At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

In Praise of the Hangman

posted by Jack Kerwick

On Monday, Christmas Eve, 62 year-old William Spengler set fire to his home in upstate New York.  When four firefighters arrived, he rained down a storm of bullets, killing two of them.  He also shot at the police before taking his own life.

That Spengler is now numbered among the dead is cause for rejoicing.  However, that his death came at his own hands, and that it didn’t happen years ago, proves that justice was denied her due.

You see, Spengler spent 17 years in prison for having beaten to death his own grandmother back in 1980. 

Evil there will always be, but if, as Americans insist, ours is a nation of laws, there can be no conceivable justification for the fact that Spengler continued to enjoy oxygen for one minute, let alone three decades, after he was convicted of this horrific murder.  It is nothing short of a scandal that he was released from prison after having served but a 17 year sentence.   


As the eighteenth century philosopher Immanuel Kant said, who ever “has committed murder, must die.”  

All of the associates of a civil association are related to one another in terms of laws. Unlike decrees, commands, and orders, laws do not tell us what to do.  Rather, they merely tell us how we must do whatever it is we choose to do.  Laws are the terms of self-governance, that which distinguishes persons from beasts, free agents from slaves and beasts.

Justice is the one and only virtue of a civil association.  It is the blood that courses through its veins.  Injustice—outlawry—is toxic to it.    

Every crime is an injection of poison into the bloodstream of civil association, an assault against each and every associate of whom the criminal declares himself an enemy. Thus, every criminal must be punished to the fullest extent of the law, as we say.


For the actions of the Spenglers of the world, though—the monsters among us—death is the only fitting response.

By way of executing murderers and the chronically violent, the members of civil association resoundingly, unmistakably, affirm their respect, indeed, their reverence, for the only thread that unites them into one body: the law. 

Mere imprisonment of heinous and pathological violators of the laws, even if it is supposed to be for life, is unjust.  As long as the murderer or the torturer remains alive, far from being vanquished from the association that he threatened, he now becomes its ward: if he lives 100 years or more, every moment of his existence will be courtesy of the associates that now have to subsidize him.


Justice screams for the death penalty, for the most egregious criminals deserve it and their victims—every law-abiding citizen—deserve that they should be subjected to it.

Murderers (and, I would add, torturers and other assortments of pathologically violent criminal offenders) must die.

Although every action taken by the government of a civil association in addressing crime (or anything else) should be motivated by the desire to do justice, it is both possible and desirable that our desire for justice be supplemented by our compassion for those directly harmed by predators.

Compassion and justice, ideally, form a seamless whole.  They need not be in conflict with one another.  In fact, more frequently than not, we see that our compassion extends most readily to those who have been denied justice.


Personally, my heart aches for those who have been ravaged by the savage.  I needn’t lose my three year-old son, wife, mother, or close friend to a murderous thug in order to empathize—genuinely, deeply, empathize—with those who have lost their loved ones.  And I needn’t go through any of this personally in order to feel to the depths of my soul the injustice of it all.

It pains me to know that our prisons are jammed pack with vermin who haven’t the slightest regard for human life. Such is my compassion for those who have been reduced to prey, such is my thirst for righteousness, that, in the proverbial “New York minute,” I would gladly offer my services, free of charge, in the capacity of the Hangman.

Many will doubtless recoil in shock and disgust at this.  But consider:


If I chose to enlist my resources in the service of killing enemy combatants in a war in which my country was engaged, I would be lionized for my patriotism and heroism. There would be hardly a place to which I could travel where I wouldn’t be “thanked for my service.”  Film upon film would be made glorifying my sacrifices and exploits.

Yet while some of the men who I would kill may very well be wicked, each would be doing exactly what I would be doing: fighting for the values of his people and his land.

In contrast, the bottom feeders whose lives I would extinguish as Hangman are the worst of the worst criminals. Unlike the Japanese and Germans in WWII, say, or the Vietnamese and the Iraqis in the Vietnam and Iraqi wars, respectively, they are not driven by any commitment to ideals and causes larger than themselves.


They are evil, and they pose a much larger threat to our civil association than any posed by Al Qaeda,Iran, or any other international entity.  But while I am just as much motivated by the love of country, by justice and fellow feeling, to volunteer to be a Hangman as others are to become soldiers, I will not elicit any of the respect or admiration of the latter.

If there was true justice in our world, it is the Hangman, not the Soldier, who would receive the thanks and the glory.             









The “Reagan Revolution”: A Myth Exploded

posted by Jack Kerwick

As “the conservative movement” seeks to regain its bearings following Barack Obama’s reelection, its adherents should recognize, first of all, that its name doesn’t do justice to its true character.

That is, the conservative movement is actually a neoconservative movement.

With rare exception, virtually every “star” in the movement is a neoconservative.  From the personalities on Fox News to the shining lights of “conservative” talk radio, from “conservative” politicians to the most well known “conservative” writers, there is scarcely an intellect to be found that isn’t indebted to the neoconservative worldview.

Names must be named if constructive change is to occur.

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin, no less than Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, and Bill Bennett; Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio, as much as Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich; David Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Michele Malkin, like George Will, David Brooks, and David Frum, are all neoconservatives.


Translation: they are alike proponents of Gargantuan Government.

There is a superabundance of evidence, from their policy prescriptions to the politicians for whom they have offered endless cover, to substantiate this. But the most glaring exhibit is their veneration of Ronald Wilson Reagan.

To be more accurate, these are actually two exhibits.  The friends of liberty, real conservatives, revere no politician, however virtuous he may be. And they certainly don’t revere politicians at the national level.

The veneration of this politician, though, Reagan, is even more revealing.  Reagan was definitely likable—a fact that, being a Republican president in an era prior to the explosion of non-Democratic-friendly media outlets, speaks to his considerable talents—but he was no conservative.


Despite all of his “limited government” rhetoric, Reagan was as much of a champion of Gargantuan Government as anyone else.  He is heralded by “conservatives” as a tax cutter. However, his much touted “tax cut” of 1981 was more than offset by two tax increases that year alone, to say nothing of the multiple tax hikes for which Reagan pushed all throughout his eight years in the Oval office.

Federal spending—and, thus, the federal government—expanded exponentially under Reagan. Both the deficit and the debt rose astronomically throughout his two terms.

His promises to the contrary aside, Reagan singularly failed to eliminate a single government program, let alone an agency.

And liberty diminished.


The deregulation for which Reagan typically receives credit consisted of measures that Jimmy Carter implemented but which didn’t take effect until after the Gipper was already in office.

Reagan did nothing—nothing—to advance conservatism on the cultural front either.  It was the Reagan administration that launched a so-called “war on drugs.”  The idea of a local government rendering it a crime for an adult citizen to ingest a potentially harmful substance is sufficient to make any friend of liberty cock an eyebrow.  The idea of an ostensibly federal government doing so should make him recoil in horror. 

Yet Reagan waged a “war on drugs,” a war that continues over three decades later and that shows zero signs of terminating at any time in the near—or distant—future.


It is probably the case that, to some extent, Reagan’s tough talk and liberty-centered rhetoric contributed to the implosion of the Soviet Union.  Yet precisely because it was an implosion that befell the evil empire, Reagan was, at best, a catalyst that merely expedited a process of disintegration that had already been well underway.

If there really was a “Reagan revolution,” can someone please say what it accomplished?  It isn’t just that Reagan’s presidency did nothing to arrest, and much to assist, the progressive’s agenda of cultural transformation. Some libertarian-minded thinkers, like Murray Rothbard, for instance, have argued, quite convincingly, that Reagan actually arrested the rising tide of libertarianism that was gaining steam in the mid to late 1970’s by co-opting some of its elements while relegating others to the periphery.


Ronald Wilson Reagan was neither a conservative nor a libertarian.  Though our verdict on this score is irrefutable, there isn’t a mainstream “conservative” publication in America that would print my argument.  The deification of Reagan has assured this.

But it is just this elevation of Reagan to the stature of a god that discloses for all with eyes to see that “the conservative movement” doomed itself a long time ago.





Why “the Conservative Movement” is Doomed

posted by Jack Kerwick

The so-called “conservative movement” is all but doomed.

For my gloomy prognostication I offer two sufficiently simple reasons.

First, the movement is dominated by self-serving publicity pimps and their whores who neither know nor care to know a damn thing about genuine conservatism.

Second, the grass roots of the movement, though free of their leaders’ character flaws, are no different than the latter as far as their ignorance of and indifference to the conservative tradition is concerned. 

The mainstream right in this country has been consistently tacking to the left from at least the time of the “Reagan revolution.”  The conservative movement, thus, is but a lighter version of leftism, a slightly less progressive form of progressivism.


Even during Ronald Reagan’s two terms, a time when conservatism was supposed to have been making this explosive comeback, it was the federal government that was exploding.  We hear much from the mainstream right about Reagan’s tax cuts. We hear not a peep about his multiple tax hikes. Reagan eliminated not a single government agency or department, and he granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

How, I would like to know, did Reagan advance the conservative cause vis-à-vis “the social issues”—abortion, “gay rights,” abortion, affirmative action, and illegal immigration? 

Besides, even if Reagan was the great conservative giant that the mainstream right makes him out to be, he was in the last resort but a politician, and a politician in the federal government at that. 


A true conservative knows better than to endorse messianic politics.  But this is exactly what movement conservatives do when they worship Reagan—or when they revere any politicians as great leaders.

The left sets the terms of the debate and the mainstream right subscribes to them lock, stock, and barrel.  In doing so, the left allows those on the right who are willing to toe its line to be heard. This explains why mainstream rightists employ much of the same lingo as leftists. 

For example, to justify George W. Bush’s “Freedom Agenda”—his neo-imperial crusades in theMiddle East—Fox News personalities and “conservative” talk radio hosts sound no different than their leftist counterparts sound in arguing for various domestic entitlements.  The language of “human rights,” “women rights,” “tolerance,” and “equality” abounds.


With few exceptions—the Pauls, father and son, say, and maybe some others—the vast majority of mainstream conservative politicians in Washington D.C. are no more interested in repealing Gargantuan Government than are their Democratic rivals.  Rather, what they are interested in is taking control of this government to use for their own purposes.

In other words, they are interested in power.

But it isn’t just mainstream conservative politicians who are intent upon seeing to it that the show continues on.  Mainstream conservative journalists and pundits are equally invested in fooling the rank and file of the movement into believing that they are really interested in advancing truth and liberty.

The movement has no hope because while it claims to oppose the left, it relies upon the same universe of lies upon which the latter is built.


For example, there is an underlying racial dimension to virtually every issue that we face—how could things be otherwise when both mainstream conservatives and leftists continually tell us that slavery is America’s “original sin?”  Yet no mainstream conservative publication will dare publish a piece that aspires to address racial issues frankly. 

The problem is even worse than this, unfortunately.  The editors of these publications are obsessed with gaining recognition for themselves.  So, they publish writers depending on whether they meet a few criteria. 

First, writers should have some name recognition themselves.  If your name is Buchanan or Coulter or Limbaugh, you’re in.

Second, like moths, they must be ever on the move, addressing only those topics that engage readers’ interest at the moment.  The timeless, or even attempts to tie the timeless in with the topical, are discouraged. In other words, events, and maybe people, are paramount.  Ideas, though, are generally not welcome.  


Third, whatever writers say about current events, they must make sure that they remain within the bounds of acceptable—i.e. Politically Correct—discourse: the more conventional and, hence, humdrum, the better, and the safer, both editor and writer will be.

Last but certainly not least: writers must write as if they are addressing eight graders.

Anyone who doubts me on this need only look at any number of mainstream publications—from World Net Daily to American Thinker, from Townhall to National Review—to see that, with some notable exceptions, their commentators suffer from a conspicuous lack of daring and imagination.

The mainstream conservative movement, as I say, is doomed.



My Prediction Come True: Reaction to Sandy Hook “Racist”

posted by Jack Kerwick

One week ago, on the heels of the Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, Connecticut that left 20 children and six adults dead, I made a prediction on my Facebook wall.  Sooner than any of us would like, I predicted, the national mourning that this event has beckoned forth will be regarded by some as the function of racism.

The victims of the mass murder at Sandy Hook were white.  Moreover, they were, as the left would have referred to them had they not been slaughtered, “the children of privilege.”  The Sandy Hook School is a prestigious institution in an affluent, and predominantly white, area.  Indeed, most of Sandy Hook’s students are doubtless the offspring of just those people—Americans making over $250,000 annually—who our President has spent the better part of his term castigating for failing to pay their “fair share” of taxes.


But now, along with the rest of the nation, he sheds tears over these dead white bodies.  Furthermore, he leaves the White House to travel to—of all places!—a prayer service inConnecticut from which he makes a televised address to the country.

Now, none of this would be objectionable if the daily killing of black “children” in “inner city” neighborhoods throughout the land elicited a similar outpouring of concern and attention.  However, no such luck.  You see, when black kids are routinely murdered, no one cares.

This is the line I saw coming.  And this is the line that I first heard yesterday on Sean Hannity’s radio program, and today heard repeated on a local radio station in the Philadelphia,Pennsylvania area. (Incidentally, I also predicted that Sean Hannity would be among the first to give it coverage).


Granted, to my knowledge, no public figure—no politician, celebrity, or professional racial activist—has yet to exploit Sandy Hook in quite this way.  Yet on the December 20th broadcast of Hannity’s show, a regular black caller named “Levi” said that while he does indeed feel for the deceased and their loved ones in Connecticut, he is frustrated that no one appears to care about the suffering that black children daily have to endure.

The black listener that contributed to the discussion on “Power 99” this morning, however, wasn’t nearly as diplomatic. He said that since “no one cares” about the killing of black children, he didn’t care a lick about the deaths of the 20 white children for whom the nation now grieves.  The black hosts of the morning show, as well as at least one other black caller, took him to task for his absence of empathy.  But they agreed with him that there is a racial double standard, and, thus, they claimed to “understand” his position.


There are two things of which we can all be certain. 

First, there are plenty of Americans, blacks, certainly, but white leftists as well, who think this way.  Second, very soon now, a professional race shyster with a microphone and a camera will be screaming from the rooftops the very same thing that these obscure black callers uttered on a couple of radio shows.

In a sense, but only in a sense, there is some truth to this sentiment. It is obviously, painfully, disgracefully true that black “inner city” communities throughout the country are virtual combat zones.  It is also true that, just as it is the residents of any and every other community the world over that are ultimately responsible for the condition of those communities, so too does the responsibility for the desolate condition of black communities fall squarely upon the shoulders of their residents. 


This, though, we can’t say.  When blacks say it, they are derided as “sell outs,” “race traitors,” and “Uncle Toms.”  When whites say it, they are charged with—what else?—“racism.”

Most people, and especially whites, either remain silent on the issue of black pathology, like criminality, or contrive transparently preposterous explanations for it: “racism,” “poverty,” Democratic politicians, “a legacy of slavery and Jim Crow,” and a host of other fashionable—and groundless—“root causes.”

The Land of  Make Believe is often preferable to the real world, and it is always safer.  But as we fortify the former, the latter only deteriorates further.

There is another point that needs to be addressed. 


Most of the black “children” to whose deaths Americans are allegedly indifferent are themselves murderous thugs.  They are not children between the ages of five and ten years of age.  They are gun-toting, gang-banging teenagers.  To be sure, this doesn’t warrant indifference.  It is nothing less than an unadulterated scandal that this state of affairs ever could have been permitted to emerge in the United States of America.  As such, it deserves that we deal with it—truthfully.

Still, it is just dishonest to compare this with what occurred in Connecticut.  In fact, that there is anyone who would think to draw this comparison proves just how far off from dealing with the routine killing of “black children” we remain. 





Previous Posts

The Christian Worldview of Rocky Balboa
On November 25, Creed, a spin-off of the Rocky franchise, will be hitting theaters. Rocky Balboa, “the Italian Stallion,” is an American icon. A down-on-his-luck nickel and dime club fighter and strong arm man for a local bookie, ...

posted 11:08:05am Nov. 02, 2015 | read full post »

Ronald Reagan: No Conservative
On October 21, Bill Bennett and Sean Hannity had a somewhat feisty exchange during a segment on the latter’s television show. Bennett made two remarks that are worth focusing upon. First, when asked whether he is “ok” with a Trump ...

posted 12:50:21pm Oct. 26, 2015 | read full post »

Mitt Romney, Faux Conservative Extraordinaire
Those of Donald Trump’s “conservative” critics who accuse him of promoting a faux conservatism would be well served to look in the mirror. In the GOP presidential primaries of 2012, many of the same commentators, like Charles ...

posted 9:42:36pm Oct. 25, 2015 | read full post »

Guest Blogger, Myron Pauli: "Political Orphans"
While both political parties pay homage to and occasionally quote Thomas Jefferson, the plain fact is that old TJ could never win the nomination of either party. Would the Democrats nominate a male white supremacist who owned slaves even to the ...

posted 8:07:12pm Oct. 13, 2015 | read full post »

"United in Hate: The Left's Romance With Tyranny and Terror:" A Review
When Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson claimed that Islam and the American Constitution are incompatible, he immediately found himself buried by an avalanche of criticism. Neither the tone nor the substance of the lion’s share of ...

posted 9:40:13pm Oct. 06, 2015 | read full post »


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.