The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

An Open Letter to Meghan McCain

Posted by iusbvision on March 13, 2009

Dear Meghan,

I have been watching what you have been saying over the last few days and while I think that you are a nice girl, It has become clear \ that you are a nice girl who has been making some mistakes.

To quote you:

I straight up don’t understand this woman or her popularity. I find her offensive, radical, insulting, and confusing all at the same time. But no matter how much you or I disagree with her, the cult that follows Coulter cannot be denied.

With all due respect, when you do not understand someone or something would it not be wise to take the time to find out instead of just making allegations that just happened to look very much like the nonsense you see in the leftist elite media? Instead of taking the time to get informed you decided to trash Ann Coulter (and the people who read her books) based on the ignorance which you fully admitted to.

I am very concerned that you have leveled an ugly charge of anti-semitism against Ann Coulter when ten minutes of fact checking shows you to be demonstrably false. Lets toss aside the fact that Ann has always been a supporter of Israel and examine what Ann said, essentially that Christians believe that Christianity is the perfection of Judaism. The truth is that this is long ago established Christian doctrine and here is the proof:

The Catholic Encyclopedia from its entry on the New Testament:

Other doctrines, specifically Christian, are not added on to Judaism to develop, but rather to supersede it. In reality, between the New and Old Testaments there is a direct but not revolutionary succession as a superficial observer might be inclined to believe; just as in living beings, the imperfect state of yesterday must give way before the perfection of today although the one has normally prepared the other. If the mystery of the Trinity and the spiritual character of the Messianic Kingdom are ranked among the peculiarly Christian dogmas, it is because the Old Testament was of itself insufficient to establish the doctrine of the New Testament on this subject; and still more because, at the time of Jesus, the opinions current among the Jews went decidedly in the opposite direction.

The Oxford University Guide To the New Testament makes this same point in Paul’s letter to the Hebrews:

The Epistle to the Hebrews asserts the superiority of Christ to the prophets, the angels, Moses, Joshua, and the Jewish priesthood. Christ brings a superior covenant, a superior tabernacle, and makes a superior sacrifice. Like many other authors whose task is Christian self-definition, this author uses the Hebrew Scriptures to illustrate the authenticity of his claims. For example, several Old Testament prophets mention a new covenant that God will make with the Jews. Drawing on Platonic thought, this author argues that the old covenant was a foreshadowing of the new, an imperfect reflection of a perfect reality.

Scholars do not know when or where this book was written. It is clear, though, that the author was concerned to define group boundaries. He argued that Christianity represented the perfection of Judaism. Christianity was the religion foretold by the prophets. Those who did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, moreover, were not the true people of God.

With all due respect, if that doesn’t satisfy you here are what some prominent Rabbi’s had to say about Coulter’s remarks:

Rabbi Levin, a spokesman for the Rabbinical Alliance for America and the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada, commented to LifeSiteNews.com on the matter saying: “It is a fact that millions of Christians believe in evangelizing and preaching the gospel and it is their belief for a Jew to accept the tenets of Christianity and accept the divinity somehow completes them and brings them to perfection.”

Levin stressed, “That’s obviously not our belief; that’s not the traditional Jewish belief at all.”

“But the fact that Miss Coulter was asked to try to say that this is now anti-semitism, I believe is off the mark, is even sad and dangerous in certain ways,” continued Rabbi Levin. “Because I’m concerned that many Christians out there will hear her merely saying what they have been taught in their religion and having that referred to as anti-semitism could put a strain on relations. People will say, ‘I’m not entitled to have my religious opinions on the subject of evangelizing and what’s considered to be perfect’.”

The spokesman for some thousand orthodox rabbis concluded, “So, I very strongly feel it’s important to say that saying things like this does not an anti-Semite make.”

http://catholicexchange.com/2007/10/16/86631/

One of the most revered and respected rabbi’s among conservatives is Dennis Prager. Prager insists that there is not an anti-semitic bone in Ann Coulter. Read his words carefully:

Those who label Ann Coulter an anti-Semite do damage to the battle against anti-Semitism.

I say this as a committed Jew, a religious Jew, a Jewish writer and lecturer, a past college instructor in Jewish history, co-author of a widely read book on anti-Semitism, recipient of the American Jewish Press Association’s Prize for Excellence in Jewish Commentary, instructor in Torah at the American Jewish University, and a man who has fought anti-Semitism all his life.

There is nothing in what Ann Coulter said to a Jewish interviewer on CNBC that indicates she hates Jews or wishes them ill, or does damage to the Jewish people or the Jewish state. And if none of those criteria is present, how can someone be labeled anti-Semitic?

What damage has she ever done to Jews? What is wrong with a person believing that it would be better if another person adopted their faith? Is there one liberal who doesn’t believe that a conservative would be better — “perfected,” if you will — by embracing liberal beliefs and values? Why is it laudable for a liberal to hope that conservatives convert to liberalism, but dangerous and hate-filled when a Christian hopes that Jews or anyone else will go to heaven (that is, after all, Ann Coulter’s and most other Christians’ primary concern) by believing in Jesus?

I have read Jewish and non-Jewish writers who argue that Ann Coulter’s words will lead to another Auschwitz. How does one respond to irrationality? How does one respond to hysteria?

There is also a move to boycott Ann Coulter, so dangerous are her words. Of course, there is no such Jewish or liberal boycott of former President Jimmy Carter, who has done real damage to the Jewish people by describing Israel as an “apartheid” state in the very title of his anti-Israel book. In fact, Carter was invited to speak on his loathsome book at Brandeis University, an ostensibly Jewish university. But for many Jews and liberals, real hatred, real damage to Jewish security can only come from the right, especially from Christians on the right. So Ann Coulter, who has done nothing in her life to compromise Jewish welfare, is to be boycotted, but Jimmy Carter is worthy of invitations to speak. Jewish groups even invite John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, the authors of “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” which is essentially a tempered modern-day version of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” But Ann Coulter is beyond the pale. And she said nothing to harm Jews.

She said she believes that Jews who accept Jesus as their savior are “perfected.” I fail to see why this is some form of hate-speech, let alone the basis of anti-Semitism, as stated by Abe Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, which often defames conservative Christians, whom he and his organization hold to be the greatest domestic threats to America.

As a practicing Jew, I do not agree with Ann Coulter’s theology any more than those attacking her do. But I am neither offended by her nor frightened by her or her beliefs. She believes that Christianity is better than Judaism. So what? Why is that in any way different from liberals thinking that liberalism is truer and morally superior to conservatism? Or conservatives thinking that their values are superior to liberal values?

Liberals not only believe that conservatives are philosophically imperfect, but they often believe that conservatives are bad human beings (something in no way implied by Coulter about Jews). 

http://townhall.com/Columnists/DennisPrager/2007/10/16/ann_coulter_wants_jews_to_become_christian_–_so_what

Prager is stating what is obvious; Muslims believe people should me Muslim, Jews believe people should convert and Christians believe people should accept Jesus Christ and His teachings. With all due respect, you have shown a great deal of ignorance by acting like one should be surprised by such a concept. As a result, by calling Coulter an anti-semite you have helped create a false narrative that Reagan wing conservatives such as Coulter are against Israel, when in fact most hostility against Israel is from the left and most of the support for Israel comes from the right.

I have experienced this truth first hand because as someone who is finishing a new degree at a university, I have taken heat from the left for standing up against anti-semitism among some of the far left faculty.

You have stated that you do not understand Ann Coulter or why she does what she does and then proceeded to call her names and this had made you popular on the morning TV shows. Smearing someone to get the approval of the Andrea Mitchell’s of the world is a sign of bad character.

Again with all due respect, I would like to help you understand.

Ann Coulter is a political satirist and likely the sharpest tongued satirist alive. Satirists use metaphor, humor, use absurdity to demonstrate absurdity, and use rhetorical sting as literary devices to make a point. The whole idea is that the person reading the satire is supposed to be smart enough to see the intellectual substance behind the satire.

Satire is a literary tradition in politics dating back to the ancient Greeks and truth be told; Coulter’s satire is positively mild compared to what was done in this country in the first 150 years of its history and considered to come with the territory of politics. Face it, political discourse gets mighty dry by always couching it in straight laced policy debates.

The millions of people who read Ann Coulter are not a part of a “cult” as you put it. They are very smart people who appreciate effective satire. Ann Coulter has a stack of number one best sellers on her resume for that very reason.

Before I conclude there is something else that you need to understand.

The elite media can and will be happy to use you, manipulate you, and kiss up to you as long as you are bashing other Republicans and calling them names, but you should keep in mind that Ann Coulter is a part of the very large Reagan wing of the party and even if you do not consider yourself a part of the Reagan wing; on the majority of individual policy issues you, me, your father, Rudy Giuliani, Ann Coulter and most of those people who attended CPAC by and large do agree. So when you call Ann Coulter names, that allows the far left and the elite media to take any policy position taken by her and portray it as extreme even if it happens to be a policy issue that you and her agree on and why???……because Meghan McCain said so.

Always remember that your father was the elite media’s favorite Republican. They wanted him on whenever he had a fight with members of his own party. When your father took a stand against Barack Obama look at what the New York Times did; they accused your father of having an affair with a 40 year old lobbyist and stopped printing his op-ed letters. The rest of the elite media launched unfair attacks against him, they attacked your mother, and look at what the lies and smears they did to Sarah Palin.

Two months later it is now clear that your father was right about Barack Obama on many things. Where is the elite media begging to have him on now…. no wait, they can have his daughter on because she is bashing Republicans and smearing them with ugly charges of anti-semitism.  

The elite media will be happy to use you and manipulate you for this purpose for now, but the time will come when you take a stand based on a conservative principle in opposition to an elite media favorite like Obama and when that happens the elite media will stop being interested in your opinion and they will use any excuse to smear and destroy you. If you don’t think that these elite media people who are showing you so much attention would do that to a young woman, just ask Bristol Palin.

And when you are done talking with her ask Clearence Thomas, Robert Bork and Miguel Estrada what it is like to have every manufactured, politically motivated, far left allegation against you presented as fact.

With all due respect, you should apologize to Ann Coulter and be grateful she has (so far) decided to show restraint and not turn her sharp tongue on you. It may make you less popular with the Today Show, but it is the honorable thing to do.

Chuck Norton, Editor

UPDATE – You can see video of one of Meghan’s elite media appearances at Hotair.com.

UPDATE II – Tammy Bruce has comments on this issue HERE.

About these ads

5 Responses to “An Open Letter to Meghan McCain”

  1. Angelo said

    Interestingly, the notion of a division of and a perfection of Judaism is not necessarily attributed only to Christianity. Consider this passage of Ezekiel (chapters 8&9 KJV):

    “And it came to pass in the sixth year, in the sixth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I sat in mine house, and the elders of Judah sat before me, that the hand of the Lord GOD fell there upon me. Then I beheld, and lo a likeness as the appearance of fire: from the appearance of his loins even downward, fire; and from his loins even upward, as the appearance of brightness, as the colour of amber. And he put forth the form of an hand, and took me by a lock of mine head; and the spirit lifted me up between the earth and the heaven, and brought me in the visions of God to Jerusalem, to the door of the inner gate that looketh toward the north; where was the seat of the image of jealousy, which provoketh to jealousy. And, behold, the glory of the God of Israel was there, according to the vision that I saw in the plain. Then said he unto me, Son of man, lift up thine eyes now the way toward the north. So I lifted up mine eyes the way toward the north, and behold northward at the gate of the altar this image of jealousy in the entry. He said furthermore unto me, Son of man, seest thou what they do? even the great abominations that the house of Israel committeth here, that I should go far off from my sanctuary? but turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations. And he brought me to the door of the court; and when I looked, behold a hole in the wall. Then said he unto me, Son of man, dig now in the wall: and when I had digged in the wall, behold a door. And he said unto me, Go in, and behold the wicked abominations that they do here. So I went in and saw; and behold every form of creeping things, and abominable beasts, and all the idols of the house of Israel, pourtrayed upon the wall round about. And there stood before them seventy men of the ancients of the house of Israel, and in the midst of them stood Jaazaniah the son of Shaphan, with every man his censer in his hand; and a thick cloud of incense went up.
    Then said he unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen what the ancients of the house of Israel do in the dark, every man in the chambers of his imagery? for they say, The LORD seeth us not; the LORD hath forsaken the earth. He said also unto me, Turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations that they do. Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the LORD’s house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz. Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these. And he brought me into the inner court of the LORD’s house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east. Then he said unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? Is it a light thing to the house of Judah that they commit the abominations which they commit here? for they have filled the land with violence, and have returned to provoke me to anger: and, lo, they put the branch to their nose. Therefore will I also deal in fury: mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: and though they cry in mine ears with a loud voice, yet will I not hear them.
    He cried also in mine ears with a loud voice, saying, Cause them that have charge over the city to draw near, even every man with his destroying weapon in his hand. And, behold, six men came from the way of the higher gate, which lieth toward the north, and every man a slaughter weapon in his hand; and one man among them was clothed with linen, with a writer’s inkhorn by his side: and they went in, and stood beside the brasen altar. And the glory of the God of Israel was gone up from the cherub, whereupon he was, to the threshold of the house. And he called to the man clothed with linen, which had the writer’s inkhorn by his side; And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house. And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city. And it came to pass, while they were slaying them, and I was left, that I fell upon my face, and cried, and said, Ah Lord GOD! wilt thou destroy all the residue of Israel in thy pouring out of thy fury upon Jerusalem? Then said he unto me, The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is exceeding great, and the land is full of blood, and the city full of perverseness: for they say, The LORD hath forsaken the earth, and the LORD seeth not. And as for me also, mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity, but I will recompense their way upon their head. And, behold, the man clothed with linen, which had the inkhorn by his side, reported the matter, saying, I have done as thou hast commanded me.”

    Perfection, (in the sense that Divine recognition and blamelessness before God are indicative of it), is found in some, resulting in their segregation and protection; also perversion and corruption are found in others, resulting in their condemnation and punishment. Also, the difference is not, as it were, between Christian and Jew, but rather between Hebrew and Hebrew.

  2. Angelo said

    Furthermore, the ‘perfection’ of Judaism explored in these chapters is rather dependent on the absence of idolatry. This would contradict, at least in part, with any Christian use of (and defense of the use of) idolatry. In other words, it may not seem appropriate to allude to Christianity as the perfection of Judaism, if at least in some instances and representations of Christianity, it (Christianity) may be perceived as more akin to the perversion of Judaism.

  3. Angelo said

    Also, the indentification of Christianity as, “The perfection of Judaism”, could exacerbate any perceived imperfections of the Jewish people. Nazism is based on the inferiority of the Hebrew and to imply that Judaism, the religion of many Hebrews, is inferior to Christianity; is not only offensive and, in a sense, threatening to the Jewish community, but also disrespectful to the Christian community.
    Nevertheless, I should indicate that the notion of Christianity as being the perfection of Judaism is perhaps best explained in relation to idolatry. From the aforementioned scripture one can assess that idolatry is an undesirable practice for the perfection of Judaism. Yet the sin of idolatry was very hard to eradicate in Judeo-Samaritan cultures. It is according to this problem (idolatry) that plagued Judaism, and perhaps now Christianity, that the manifestation of the notion that Christ’s crucifixion is intended to parallel (in a perfecting way) the erection of the copper serpent ‘medicine-idol’ [by Moses under the direction of God], and bring an end to the disastrous sin of idolatry complete with the appropriation for it.
    That Judaism does not accept the Christ of Christianity may perhaps be interpreted as a stumbling block to the pursuit of perfection via the absence of idolatry. Moreover, that Christianity re-embarks on idolatry may be interpreted as an act of indignation (if the idols are intended for educational/inspiritational purposes and not to replace the authority and redemptive power of Christ), ambivalence (idolatry may be forgivable), or sin (according to the interpretation of Christianity or Judaism). This interpretation is also facilitated by the fact that some idols such as the angels on the ark of the covenant were not condemned [by Judaism] and that Christ, who in Christianity is embraced as the Son of God (and is therefor greater than the angels that are being represented on the ark), is greater than all idols or anything they may represent except God.

  4. Angelo said

    “[God] called to the man clothed with linen, which had the writer’s inkhorn by his side; And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary.”

    In the above quotation the distinguishing feature is remorse or sadness. It is on the basis of the presence of this ‘mark’ of repentance/devotion/humility/etc. that God protects some people. So, in my opinion, the perfection of Christianity is inseparable from the mourning of Christ’s death. That Judaism fails to recognize the Christ of Christianity in a manner that would necessitate [great] sorrow at his murder or death is indicative of a [dangerous] shortcoming in my opinion. However, I can not conclude that this ‘segregating sorrow’ is not instilled or manifested in any and/or all Jews, nor can I verify that any and/or all Christians possess it to the discernible degree which may prove necessary.

    The following sentence is a correction to a sentence in reply #3:

    It is according to this problem (idolatry) that plagued Judaism, (and perhaps now Christianity), that the manifestation of the notion that Christ’s willful crucifixion is intended to parallel, in a perfecting way, the erecting of the copper serpent idol (by Moses under the direction of God), and also to bring an end to the disastrous sin of idolatry complete with the propitiation for it, is realizable.

    The following sentences are an aid to clarification of the concepts mentioned in reply #3 and are intended as a continuation of the above sentence:

    Note that it is the act of obedience to God that is the common thread among Moses and Christ. Yet the superiority, authority, divinity and/or perfection of Christ is demonstrated by, not only the absence of metal and animals in the offering, but by the power of the offering. For the copper serpent could only deliver one from physical harm but Christ can deliver one from an/the eternal punishment [of a/the soul].

    One might then ask, “What about the ‘wailing wall’, does that suffice for demonstrating sorrow before God?” Again I would not be able to say with any certainty and would have to conclude that it may be in what context the destruction of the temple is viewed. For example, there is a law that in Haggai ch. 2 concerning the defilement of consecrated meat by someone that is unclean. In my opinion, the temple was defiled [in a similar way] when Judas Iscariot returned the money and threw it on the floor. The priests thought it would suffice simply not to put the money in the treasury but there is no mention of a cleansing offering. When I think of the destruction of the temple I am reminded of this oversight and I do not feel the temple’s destruction is unwarranted. However, the sorrow I have is more for the notion that Christ was rejected and betrayed there than for the eventual destruction of the temple. Yet, the common ground could be established on the destructive nature of sin. To the Jew, the temple may be more important whereas to the Christian the Christ may be the focus; but the unifying factor is that Judas Iscariot facilitated the destruction of them both.

  5. onaroll3 said

    Megan McCain is as patently useless and unworthy of an audience as are young Ron Reagan and Chris Buckley and all the other prodigal sons/daughters of past sages and political leaders who can’t distance themselves fast enough from their parents’ stands and philosophies.
    There are others but I don’t find it worth getting in a lather trying to remember them all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 42 other followers

%d bloggers like this: