Some Brief Thoughts on Immigration

This isn't normally a topic I delve into for a couple of reasons. First, I readily admit that I don't have as deep an interest in it as I should. Second, and as a likely result of that, there are so many people out there who address the topic far better than I can. One of my favorites is Katie's Dad, who is Unabashedly Unhyphenated. It's worth your time to check him out.

A website that I like is the Trinity Forum, and they send out these regular e-mails and post the same on their website. You can see this week's right here.

After reading this week's piece, I felt compelled to respond. Here's my comments back to the Trinity folks.

"It was Thomas Paine who once said:

'As parents, we can have no joy, knowing that this government is not sufficiently lasting to ensure any thing which we may bequeath to posterity: And by a plain method of argument, as we are running the next generation into debt, we ought to do the work of it, otherwise we use them meanly and pitifully.'

A reason-based objection to lax immigration standards is just this: we are ineffectively administering our current government and its entitlement programs. Given the inequity of our progressive system of taxation and the inability of our elected governors to ascertain independently the relative constitutionality of any specific piece of legislation, adding immigrants to the mix without proper restrictions endangers what most people would agree is the last best hope for mankind: this Republic.

With Liberty in retreat around the world - with some notable exceptions - we have the unique luxury of being able to be selective in who we allow to come to the United States, bearing in mind that assimilation and citizenship should be the natural goals of any immigrants. And, most importantly, that citizenship in the United States is not a civil right, nor a human right, but a honor and privilege to be earned."

Not my most deep analysis, but I think it sums up pretty well my state of mind on the subject. I for one would support closing the borders for some period of time and dealing with the problem we've got before rushing to some ill-conceived "solution." It is our moral obligation to protect that which was paid for with sacrifice and the blood of patriots, after all.

The Hon. Ken Starr

I had the pleasure of hearing this gentleman speak at a breakfast meeting this morning, and while the forum wasn't one that lent itself to deep discussion or analysis, I was pleased that in response to questions about Executive power, the Dean did quote Federalist 78 more than once.

Of course, one soul did venture a question about Starr's role as independent Counsel, which pertained to the scope of his inquiry. Rather deftly, he replied that his scope was limited to the accusations of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Hearing Starr speak brought back all sorts of memories of the Clinton fiasco that was his presidency. Got a favorite? Let me hear it.

The American Federalist Party

I've had it up to here (gestures wildly above head) with the state of things in the Republic. Mostly, it's the fault of the people - regular folks like you and me.

See, we've become too selfish as a people. Now, I recognize as plainly as the next person that there is some good that comes from selfishness. For example, the person who lives a good and pious life to please God and reach heaven is being selfish, of course. It is important to focus on the results of our actions, after all, because that's what counts. Suffice it to say that the goodness/motives/results conversation is a long one that we can undertake another time.

When the contributors to this blog found each other at this board and started talking over a year ago, our goal was - and remains - a renewal of this Republic. Through what can only be best described as an iterative process, we sharpened our thinking and made some clear conclusions about where we were, what needed to be done, and what a renewal would look like, over time.

Back to my point: the problem lies with the people. We've been fooled into believing the things that we were taught were true, and been institutionalized by public education and the MSM. Unionized teachers taught me their agendas, which were reinforced by watching the evening news. It wasn't until my mid 20s that I started to see things as they really are, my late 20s when I began to re-teach myself by seeking out material on the subjects that interested me, and not until my early 30s that I started making connections with others who were doing the same. And now, two months into my thirty-fourth year, I find myself looking for the next challenge.

The purpose of this blog - as described early on, if you're interested in going back through the archives - is to educate, first and foremost. When people are aware of how our system of government was created; what it was intended to be; what sustains and invigorates it; what historically has happened to change that and make it less than it was intended to be; and how we can begin returning to the intended functions of our government and the plain meaning of our Constitution, then all that is required is a catalyst. An action. Some event, some person, or some group of people who can plainly say: we know, you know, and now let's act on the truth.

Which naturally led me to the title of this message. Although we've been pleasantly diverted from the point of the blog, I am going to focus on getting back to the heart of the matter. There are two parts, again: education and action. Let us not put the cart before the horse. There is much that needs to be done to educate people on the proper nature of government. You, Dear Reader, will play a part in that. When you read something here that you like, share it with others. When you read something here that you don't agree with, challenge us on it. If we're right, we'll be able to show that. If we're wrong, we'll rethink our ideas.

I do eventually think that there will need to be another choice for voters, which I affectionately think of as the American Federalist Party. You'll probably begin to see us shaping what might be the early stages of a platform. As always, your comments and questions are welcomed. If you have something to say, but do not wish to comment on the blog, you can always e-mail me, or any of us, and we'll do our best to respond thoughtfully and promptly. God bless us all, and make us His instruments.

But Here's What I Don't Get

First of all, I'm Catholic, which makes me what you might call a conflicted Catholic. I'm down with the Church's stance on the value of life, yet, I object to the moral equivalency on the issue of life. The unborn are innocent; murderers on death row are not. That the Catholic Church fights for both lives bothers me. There is an obvious greater evil, and the resources of the Church should be marshaled against that evil. Once we're not killing babies, let's discuss capital punishment. But not until then. To do otherwise seems to betray a sense of moral confusion. Yes, we can chew gum and walk at the same time, as the argument goes, but this is different.

Furthermore, the Church's stance on "peace and social justice" issues really drives me nuts. Well-documented is the role the Church has played in the illegal immigration issue. Furthermore, the legal plunder that is taking my private property (in the form of taxes) against my will for ill-conceived programs is stealing, pure and simple. Because the federal government is doing it matters not in the least; that the Church supports Congress passing social legislation indicts the Church just the same with that charge. Experience and logic can show that the care of our fellow man is best performed as locally as possible, and forced charity is not charity at all. And again, although I admire the sentiment in my faith that drives people to be concerned about the quality of healthcare for the imprisoned, I beg you: don't speak to me of this until we have forever ended that peculiar "right" to exterminate an unborn baby. Or, "choice" as the left prefers to call them.

Lastly, at least in my Church, the silence has been deafening about the Pope's comments on Islam. Is not faith compatible with reason? Is not the House of the Lord a place where Truth is welcome? Do not the leaders of the Church have an obligation to educate their parishioners? Is it true that Islam is just as valid a religion as Christianity - and if not, why aren't the faithful instructed on the truth?

I suppose the appropriate thing to do is to take up my issues with our priests, and I may yet do so. In the meantime, inquiring minds want to know: regardless of your faith, has the topic of Islam come up in any of your churches, Dear Reader? If so, in what context? If not, am I alone in finding this troubling?

Lastly, come to think of it, I'm acknowledging a past error. I used to call John Kerry a "buffet Catholic" - taking a little of this, a little of that, but hold the pro-life, thankyouverymuch. I suppose upon a candid reflection of my rather inflexible opinions, I am much the same.

I Get It

I now know why the Left loves Islamists. They're so darn charming.

Well, I can understand their rage. I mean, every time the New York Times or the People For the American Way or the Anti Christian Lawyers Union attacks Christians, we burn effigies of lawyers and members of the Sulzberger family, firebomb law offices, and vow that the only thing acceptable will be conversion or death.

Hmmm. Wait, that's not what we do. But do you think they'd respect us if we did?

Rhetorical Question

If jihad and holy war aren't a part of the "real Islam", then why is everyone so upset about this speech? You can read the outrage here, and, well, just about anywhere, for that matter.

It's often called a rhetorical question when you know the answer, folks. But do check out the speech, it's very good.

Impeach Armitage!

A sentiment like this is probably a little absurd to you, Dear Reader, but given the Left's absolute obsession with Valerie Plame and Cheney/Bush/Libby, you'd think the cry would have gone up by now, don't you? I mean, every liberal writer and talking head was certain that the Vice President's office was the source of the leak from Arianna Huffandpout to MessNBC (as Laura Ingraham likes to call the nutwork. Excuse me! Network.)

The Left and the MSM had to be serious about their outrage over the revelation of a CIA agent's identity, right? Didn't they want Cheney to resign or be brought up on charges of treason, or something? Always the principled watchdog, they couldn't have been motivated by partisanship and a hatred of President Bush, could they? Maybe they just haven't heard that the leaker was Armitage, right? (Wait, you're thinking, don't they run the news?)

-Or-

Was all of that outrage just a partisan charade designed to whip up sentiment against Bush and his Administration?

(Jeopardy music)

Well, folks, I for one am shocked at this revelation. I'm going to start thinking twice about what the MSM says on any given topic. You know, take it with a grain of salt.

The War in Iraq is a Fraud

Very good. Now that I have your attention, kind reader, I'd like to start over...

The War In Iraq is a Colossal Fraud

What are we up to now, twenty-seven thousand dead Americans? Ah, yes, my mistake, hundred, whatever. It's all a scam, anyway. And for what? Secuuuuurrrrityyyyy?? Demmmmocccccracccccyyyyyy???

Please. If I wanted the former, I'd marry rich; and if I wanted the latter, well, I'd go to New Orleans.

Okay, okay, okay. I can tell that you, patient reader, are as mad as the thirteenth cop on Single-Box-of-Donuts Day. Yes, I am getting to my point, and no, I will not take back anything I just said.

I do not wish to deluge you with links to various and sundry source material and citations at this time; life is just too short, and the timer on this republic is probably even shorter. By now, the reader has likely heard or begun to hear about a pair of border patrol agents who have been convicted of heinous acts of unspeakable evil. Fortunately for their victim, all they managed to inflict upon his person is a bullet wound in the buttocks. Believe you me, those two nasty Americans got their cumuppance. Behold...

http://www.rense.com/general73/nppur.htm

That's right, ladies and gentlemen. Two United States Border Patrol agents have been convicted of "assault with serious bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, and discharge of a firearm in relation to a CRIME OF VIOLENCE", just to name a few, and are facing twenty years in prison. This five-star treatment is the reward they get for pursuing and attempting to apprehend an armed Mexican drug smuggler. This conviction brought to you by the good people at the U.S. Department of ... aww, hell, the Federal Fill-in-the-damn-blank.

It is precisely crap like this that leads me to arrive at the conclusions that brought us together today. As you can see, your patience has been rewarded, and with what? An angry dose of reality that might cause you to wonder for yourself just what the hell good we are doing for the republic by fighting a war against Isalmic terrorism, fascism, what have you, seven thousand miles away, when there is something more than a mere ineptitude of border security administration here at home--something that smells more like malicious intent at the level of the Federal government?

And then there's the air marshal debachle... http://www.thedenverchannel.com/7newsinvestigates/9552850/detail.html

Disclaimer: I do believe that it is right and well that American boots and American blood is on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan (and, hopefully soon, Iran) for the purposes of bringing justice to the evil and mercy to the seekers of freedom. But, as aforementioned, good reader, for the love of pete...!

Samuel Adams

In Memory of that September Day

I was driving to a work-related meeting probably a couple of months ago, listening to the Laura Ingraham show. It was the day after the 9/11 tapes were released and she played a little bit of the tapes on her show. It brought back in a rush all the feelings of that day five years ago...

I was working at a large downtown Chicago commercial bank, and it was a day like any other. I rode the train in that morning and was settling in for what was shaping up to be a gorgeous early autumn day.

I first heard that a plane had crashed into the WTC from a co-worker, and called home to see if my bride had heard anything about it. Given heavy traffic, our internet was not responding or taking a very long time to load, which in itself was interesting. She was just getting the day started and would call me when she heard anything.

Most speculation was that it was a small passenger plan that had hit the tower - certainly not a commercial aircraft of any kind. On the phone again with my better half not much later, a second plane hit tower 2. By now it was becoming clear that this was not an accident, and our thoughts immediately centered on nearby landmarks - the Sears Tower being the primary one.

People began leaving the office. On the streets, already late morning, there was an eerie sense of desertion. People had decided to get out of the Loop and there were more leaving by the time I was heading home later that morning.

Union Station was wall-to-wall humanity. Word got to the back of the crowd that they were bringing in trains empty as fast as possible, loading them up with people and sending them off. In about 15 minutes, I was on one, and we were off. No ticket takers on this unscheduled early afternoon milk-run.

Back home, with my bride and Peter Jennings, I started to see the images.






Funny, isn't it, that we don't see these images much any more? The media don't trust us, you see, to stay pacified. And an irate American people is dangerous to the survival of the leftist/media agenda.

Soon, we started to learn the story. 19 psychotic Muslims hijacked commercial jetliners with boxcutters, commandeered the aircraft, flew two of them into the WTC, one into the Pentagon (the Pentagon? I remember thinking, is there any place that's safe?), and one, thankfully, crashed into a remote field in Pennsylvania. They - the heroes of Flight 93 - fought back. The people in the towers never got that chance.

Disbelief and shock were the operative words for the remainder of the day. We heard that our Parish would be opening the doors to the Church that evening for people who wanted to come together. We went. For three days, the networks didn't air a single commercial. I remembered all of this. But I forgot the blinding, white-hot rage that I felt as soon as the shock wore off.

In his book Happiness is a Serious Problem, Dennis Prager talks about the lower nature in each of us, and I'm reminded of this when reflecting on that car ride just a couple of months ago, listening to the release of the 9/11 tapes. The old hate was back, and back with a vengence, surprisingly springing tears from my eyes on the way to my meeting. It's a part of my lower nature that I've always struggled with. I pray that God grants me wisdom and grace, that I can continue to control this part of me, my lower nature.

You see, I had forgotten how deeply hurt I was by the attacks. I didn't lose anyone I knew in the attacks, but that doesn't matter much to me. I'm going to open up a little bit here, and if it's harsh, well, my apologies.

There's something about what those SOBs did on 9/11/01 that revolts me to my core. What a cowardly and gutless bunch of bastards, to take people by surprise on a plane, lie to them, and use the plane as a missle. Not surprisingly, as soon as there was a group of people who knew what the situation was like those heroes of Flight 93, they fought back immediately.

That's the nature of our enemy, and we'd do well to remember it. If we forget, if we lose our resolve, they'll remind us. Maybe it'll be like the Belsan school next time. Or maybe they'll shoot up a big crowd, like the nut in Seattle who did so at the offices of the Jewish Federation, but just on a bigger scale.

Let's all try and remember who started this fight, and vow anew who is going to finish it. Take five minutes today, please, and remember what it felt like after the shock wore off. What it felt like when we found out what they did, and how they did it. If you have kids who are too young to understand, write down everything you can remember about that day five years ago - God knows that when they're in high school reading about American history (right after the 15 pages dedicated to Marilyn Monroe and Elvis and the 20 pages on how Bill Clinton "saved the Constitution") they're going to need to hear the truth.

Footnote: Yesterday at Mass, the elderly priest who served the 8:00 crowd remarkably, unbelieveably, shockingly was alluding to our actions and those of "corrupt corporations" as the cause of 9/11. I sat, jaw on the floor, through the rest of his homily. Just goes to show how even the moral can become morally confused.

Alexander Hamilton: Brad Pitt is a Giant Idiot

AP and Reuters headlines often crack me up, like this one... Brad Pitt: I'll marry when everyone can.

I considered entitling this post, "Alexander Hamilton: Brad Pitt is Mentally Retarded" except upon further insepction this is an insult to the mentally retarded: the mentally retarded actually use their brains, just slower than most.

But I guess that's where we're at today. The media takes it's cues on morality from vain sissy boys who put on little girl's plays and have illegitimate children. What I'm dying to know is what this Mensa-member thinks of the Hamdan decision.

There is no more radical idea espoused by the left - none - than the redefinition of marriage. It's never been considered in the history of humankind, and God help us if we ever decide as a society to allow liberals to work their social experiments on us. We'll have people marrying multiple partners, people marrying their cats, God knows what.

I've said it before in this space: what party is it that consistently attacks the family, the very foundation of a self-governing people and the necessary component of a functional federal representative republic? Three guesses folks, and the first two don't count.

Alex Update

Hey Dear Reader, it's been a while, hasn't it?

What can I say, I've been busy. Work remains priority #2, following family, and it's been hectic. But, #2 feeds #1, so I'm making hay. Before I get hammered with "where's religion on that list?" let me say that faith is such an integral part of my everyday life that I would just as soon rank "breathing", "eating", or "brushing my teeth" if you see where I'm going here. My hobbies - this here blog, for one - rank somewhere down the list.

I've read a short book, Happiness is a Serious Problem by Dennis Prager, one of my favorite radio personalities. I've started Godless by You-Know-Who, and already she had me laughing out loud at her comments.

Some recent observations...

Robert Novak seems to be less pessimistic about the GOP's chances in the November elections. What was deemed a sure loss of both the House and the Senate before recess now seems more in doubt. Which means the GOP won't lose both, and if they get their message right in the next 2 months, won't lose either.

The Administration has done a nice job recently in framing the discussion on our necessary involvement in Iraq. Bin Laden himself pictures it as the capital of the caliphat, lest any Demos think that Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror.

Hope y'all had a good Labor Day holiday. I'll try and post again before Monday, when I'll have some thoughts to share. Until then, be good and do good.

Book Review: Journey of the Jihadist

Although I promised not long ago (see my post entitled "Pro-Family" under August archives) that I wouldn't make movie reviews a part of this blog, I never made any such promise when it comes to books. I'm a voracious reader and since I'm free to post pretty much whatever I want, you're stuck with book reviews when they're worth mentioning.

I just finished Fawaz Gerges' book, Journey of the Jihadist: Inside Muslim Militancy and I can unequivocally draw the following conclusion: as with biographies, if you're looking for the truth about a topic, one must seek out source materials to avoid individual biases.

Jihadist was an effort by Gerges to interview key figures of Muslim militancy, and he used his Lebanese background to gain access to people that an otherwise Christian Western journalist might not achieve. It is a pity that his conclusions are colored by his early experiences in Lebanon.

Gerges recounts growing up in Lebanon and how idyllic his youth was, until things began to change in the 1970s. Gerges takes great pains to illustrate for us that Islam is not an inherently violent religion, using first-person accounts with Muslims as his evidence of that theory. The problem with using personal experience to make a generalization is one of sample size; I am certain that there were many good Germans who helped Jews escape or hide in Germany in the late 1930s and early 1940s, and yet, this doesn't negate the evil of the Nazi regime nor the complicity of most Germans. Likewise, there are accounts of white Southerners who assisted in freeing black slaves in the United States during the Civil War; this doesn't invalidate the proper generalization that the South was engaged in the vile and despicable institution of slavery.

There are a couple of points worthy of sharing... and commentary. First, as I mentioned to Samuel one day, Gerges completely missed the date on The Battle of Mogadishu (which he places in August 1993; in fact it was October of that year).

Let's go to the text, shall we? Regarding the Beruit bombing in 1983 that killed our Marines (page 87): "Telephone calls by an unknown group called Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility: 'We are the soldiers of God,' said a voice in classical Arabic on behalf of the mysterious group. 'We are neither Iranians, Syrians, nor Palestinians, but Muslims who follow the precepts of the Qur'an.'" (emphasis mine)

Is Jihad a personal duty of every Muslim? According to a militant named Abu-Jandal who fought in Bosnia (page 115-116): "By the time he departed from Bosnia a few months later, he viewed jihad as a permanent and personal duty, a pillar of Islam: 'There is a dilemma and a misunderstanding that most Muslims face. It can be summed up in that jihad has become merely a matter of thought for them, and they forgot that jihad is something that God has prescribed to us as a religious duty, like prayers, fasting, alms-giving, and pilgrimages.'" (emphasis mine) Got that? Jihad is as necessary as praying, according to God.

Later (page 126) Abu-Jandal recounts how they would offer condolences to friends who got married, because they couldn't run off and fight any more. Says Gerges: "The context of this notion is the Qur'anic verse in which Allah says that one cannot be a true Muslim unless one holds Allah and his messenger Mohammed in higher esteem than one's loved ones and one's material possessions." Which sounds a little bit like "Thou shall love the Lord your God above all" except Christians and Jews generally don't use this verse as justification for killing others.

In all, Gerges paints an almost schizophrenic analysis of militant Islam. He closes the book on a low note - after the invasion of Iraq, we've reached a low point of relations between Islam and the West, and he recounts this for us in his conversation with a militant named Kamal, who was very active in the early years of militancy in Egypt. According to Kamal (page 236): "Muslims feel they are facing an existential threat, a 'new Christian crusade allied with Jewish fundamentalism' whose goal is to neutralize Islam by discrediting 'positive Islamic values like jihad, fighting, martyrdom, and the idea that all Muslims belong to one ummah. The new crusade is targeting traditional Islam,' he said." (emphasis mine again)

Jihadist is an interesting, if just a fairly well-thought out book, whose inability to decisively summarize the nature of the conflict betrays a certain moral confusion of the author. Sadly, rather than focus on the problems inherent in Islam, most of the book portrays militancy as merely an effect of Western foreign policy.

But there's a good lesson to take away. We must look at the world as it is, and not as we remember it, or as we wish it to be.

Katrina + 1

Or, maybe better: The real lessons of a disaster.

Much has been said and will continue to be said about the Hurricane that hit New Orleans one year ago today. I have several issues with the reporting of the disaster anniversary which I guess should surprise no one.

I'm going to pull a few gems out of this article for your reading enjoyment. OK, let's be candid, they're for my editorial urges, but maybe you'll enjoy them too. "The tears were mixed with anger at officials who abandoned tens of thousands..." This statement is particularly offensive. Officials abandoned people there? Which officials? Were they there together, perhaps, and then the officials piled into their VW van and got the hell out of there as soon as they heard of the storm, but failed to warn the "tens of thousands"?

The MSM loudly bills Katrina as the greatest disaster to hit the United States. It was the most costly, and you'd have to go back to 1928 to find more deaths from a storm. But I think there's a bigger disaster, and I'll get to that thought in a minute.

Further, why in the world is President Bush accepting full responsibility? Because he failed to go door to door, reminding those people living in government-funded housing, collecting government-funded welfare that 1) a dangerous storm was coming and 2) they might want to get off their backsides and get the hell out of town? At one extreme, Bush could have had the city and area forcibly evacuated. At the other extreme, he could have literally done nothing (not the figurative nothing that everyone claims he did). But let's be candid: in either case, he would have been ripped from one end to the other. What exactly would have been the appropriate thing to do? Ask any individual, and their response would likely be self-focused: in other words, if I got out, I wouldn't be mad. But were people forced to stick around in the face of a category-5 storm? Can we really look at any person other than the ones who stayed as responsible for the outcome they are faced with? For Bush to accept "full responsibility" is just... plain... well, irresponsible. Yes, it is the politically comforting thing to do (after all, no one is going to hold him to this; there will be no charges or investigations into his "full responsibility") but in the end, it reinforces what the real disaster is here: rampant dependency and a lack of self-government. So much so that the very instinct of self-preservation is deadened in people. This still, to this day, shocks me.

Here at last is my point: we have a citizenry that is growing ever more dependent on "the government" (in whatever form is most conducive to the problem at hand) to do for them the things they should be doing for themselves. Can't pay your rent? Get the government to help. Can't feed and clothe your family? Get the government to help. Can't have the conscious awareness necessary to remove yourself from the path of a destructive force of nature? You get the idea.

I can only wonder: will this growing dependence end? Where and how? Can we really become more dependent as a people - is that possible? How, I wonder, could we?

So, put me down for a little bit of anger tonight as well, Dear Reader. I'm a little angry that the family unit has fallen apart so much so that people look to the government for their care, something that was once the domain of the family and the church. Let's not forget: that "government" is only in business because you and I work and pay those ever-growing taxes. Lost in all of this is the fact that we're sliding towards absolute despotism. If we lose, or if we cannot regain, that sense of self-government necessary for the success of a federal representative republic, we might as well admit that what we're supposed to have is no longer in the cards and that what we're going to have is socialism, pure and simple.

Oh, and must I smack you over the head with it? Which political party would you guess has spent the better part of the last thirty years doing whatever they can to undermine the importance of the family? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count.

The Real Islam?

I've posted links here before to the Patriot Post, a great resource for conservatives. I especially like the piece they just did on Islam, which is along the same lines of the piece I did here entitled The Problems With Islam.

I'm encouraging everyone I know to read up on the topic. We need a healthy dose of intellectual honesty - now, more than ever - if we're going to understand fundamental threats to our way of life and how to deal with them.

The Non-Response Response

So the calendar reads August 22, 2006, which was the long-anticipated day of reckoning for Iran with respect to its nuclear ambitions. Or, not.

The Iranians offered their response to the package of incentives offered by the West today, saying little and remaining ambiguous by design.

You can read all the, uh, riveting ambiguity here.

While Iran's negotiator indicated that they were prepared for serious talks as early as tomorrow, the Iranians have also intimated that they will not, repeat, not, give up their nuclear development program(s). This leaves us exactly where we were a week ago, two months ago, six months ago (you get the idea). Nothing has changed except the Iranians have altered the game.

We're now faced with a foot-dragging international community that will earnestly desire to debate the possible next steps with Iran (meanwhile, under 50 feet of concrete in the Iranian wasteland, scientists are not, repeat, not, taking the day off, and will continue to work on enriching uranium). In Iran's game of brinkmanship, they are hoping to delay, divide, and develop.

We're now in the delay phase, during which western powers and our friends Russia and China will wring our hands somberly over how to proceed with Iran. We will hear numerous accounts of how sincere the Iranians are.

The divide phase follows shortly after the delay phase. This is where Iran and her sympathizers will attempt to - and probably succeed - divide the UN Security Council, well-known for its collegial atmosphere and ability to "get things done." And of course, the endgame is de facto development.

When Iran can say "we have the bomb" a large percentage of the international community and even some well-meaning Americans will insist that Iran must thereafter be treated differently - after all, they have the bomb.

What these useful idiots don't understand is that Iran will use the bomb, or, sell it to someone who will. This won't be a rematch of the chess game that was the Cold War, despite this being the fantasy of every liberal America-hater (who are dying to shout: Finally! The Empire gets its comeuppance! Now we'll see how the Cowboy handles this one.). Instead, we will be dealing with an adversary that plays by a different set of rules, contrary to everything we think we know about human nature. This enemy desires mass murder, and, as a bonus, martyrdom; the threat of being killed in a retaliatory strike brings them no fear, or possibly, happiness.

We're entering a period of time in which inaction endangers our way of life. The difference between this standoff and the Cold War is that conservatives won't have the pleasure of telling liberals "we told you so."

Team Update

Well, Dear Reader, I got in touch with D. Webster this evening, and if you've missed him even half as much as I have, you'll be thrilled to hear that everyone is doing well, he's busier than a 1-armed wallpaper hanger, and they're finally getting a break from the heat in Oklahoma. It's been nice for the last week here in Illinois too, nothing higher than the mid 80s.

Poor Webster and his crew were working out in that 100 degree heat - mind your fluids, boys. Congrats are in order too, as he's been working on a really big job. And whereas some guys might not price 'em right, I know my pal Webster won't miss a thing.

Looking forward to having you back soon, DW. Until then, make hay while the sun shines.

Busted

This may slow me down a little folks. Yesterday evening I'm quite sure I broke the top segment of my left index finger.

I was rough-housing with my three-year old son, and he jumped up to run in the other room. His first step (and he's got an explosive first step, I see Notre Dame in his future) was right on my hand. The audible crack and the enormous swelling remind me of when I fractured the same segment of my right middle finger saluting Bill Clinton.

Nah, I got it caught in someone's shirt playing flag football. But Clinton-induced fatigue might have had something to do with it. Repetitive motion injuries, you know.

Anyway, the odd angle will be my left index's mark forever more. Funny how much you use a thing like your left index finger and don't even realize it until it hurts to do so.

DISCLAIMER: If you've got a weak stomach for reading about injuries stop here.

But this finger deal isn't that bad compared to an injury I had probably seven years ago...

I was in the gym, and was sitting on a flat bench getting ready to do a set of dumbbell flys. I had the weights resting on my thighs, leaning against each other, and decided I'd let go with my left hand to adjust my portable CD player. As you might have guessed by now, I became unbalanced, and the left weight slid down and smashed my right thumb between the handle of the right weight and the cast iron part of the left weight. Basically, I took a 60 pound piece of iron and a solid steel handle, and made a right thumb sandwich out of those.

I immediately put the weights back and returned to my apartment (I was living high-rise style, before kids came along). By this point, I'm bleeding more than a little, and it feels like my whole hand was throbbing. Which is how it felt for three days - nothing was able to chase that pain away. Of course I lost the nail, but it grew back nicely. Point is, imagine being right handed and not being able to use your right hand because the thumb has been tenderized. I struggled for a few days with that.

OK, enough injury stories for now. Unless you've got a good one, in which case, let 'er fly as my buddy Webster might say.

The Last Shall Be First and the First Last

Subtitled: The Role of the United States in the History of Israel
(or: Samuel has lost his mind)

To even the least observant among us, world events have, of late, brought one's attention unavoidably to the geographic, political, and eschatological center of the known universe--by that I mean, of course, Israel. It therefore behooves the more observant and productive among us to contribute to the universal discourse his thoughts on the matter. So, with the reader's leave, I beg of you all to allow me to go out on a limb, as it were, and put something to you afresh that you may or may not have yet considered. But first, a brief disclaimer...

ATTN: Anti-Semitic Lefitst reader; Everything I think and say is from the perspective of a God-fearing Christian whose Redeemer, a Jew, was slain by his kin and yet lives; and by Whose Blood I, a descendent of Viking barbarians, am made as one directly from the line of Abraham. So, get in, sit down, shut up, and hold on! (...'cause this is gonna get hairy.)

Now, where was I? Ah, yes, my spiel...(ahem) ...

When did the Enlightenment occur? When were the grand experiments on human liberty commenced in the old and the new worlds? Right, roughly between the beginning of the 17th Century and the end of the 18th century…to put it more broadly, sometime between the Diaspora and the middle of the 20th century. During this time, Israel was comfortably out of the picture and Zionism was under control.

Over the centuries leading up to 1947-1949, the world underwent the growing pains associated with the emergence of Liberty (at least as it is presently manifested in the United States). By this, I mean (and I beg your indulgence on my attempt at cramming hundreds of years of world history into a mustard seed husk) the Wittenberg Theses of Luther sparked the Reformation, giving rise to Protestantism; the Church Universal was toppled as supreme political power, launching nation states, energizing science and learning and industry, vastly expanding the literacy of the common people, thereby endangering monarchy and aristocracy.

The east falls to the left (atheistic communism, the State remains supreme ruler) and the west falls to the right (unalienable rights of man granted by the Creator, the individual rules the State, under God). England is slow to accept this Liberty-of-the-people business, and they pay for it dearly with the loss of America; The United States of America comes into being and grows and grows and grows, in size and in strength--especially in strength. The phoenix of Germany rises again and again and is struck down again.

Finally, after many centuries, with the help of the new United Nations, Israel returns to statehood in the midst of an arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union. Without the Soviet Union, USA is the major power in the UN, thereby becoming the default armorer of Israel. Immediately, Israel is attacked, and they quite convincingly crush their attackers… thanks to whom? The United States. Again and again, Israel is attacked, and each time they reclaim the land they once held without question before Babylon and Assyria came around thousands of years earlier.

The brief point I am making here is that, while Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, wherever they are, history has always been for the benefit of Israel; Liberty thrives for the benefit of Israel.

I surely must have stepped on more than a couple of toes out there, so I am dying to hear the reader's response to all my blarney. Seriously, I'd like this to be discussed honestly; please tell me how you feel and what you think.

Samuel Adams

Hey Look! A Guest Blogger!

Dear Reader, tonight you're in for a treat, and I'm in for a break. I'm going to post commentary by "Call Me Mom" a fellow Federalist Patriot who has been kind enough to grace us with her thoughts on current affairs.

Without further adieu, here's Mom.

"I was watching the Mike Wallace interview with the Iranian president the other evening. I think this interview was a test to see how the manipulation of the media can be used to the advantage of the nation of Islam. And guess what? It was pretty successful. The Iranian president says I want to do an interview with Mike Wallace, and Mike Wallace leaps at it. He presents himself as reasonable and says the most amazing things in a reasonable tone. He makes points about religious convictions (martyrdom, etc.) that seemingly go right over Mr. Wallace's head. He insults Mr. Wallace, saying "Oh are you giving me lessons in courage now?" and Mr. Wallace doesn't even bridle at the aspersion.

At no time in the interview does he have physical contact with Mr. Wallace, not so much as a handshake. That seems a little odd and quite adversarial to me. It also maintains his distance from the mainstream American media machine, while using it to manipulate foreign and domestic opinion. It says to Americans, "Look at me, I am perfectly reasonable and all the things liberals have been saying about American tendencies toward imperialism and greed are true" while saying to his own people, "I am doing my job as president, I have boldly told the American people that I will not bow down to their wishes", and giving the nation of Islam yet another message; "See how I can use their own media against them. I send them a message to convert and they are such fools that they don't even recognize it for what it is. See how even this veteran journalist doesn't know enough about his own faith, much less mine, to understand what I am saying." He successfully deflected any question that he didn't want to answer and made every point he wanted heard.

Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad was very impressive. He dressed in a way that would be appealingly upscale, yet casual. His answers were well rehearsed and appeared spontaneous rather than scripted. (A spontaneity supported by Mr. Wallace's insistence that he didn't ask for a list of the questions that would be asked beforehand-as though a 10 year old couldn't tell you what sorts of questions would be likely to come up in such an interview) Even his facial expressions were well controlled. If he were an American we could have presidential candidate material here. He is sincere. He is bold. He knows what every American wants to hear.

The more perplexing thing is Mr. Wallace's apparent lack of understanding of the fundamental gulf between our country and his, between Christianity and Islam. There was a point in the interview with Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad where he says he believes the United States is against Islam. Instead of acknowledging that as a Christian nation we have basic irresolvable issues with Islam, Mr. Wallace simply dismissed it with a "oh, that's not true" type of statement. As though he wanted to indicate that it is not possible to have differences with an entire religion or group, because that wouldn't be very nice. (And we all know that being nice is what America and Christianity is all about, right? May I suggest the book No More Christian Nice Guy to those who may have missed the sarcasm of the preceding sentence?) Mr. Wallace also seemed flustered and defensive throughout the interview. He seemed unaware that many statements had religious overtones that I, as a viewer, would've liked him to follow up on. Perhaps the main stream media really is oblivious to the fact that deeply religious people will hold their loyalty to God in higher regard than their loyalty and duty to any one government or people. Perhaps they don't get it that when a people's governmental goals align with their religious goals, it will be very difficult to stop them from achieving those goals, no matter how small the country.

The reason our governmental structure has been as successful as it has been, I believe, is because of it's Christian underpinnings. It is difficult to espouse freedom when your religion demands that everyone must convert or die. I would submit to Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad that my religion allows you to take your time and investigate other religions because it is the truth. "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." Christianity allows you to be of your "same opinion still" for as long as you have time in the world without threatening you with death if you don't convert immediately. Islam does not.

Mr. Wallace also missed several points where I thought, he is telling the truth, as he sees it. I have no doubt that he loves all the people of the world and wants them to get along peacefully - as members of Islam. I also have no doubt that what he thinks of as peaceful and what I think of as peaceful are not even close. I'm sure that he would regret the necessary deaths - of all infidels. Not enough to prevent them, because that would go against Islam, but he would regret it deeply that they chose not to swell the ranks of Islam by refusing to convert.

In his letter to President Bush, it seemed to me that there was a call to conversion throughout that letter. (Very evident in this passage on page 7: "Will you not accept this invitation? That is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets?" See here for the letter. Maybe I'm reading that incorrectly, but it seems like a call to the president to recognize Jesus as being just another prophet as Islam does, instead of being one part of a triune deity, which is the Christian belief.

I also found it very interesting to watch the segment on the 60 minutes web-site where Mr. Wallace is giving his "take" on the interview. He speaks with a closed body position, much stern hand shaking and anxious knee rubbing. When referencing Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad's insistence that the Jewish people should have been given Germany instead of Israel, Mr. Wallace has a smirky look on his face and there is a photo flashed of Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad greeting (or being greeted by) another man giving him a kiss. While I have heard that this is a perfectly acceptable greeting between two men in that culture, it is certainly a photo most likely to cause unfavorable associations in ours. My point is that when I watched the segment with the sound off, I received the impression that he is uneasy about the content of what he is saying and that the show had some hostility toward the Iranian president. Once I turned the sound on though, he was full of praise for the way the Iranian president conducted himself. See the segment at this link.

Perhaps this is the mainstream media's gut reaction to anyone of faith now, look interested and then make them look bad in editing. A rather passive-aggressive approach and perhaps they are truly unconscious of it in this case, but it was badly done.

I believe that this Iranian president is a deeply religious man who will act according to his principles. We know what those principles are. I think that given the opportunity, he would wipe Israel from the face of the Earth and us along with it in service to his God.

I could be wrong. I do tend to look at things from a Biblically centered perspective (at least I try to). I may be reading too much religion into the whole situation between our countries. After all, I'm not psychiatrist, an intelligence officer, an elected official, a journalist, a Biblical scholar or even a veteran. (My thanks and prayers go out to those who serve.) I'm just a Midwestern mom who is trying to stay informed."

OK, it's Alex again: Thanks Mom, I think you're not alone in your impressions of the Iranian President. I've said as much here before: we really ought to take this guy at his word. I hope you don't mind I edited a little and made some of your links embedded in the post.

For the record, you don't have to be any of the above professionals to understand what's going on in the world. You need to have brains in your head and the heart - the courage - to use them. Lots of experts possess the former, yet imperil Freedom with wrong assumptions due to a lack of the latter. I've heard Dr. Rice's comments replayed two days running now that we should "hope" that Hizbollah lays down their arms, but that it is not our job (that of the UN, specifically) to disarm them. If that's the best we've got - if we're reduced to hoping that tyranny will leave peace-loving people alone - we're doomed.

The Problems With Islam

I've been unsure if I'd find the right words to express how I've been feeling about Islam. Of all people I have to thank for my changing views of the "Religion of Peace", would you believe me if I told you it was the President who got me thinking about it in the first place?

It started back when Bush had a Ramadan celebration at the White House.

How odd that he was the first, I recall thinking. One would think that surely Clinton would have had the first celebration, but maybe the White House was booked full (after all, it's the holidays, and rooms fetch a premium at that time of year) during the Clinton years.

I couldn't quite put my finger on what bothered me about it, until one of my brothers in this blog pointed it out (Samuel or Webster, sorry guys, I can't remember which of you it was): to speak and act as if Islam is a legitimate religion is intellectually dishonest. Now, I'm certain that those weren't the exact words used, but that's the gist of it.

See, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the "big three" - the three largest monotheistic religions, and furthermore, all claim to worship the same God. That, my friends, is the rub. We know quite obviously that Jews and Christians worship the God of Israel: the one true God. We share a common faith heritage, namely what Christians call the Old Testament. I'm not a scholar on Islam - yet - so I can only speak in generalities of what I know of that religion, through limited study and personal observation, and the Quran.

I've read certain passages of the Quran and it advocates beliefs and actions that are inconsistent with the one true God as revealed in the Old and New Testaments. To claim that the same all-powerful, all-knowing God would offer such different guidance (on even seemingly mundane topics, such as divorce) is illogical. My growing conviction is that the religion of Islam is false. This doesn't mean that there aren't many very good Muslims who certainly just want to raise their families in peace and in fear of God.

Personal observation over the last twenty years also leads one to the natural conclusion that the violent tendencies of Islam - in the name of Islam - are incompatible with the one true God; not, however, that one needs twenty years of history to come to that conclusion. Apologists will of course suggest that there are extremist elements in all religions, yet, Jews and Christians (nor Hindus or Buddhists, for that matter) aren't routinely killing "infidels" in the name of their religion. It just doesn't happen.

So what does this mean? I'm not sure yet. I'm planning on diving into some reading on the topic, that's for sure. Before I become inflexible in my resolution, I need to be sure that the evidence supports my position. I am left contemplating three thoughts. First, that when the President has a Ramadan celebration at the White House, or when well-meaning people accept Islam as a valid religion like their own, there is some damage being done: Truth is being devalued. Second, there's a whole other group of well-meaning people who erroneously view current events as a struggle for the "soul of Islam" - some ideological battle being waged between extremists and every other normal practicing Muslim. And third, that tyranny cloaked in religion is still tyranny - and our deference to religious sentiment is extremely dangerous. We give religious beliefs a pass, because of our heritage and the overwhelming connection people have of religion being something positive. That religion in the form of Islam is a source of wrong is something that people must realize before they are able to cast off their politically correct shackles that don't permit criticism of religious beliefs.