Article by John Derbyshire |
||||
|
|
|||
| Mad
Preacher Disease To
begin with, here is a story in Wednesday’s New York Post that my
junior Senator — who, like a Burmese or an Anglo-Saxon, has only one
name: Hillary — has joined “an informal, once a week Senate prayer
breakfast, an event dominated by deeply religious Republican senators”. The wording here (which I have lifted from the Post
story) is a bit slighting to Hillary, it seems to me.
Are we supposed to be surprised that anyone not a Republican might
be “deeply religious”? There
is, and for a very long time has been, such a thing as the religious Left.
An outstanding example of it holds office in Britain, in fact:
Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair is a man of, by all reports, very
sincere Christian belief. Hillary’s
own religious background is also well attested. She was raised a Methodist, and one of the formative
influences in her life has been the “good works” Methodism of the Rev.
Don Jones. It is odd to think
that Hillary shares a “faith tradition” (to use the current cant
phrase) with Margaret Thatcher, but so it is.
The great tree of Nonconformism that first came up in England three
hundred years ago has developed many odd, twisted branches, and borne many
very different kinds of fruit. In
any case, the way that particular religious doctrines act on individual
human personalities is a large study by itself, and full of surprises —
see the Barchester novels of Anthony Trollope for further insights on this
topic. The fact of Hillary
being a foam-flecked lefty is not at all incompatible with her professing
sincere religious belief. And
yet … it’s Hillary we’re talking about. For
her own breakfast she’ll project a scheme, Nor
take her tea without a stratagem. Anything
Hillary does inspires the same query that Metternich is supposed to have
voiced on hearing that Talleyrand had died:
“I wonder what he meant by that?”
It is a very ticklish thing to cast doubt on another person’s
religious convictions, but suppose — just suppose — Hillary has some
ulterior motive in chowing down on wheaties and orange juice with Jon Kyl,
James Inhofe, Kit Bond and the Good Book, what might it be? That’s
a genuine question, not a rhetorical one, and I invite speculations from
readers. Here is my own
hypothesis, but I confess it is very theoretical at this point, and I am
still in the early stages of evidence-gathering. The
relevant train of thought actually began a few days ago.
I was sitting in my favorite chair, absorbed in a book (Mark
Bowden’s Black Hawk Down — a terrific read) with the TV on,
tuned to Fox News Channel, of course.
There was a brief clip of Hillary giving a speech, and some words
floated into my consciousness. Hillary
was talking about George W. Bush’s supposed reversal on the matter of
regulating CO2 emissions. Said
the Senator: “It looks like
we’ve gone from CO2 to ‘See you later’.” I
groaned inwardly and went back to my book.
The silly phrase lodged itself in my mind, though, and came back to
the surface a few days later when, in the course of duty, I was reading
Hillary’s March 21st remarks to the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee. This
little passage stopped me in my tracks: "You know, we all heard about the President’s charm offensives. But when it comes to the environment and public health, it sometimes appears as though his administration is on harm offensive." Unfortunately,
it did not stop me long enough to prevent my eye taking in the sentence
that followed: "Yesterday it was arsenic and about face." I
did not read any further. Can
you blame me? What on earth
has got into the woman? “Arsenic
and about face”? How many
people even get the reference? (Arsenic
and Old Lace was a 1944 movie with Cary Grant and Peter Lorre.)
Harm… charm. CO2…
see you later. Arsenic and
about face… To
follow my argument from this point on, you need to understand that we
ink-stained wretches are obliged, as part of our job, to read an awful lot
of news stories from all sorts of strange places.
After a while we develop news overload, where the stories swirl
round kaleidoscopically in our heads, forming strange patterns and
peculiar conjunctions. Most
of these are gibberish, but some of them turn out to be real insights
leading to major news scoops. I
leave you to judge for yourself which category the following falls into. Me, I’m convinced, and have alerted the Centers for Disease
Control. Consider
these facts.
See
how this all hangs together? Here
is my hypothesis. Enraged by
the embarrassments he has caused them with his sexual and financial
shenanigans, the leaders of Rainbow PUSH murdered Rev. Jackson. They offered his position, with all its limitless expense
accounts, to Hillary, on condition she take a bible study course to the
point where she can adopt the title “Reverend”.
(Until Hillary is ready to assume her duties, Rev. Jackson’s
position has been filled by a lifelike alliterating android made of
aluminum alloys.) Hillary,
inspired by the tale of the priest-eating Philippino cannibal, and urged
on no doubt by the shade of Eleanor Roosevelt, decided to accelerate her
transformation by stealing and eating the late Reverend Jackson’s
brains. Unfortunately the
brains in question were infected with a variant of those horrid prions
that are causing so much havoc in the world of animal husbandry. It’s a scoop, and you heard it here first. Ladies and gentlemen, Hillary is a victim of Bovine Spongiform Alliteritis — Mad Preacher Disease. |
||||