heck out of illegal employers (real jail time even for corporate heads), it'll end in a hurry.

    Mark in Tigard

  7. 10:11

    Roger Baldwin, Founding Director of the ACLU, in 1934, publshed
    in Soviet Russia Today the following;

    When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies at home and abroad. I dislike it in principle as dangerous to its own objects. But the Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world.
    I saw in the Soviet Union many opponents of the regime. I visited a dozen prisons-the political sections among them.
    I saw considerable the work of the OGPU. I heard a good many stories of severity, Even brutality, and many of them from the victims. While I sympathized with personal distress I just could not bring myself to get excited over the suppression of opposition when I stacked it against what I saw of fresh, vigorous expressions of free living by workers and peasants all over the land. And further, no champion of a socialist society could fail to see that some suppression was necessary to achieve it. It could not be done by persuasion.
    If American champions of civil liberties could all think in terms of economic freedom as the goal of their labors, they too would accept " worker democracy" as far superior to what the capatalist world offers to any but a small minority. Yes, and they would accept-regretfully, of course- the necessity of dictatorship while the job of reorganizing society on a socialist basis is being done.

    I stand on my previous statement, a communist founded organization. Don't believe me, look it up yourself.
    There are many people in this country who believe capitalism is the problem, not the solution. They have changed their methods, but not their goals.

    I agree that the rich should GIVE to the poor, but that's their
    choice, not the governments. Forced income redistribution is a cornerstone of communist/socialist idealogy. The people didn't think that their assets would be taken until it happened.
    Reminds me of the story about the guy who said 'They came for the intellectuals, but I wasn't one of them so I didn't protest', until they came for him and there was nobody left to protest. Sorry, I ain't going out like that!

    How's that for hysterical hyperbole?

    Craig in Lacey

  8. Mark,

    You seem to by a reasonable guy. We agree that the political discourse on both sides has sometimes been over the top.
    My problem is the assigning of blame for a tragedy perpetrated by another unstable loner at the feet of conservatives. This broad brush approach is disingenious at best and at worst may foster some other unstable loner to take out his frustrations
    at the world on someone else. This young man had a choice, nobody held a gun to his head, nobody made him do it.
    Shall we assign blame to the liberals for Hinckley, Fromme or Booth: to the conservatives for Sirhan or Oswald?

    I think you're old enough to remember the Weatherman, Black Panthers Or Abbie Hoffman. They advocated forced income redistribution. Does that sound like capitalism? I agree that monopolies and unregulated capitalism are bad for everyone, but there are people who still subscribe to the 60's radical agenda. Their methods have changed, but not their goals. They would like to throw the baby out with the bath water.

    As for Norway, I'm happy that their happy! Doesn't mean I want to live there or under their system. How's that socialistic stuff working in Greece or Spain? Besides it's too cold in Norway. =) btw, China is capitalist only so far as it benefits the government, keeps the people fat and complacent,
    it's still a communist country. Try exercising your free speech
    over there and see what happens to you. Rome had public roads long before we did, I guess they were socialisrs too.

    As for Limbaugh, Beck, etc, I don't listen to them. I coundn't care less what they say. I have a mind and eyes to see for myself. Actually it doesn't surprise me that you oppose illegal immigration or amnesty. I know other liberals who oppose it also, although you are in the minority.

    What liberals also oppose is the rights of the most defenseless among us. Those who have no voice at all. We euthanize spare cats and dogs, why not kids as well!

    Shame! Shame!

    Craig in Lacey

  9. "I stand on my previous statement, a communist founded organization. Don't believe me, look it up yourself."

    He himself was not a communist but did think that the soviet communist movement was better than what they had before IN RUSSIA. Look up how the citizens were treated there before the revolution to see what that means. And he had a change of heart of even this once he came to understand the dangers of such dictatorships and renounced communism and the Soviets in 1939 when he saw the soviets ally with Nazi Germany, and even went so far as to have the ACLU formally bar Communists from any leadership or staff position from then on.

    And 'forced income redistribution' is a corner stone of any government taxation program, that is the purpose of the government is to provide for the common good. Currently 50% of the wealth of the US is in 1.5% of the population, the average CEO makes 155 times that of their workers. And what was the hysteria recently - that these wealthy might have to return to paying 3% more taxes on ONLY the part of their income that was over $250,000 just as they had been doing over a decade ago - that's about 1 nice dinner a month less for someone making $300,000. I take it you are against retirement programs, social security, and medicare too?

    Yes, it is all hysterical hyperbole. Returning to the regular tax rate isn't going to do more than inconvenience anyone, not doing it just might hurt everyone.

  10. Roger Baldwin was a communist. not a sympathizer. He knew what a dictatorship was and no amount of spin will change that. What did he say, "If AMERICAN champions of civil liberties could all think in terms of economic freedom as the goal of their labors, they too would accept 'worker democracy" as far superior to what the capitalist world offers to any but a small minority. Yes, and they would accept- REGRETFULLY, of course- the necessity of DICTATORSHIP while the job of reorganizing society on a socialist basis is being done".

    He was advocating for AMERICAN COMMUNISM! That he flip-flopped later was only when it become politically expedient
    for the moment, anti-communist feeling was running very high
    in 1939. He was out to save his own skin.

    The Russian citizens wre treated no better after the revolution. Stalin showed him what he wanted him to see and he bought it hook, line and sinker! Revisionist history will not change the facts.

    btw, communism and fascism are related only in this. All power is to be relegated to the state. The end is the same, but the means to get there are quite different.

    Providing for the common good is a positve. Learning not to tax and spend or borrow and spend is a positive also. If the government would live within its means as most of the rest of us have to do, we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with. I hold both parties responsible for this. We don't need to tax more, we need to spend less and be discerning about that.

    Craig in lacey


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.