Obama '08

So it appears that the Senator from the once-proud state of Illinois (a/k/a the Land of Lenin, f/k/a the Land of Lincoln) is mulling a run for the Presidency in 2008. He was on "Meet the Press" today and you can read the story here.

My first thought on the matter was: I must debate this Osama character.

From the distinguished Senator's website:

"He believes firmly that health care should be a right for everyone, not a privilege for the few."

"Senator Obama is committed to providing every American with the opportunity to receive a quality education, from pre-kindergarten to college or vocational school to job retraining programs." (he's providing?)

And, especially,

"Senator Obama played a key role in the crafting of the immigration reform bill that the Senate passed in May 2006. The bill, which President Bush supports, would provide more funds and technology for border security and prevent employers from skirting our laws by hiring illegal immigrants. The bill also would provide immigrants who are now contributing and responsible members of society an opportunity to remain in the country and earn citizenship."

Of course, he's an intelligent man, for everyone will tell you so. Yet, I fear that a side effect of his smarts is that he's convinced himself of so much that isn't true.

I hold out hope that the Senator weighs his chances and decides against it. But if he decides to run, I challenge him, here and now, to a debate on the issues above or any of his choosing. I am sublimely confident that inexperience notwithstanding, I'd give him a debate he wouldn't soon forget.

THE MONARCHIST ADDS: As of this weekend (11/5/06), the man with nothing on him finally admits some remorse over his dealings with IL power broker and confidence man Tony Rezko. As Borat would say: Niiice.

Sweet Sally O'Malley!

I can't remember who, but that was a refrain uttered by a SNL character some years ago in disbelief at some state of events.

Thanks to your pal and mine Mr. Light Bulb for posting this on his blog, here's a link to what the House of Representatives might be up to should it return to the Democrats.

Be sure to check on the "about" information at the bottom half of that link. I don't know about you, but someone who votes with the Anti-Christian Lawyers (affect a Southern drawl and pronounce: Liars) Union 100% of the time seems a little... out of the mainstream.

Share this information with as many people as you possibly can, even if you've had it up to here (gestures) like I have with the GOP. At least they're not going to actively destroy the country.

The Silly Season

I've heard the period just before elections called this before, and any semi-conscious observer can readily see why. Up becomes down. Black becomes white. You get the idea.

For your entertainment pleasure, check out this political ad, which you're probably not going to see on a television near you anytime soon (courtesy of the Patriot Post). Although a little, well, silly (esp. Madame changing a tire) the underlying message is a good one.

Take it from me, I'm as disillusioned as anyone you could possibly meet about the GOP (the three of us created this blog because the GOP is driving us nuts, for Pete's sake), and yet, I recognize that until there is a viable conservative alternative, the GOP is the best option we've got.

Offensive, indeed

With all of the breathless revelation that Bush considers Iraq something akin to the Tet Offensive, no one has bothered to read into his comments. At least, no one with the brains enough to know their history.

Read the link, if you're not aware of the history, but here's the quote that pays:

"The Tet Offensive is frequently seen as an example of the value of propaganda, media influence and popular opinion in the pursuit of military objectives."

Enjoy.

It's fun to stay at the...

...M-C-A! I tell you, Dear Reader, this stuff just writes itself.

You can read about the MCA of 2006 right here.

Of course, the MDM has whipped itself into a lather over the inevitable human rights abuses. **yawn** Oh, excuse me! What's that you say? Oh, that? That's mentally deranged media, something I think I lifted from the Michael Savage show.

It's funny that the Left is troubled by this. Remember how smug they were when Hamdan v. Rumsfeld was decided? Which, for the record, was one of the more ridiculous rulings in recent memory? This was the Court's desired response.

But for the Appeasement National Committee, no terrorist is safe until we're forced to provide 48 hours notice that we plan to attack them.

Memo to the Demos: the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Let's all just moveon.org, shall we?

Were I Beelzebub

Thanks to semosmile for pointing me the way to Hell. Here is my own version of Perdition...

Update: I have...edited my list of the damned. Behold...

Mike Matisow, The New York Yankees, PETA Members, Ted Turner, Phil Helmuth, Democrats
Circle I Limbo

Senator Byrd, Militant Vegans, Barbara Streisand, Al Franken
Circle II Whirling in a Dark & Stormy Wind

Cynthia McKinney, Harry Reid, John Murtha, Chuck Shumer
Circle III Mud, Rain, Cold, Hail & Snow

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, The San Jose Sharks
Circle IV Rolling Weights

Bill Clinton, Oakland Raider Fans
Circle V Stuck in Mud, Mangled

River Styx

Nanci Pelosi, Osama bin Laden, Dennis Rader
Circle VI Buried for Eternity

River Phlegyas

John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Tim Parry
Circle VII Burning Sands

Hugo Chavez, LBJ, Hillary Rodham Clinton, NAMBLA Members
Circle IIX Immersed in Excrement

Uday Hussein, Qusay Hussein, Saddam Hussein, marc with a c, Kim Jung Il
Circle IX Frozen in Ice

Design your own hell

Encounter with Marxism

There is a gentleman out there for whom Mr. Webster, The Monarchist, and I hold in an esteem that few can match; and those that manage to usually need an oxygen tank and a sherpa. His name is Michael Hargis, and he has intimated to us that he has something to share with "you people" as our second guest writer. So, without further ado, here is Mr. Hargis to ... lay down some knowledge.

A few weeks ago I met a socialist. I don't mean an American-style liberal; I'm talking about a genuine, dyed-in-the-wool True Believer. This guy could quote Marx, Hegel, and Marcuse with the same facility which my hosts here quote the Founding Fathers. I was very excited and tried to engage him in debate about human nature and the moral superiority of liberty, but he was mostly interested in looking down his nose at me. I was unable to find any common ground with him whatsoever. My idea of liberty was nothing but a form of slavery to him; his notions of a scientifically planned society and economy were silliness and wishful thinking to me. I did gain some insight into how Marxism attracts followers, however, particularly the type of followers it attracts.

My socialist friend is an elitist, which may strike some as odd in light of the fact that Marxism is an anti-elitist philosophy, at least on its face. He isn't a social elite (Kennedy, Rockefeller), nor is he an economic elite (Gates, Soros), but rather an intellectual elite. To accept and believe in the idea that society can be "scientifically" planned in such a way as to benefit everyone, and even change human nature, requires a monstrous ego and an absolute faith in the human intellect. Marxism thus appeals to those who think they're smarter than the rest of us. Here's another little ray of light into Marxist thinking: My friend said (I paraphrase here) "Of course I think the evolution from feudalism to capitalism was a good thing. I just don't think the revolution is over." This was in response to my observation that socialist/communist societies in the 20th century have largely been economic failures, especially compared with countries that have been closer to the capitalism end of the economic spectrum. In other words, these actual failures aren't proof of any sort of theoretical failure. They are only imperfect first attempts. Think about that for a minute. If consistent failure can be dismissed by saying, "Oh, they just didn't do it right," then the socialist can never be proven wrong. Thomas Edison made thousands of unsuccessful attempts to create a light bulb before he hit upon the right combination of elements. Rather than consider these failures, he instead said that he'd learned thousands of different ways in which it wouldn't work. Marxists think exactly the same way. For these True Believers, hope always lies in the future.

In closing, allow me to direct your attention to Hong Kong. After World War II, Great Britain assigned John Cowperthwaite to direct Hong Kong's miserable financial affairs. He was so committed to a policy of non-interference that he refused to collect economic statistics for fear that they would provide incentive to meddle in private affairs. The result of this non-interference was that within a few decades Hong Kong was richer and freer by far than her colonizer, Great Britain. Hong Kong's current leader, Donald Tsang, has vowed to continue this policy, except in those areas where "there are obvious imperfections in the operation of the market mechanism."

Raise your glass to Hong Kong, because it will never be the same. There are True Believers everywhere, and for them the revolution is defintely not over.

Michael Hargis

Missing the point on Foley

Generally I hold the folks at the Federalist Patriot in very high esteem. Of course, there was the time....well, no need to break the scab on an old wound. ;) And of course, the Federalist staff ain't there to entertain and please me specifically. But I have a bone to pick with them that I just can't seem to let go; that I think insults the intelligence of their readership in general, not just me as a part of that readership particularly. I alluded to this in a recent post to the ppb, and here, by your leave, dear reader, I'm gonna take the opportunity to follow up a bit.

In keeping with the style and content of their article on the Foley "scandal," the writers seem to be under the impression that the readership there at the Federalist Patriot -- generally quite an intelligent audience -- somehow needs to be reminded of, not only the exploits of certain scoundrels who have in the past, or do currently, occupy seats in the legislative and executive branches of our national government, but also the way these particular scoundrels in question handle(d) their own misdeeds, and those of their fellow compatriots.

First of all, my problem with that style and angle of approach is that the readership at the Federalist Patriot, once more, being a pretty bright and engaged bunch, certainly doesn't need to be reminded of the exploits of these individuals, nor of the way in which they handled their particular scandal(s). Second, such an approach not only completely misses the mark, from my view of the target, but in so doing it also insults the intelligence of the readership.

Now, in the words of a friend, I hate to sound like a broken record here. But don't we all sound like broken records when it comes to our particular, sometimes peculiar, perspective on a given subject? So, let me rephrase....

At the risk of firing yet another round thru' the same hole -- a risk I'm perfectly willing to take in this case -- while Congressman Foley is solely responsible for his own actions/indiscretions, the great weight of the responsibility for his acting out on his inordinate behaviorisms while holding the entrusted position of U.S. Congressman, falls squarely on the shoulders of the electorate populating his district in the State of Florida. Now, I ain't gonna take the time, nor exert the effort to do a background check on Congressman Foley -- that, again, was originally up to the good people in Foley's Congressional district. But now, as we all know, a Congressional investigation is underway, the justice department is sure to get involved, and etc. -- so much for reducing the size and reach of government, eh? But I'd lay good money down that he's left plentya signs along the way. As they say: "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and so on....it's probably a duck."

If the people of this country truly wish to reduce the size and scope of the federal government, while simultaneously effecting gains in its efficiency, one thing they/we must do is accept the initial responsibility of learning all we can about the person(s) seeking to represent us in Congress. Either way, whether they simply neglected to do so, or they chose to ignore certain tell-tell signs, the responsibility for Foley's actions as their representative in Congress, not as an individual, is all on the shoulders of those who elected him. And as is invariably the case, their initial neglect has placed an undue burden on their fellow citizens at large, just as a parent's neglect to properly love and discipline a child has similar effects at length.

The people of Foley's Congressional district should take this latest scandal very personally indeed. Foley was their representative, duly elected by them, after all. And the way democrats have historically come to the aid of their own wounded ducks has very little to do with it, except this -- the people who elected those democrats to represent them, elected their character, among other things. They didn't check their vices at the State border when they went to Washington! Washington simply exposed those vices to the nation, and the nation to the dangers inherent in ignoring them at the lower levels.

That's the point.

-Daniel Webster

THE MONARCHIST ADDS: I added some links, DW. I hope you don't mind, and I hope it directs the reader to the specifics on what you're talking about. As DW knows, I'm reading Team of Rivals right now, which probably isn't the editorial staff's favorite book (hint, hint).

Conquest of America, Part II, The Anniversary of Katrina

Welcome back, good reader, to a second installment of a series we American Federalists are running called "Conquest of America." The last time we talked on the matter, we discussed who might be the enemy that conquers America. In short, we came to the conclusion that the conquerer is within. Tonight, I'd like for us to discuss in a little more detail the manner in which the conquest takes place.

Just as the absence of a person's right is the inevitable consequence of the absence of his responsibility, the most effective way to usurp the liberty of a free people is to remove the people's motivation to govern themselves. What will this look like when it is accomplished? It is the entitlement mentality, and it is already hear. It is plainly seen in the history of those who fled Louisiana for Houston and in the sad behavior of many of the people who died in New Orleans.

By-and-large, the survivors of Katrina fled without the need to be alerted again because they were well-prepared to handle adversity; either to return and build anew or to start fresh elsewhere, confident in their own abilities to provide for themselves and their families or willing to reach out for help and committed to earning the real kindnesses of their fellow American freeman.

Others (and you'll have to pardon my French-Canadian for a moment) bitched and moaned until government rolled over to expose its teat yet again, and took advantage of your forced generosity to pay for lap dances and cheap booze in cities from Houston to Dallas to Kansas City to Minneapolis, Chicago, Pittsburgh, New York, and every where in between. They have made their marks in the telescoping crime rates and the 100+ increase in murders in cities like Houston. Has the socialism of NOLA prepared them to wreak havoc on their generous American neighbors?

Still others--and this is the saddest and truest legacy of a conquered people--stayed behind to tough it out because they just could not see how they could get by without their regular delivery of welfare...come Hell or high water.

When it comes time to remember Katrina again, remember who was least "prepared."

Why Libertarians have it wrong

Generally, I can appreciate the motives and designs of Libertarians. They're generally smart, and truly interested in extending Liberty - particularly free markets. In addition, someone I truly respect and admire would call himself a Libertarian, so I have a healthy amount of respect for them as a group.

But they're missing the boat when it comes to government, and here's why.

Take a gander at the Cato Institute web site (really: do it, it's very informative) and it won't take long to see what they are all about. Here's the mission:

"Cato's Mission

The Cato Institute seeks to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets and peace. Toward that goal, the Institute strives to achieve greater involvement of the intelligent, concerned lay public in questions of policy and the proper role of government." (emphasis mine)

On the surface, not so bad. But dig a little deeper and you'll see where Libertarians and Federalists differ (besides the fact that one of the lead articles on the Cato site is why Libertarians might consider breaking ties with the GOP and supporting... Democrats? Dear Lord!).

Now, there's no comparable Federalist think-tank, with perhaps the exception of the Federalist Society. That this is primarily a group of lawyers sort of makes it... less accessible than Cato. But here's the meat of their mission:

"The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be." (emphasis mine)

And here we have the crux of the issue: between limited government and balanced government, balance in government is primary in both order and importance. Balanced government, upon a thoughtful reflection, is the evident cause of a limited government; balanced government will lead naturally to limited government. The equation does not work in the inverse.

I've quoted Federalist 45 here before (most recently, here) but we'd do well to remember the importance of balance in government. If domestic matters are the sole domain of the states (limited exceptions apply; although this itself merits a separate discussion, suffice it to say in brief that in matters of inalienable rights, the general government is charged with the protection of our God-given rights), it follows that the relationship or interplay between taxation & spending and free markets will lead to a competition between the states for human capital.

Some states, of course, might wrongly choose to have unlimited government, and assume a great influence in the domestic matters of the people; however, such a burden - carried by the people of that state as it must be - will in short time become cumbersome and effect in the citizenry a fondness of and return to self-government. Such a sentiment will naturally lead to a change in elected governors who will promote this sentiment of the people.

Not to mention naturally leading to a government best described as limited.

Government Spending

A pretty good discussion was going on over at the Patriot Post Blog, and I thought I'd expand upon my thoughts on the matter here.

There are two very compelling arguments against a strict interpretation of what the Constitution prescribes as the proper domain of the federal government with respect to spending.

The first is that not all Constitutional law is derived from the Constitution, and that indeed one would find that the majority is derived from case law. Without getting into a long dissertation on the value of stare decisis, I think that most spending reform can be accomplished via duly enacted legislation. That's the "democratic process" that constructionists are always referring to when railing against liberal activism in the judiciary, and there's no reasonable basis to suppose that while the genius of our system has been used to lurch ever leftward towards socialism, that the reverse cannot be accomplished using the same mechanisms.

The second argument against a strict interpretation is a little bit harder to refute, but it can be done. It is that where there are powers enumerated, there are also powers implied. There was a great debate early in our founding between Jefferson and Hamilton regarding the constitutionality of a national bank. The Republican didn't want such an institution; the Federalist did. Unless you've been living under a rock your whole life, Hamilton obviously won that debate, and he won it by asserting this same argument. The only problem with this argument - despite its validity - is that it was subsequently used by elected representatives who knew not, or cared not, in what spirit the Constitution was ratified. In other words, sound reasoning was essentially hijacked by inferior minds, or by ill-intentioned characters.

It is evident when we carry ourselves back to the time when the debates on ratification happened that there are clear distinctions between the domains of the federal and the state. I would strongly recommend the Federalist Papers to anyone who is interested in the topic but hasn't read these indispensable essays. Federalist #45 applies in this case, which I quote here:

"The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them."

The American Federalist position (if such a term must be used) on government spending, then, is evident in the above guidance. A return to the plain meaning of our Constitution by all branches at the federal and local levels of government would yield the right and proper result.

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.

I Just Might Get the Hang of This

I'm experimenting, so bear with this seemingly pointless post.

First I want to send out thanks to a kindred spirit, Mr. Light Bulb. Excuse the corny joke, but this is one bright dude. Check out his blog when you get a chance. As soon as I figure out how to add links to other sites here, his will be one that you ought to visit regularly, Dear Reader. Particularly, enlightening - shall we say (I'm going to stop with the bad jokes. I promise.) - was his post on Fauxtography.

OK, I'm off for the evening.

The Two Threats

As I've mentioned before in this space, it is my firm conviction that there are two primary threats to Liberty in America today. Now, candidly, these threats endanger all freedom-loving people, but as they threaten America, the last best hope of humankind, everything else is irrelevant.

Both forces possess the ability to seriously undermine, and destroy, the Republic; having given this some thought, I'm still unable to determine which is the greater threat.

The first is Islamofascism. Our asymmetric foe - who has no home nation we can strike and fights under a different set of rules than we do - is single-mindedly focused on our destruction, and the lackluster support for our efforts in Iraq bodes ill for the sustainability of a long war. The second is Liberalism, or Leftism, if you prefer. This internal threat, this fifth column, undermines the foundations of our Republic: the Judeo-Christian values and institutions necessary for the survival of a republic.

With the luxury of leisure time, I'm going to devote some energy to delving into these two threats in greater detail. In particular as it relates to the internal threat, I'm reminded of a quote from President Washington:

"The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained."

We are not yet lost. There is time, still, to redeem ourselves and ensure the blessings Liberty are not lost forever, and that future generations do not curse us for our cowardice. The effort will be enormous, and yet it couldn't be any simpler: all it will take is for good people to act and Providence to smile upon us.

More from the Religion of Peace

Saw this picture on Yahoo, and quite frankly, I'm shocked. They must not be practitioners of the "real" Islam.

Here's the AP caption: "Palestinian gunmen, who identified themselves as members of the Islamic Jihad group, shoot a man in a public square in the West Bank town of Jenin Sunday Aug. 13, 2006. The man, who was executed in front of hundreds of people, was accused by the gunmen of giving information to Israeli authorities, helping them to kill two militants last week in a targeted attack, said witnesses and Islamic Jihad members. The victim was identified as Bassem Malah, 22, who worked in the Israeli Arab town of Umm al Fahm. (AP Photo/Mohammed Ballas)"

I am certain that he received a trial by jury in the District Court of his choosing. No, wait, that's the rights that terrorists have in the United States. My mistake, but you can see how it would be an easy one to make.

Pro-Family

I'm always astonished when something even remotely pro-family comes out of Hollywood. Which is all the more reason I was surprised by "Little Miss Sunshine" - a movie with a very strong pro-family message.

This is not a movie for kids. The language can be very rough, and the situations are for an adult audience. But the characters - this collection of misfits - learn to pull together for each other and demonstrate the importance of family.

I promise that "Alex's Movie Recommendations" will not become a part of this blog, but I felt compelled to pass along some good news. It's not all garbage, after all, coming out of Hollywood.

Like We CAIR

Ah yes, at least their anger is directed in the right place...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060810/us_nm/security_usa_muslims_dc

I've got some advice - no charge for this, boys - for the folks at CAIR: a little anger at that number of your religion that uses violence either just because they hate the West, or because they want global Sharia, might make you a little more credible with your average non-Muslim.

I'm still waiting for the rush of outraged Muslims to come forward and denounce terror.

(Crickets chirping)

Anyone? Hello?

Based upon the number of callers to the Michael Medved show who thought this was either part of a conspiracy or a manipulative power grab by the Project for a New American Century, we're appallingly uneducated in this country on the nature of our enemy and what they want.

Let's take a moment and reflect on what might have been - and I'm of the opinion that murder and attempted murder shouldn't be treated any differently. Reports now say that as many as 10 airliners were potentially part of the plot. This would have been right up there with 9/11 from a shock value and mass-murder standpoint.

Let's all take some time to thank God that this was stopped and pray that He continue to bless this Republic and keep His people from harm.

Further Evidence, Unnecessary

Check out the link to the story below:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060810/ap_on_re_eu/britain_terror_plot

It appears that a major terror plot was just foiled by the British, and we've moved to red on the warning system. This is a breaking story this morning, so there'll probably be a lot more on it as the day progresses.

Finding Moral Clarity

If you check out my profile, you'll see that one of my favorites is A War Like No Other by VDH. The guy's website is great too, and here's a link to a must-read analysis of the conflict in the Middle East:

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson080406.html

Anyone who is unclear on the moral issues at stake in the conflict between terror and freedom should read this piece. Correction: everyone should read this piece. I'm pretty clear on the right and wrong and I still enjoyed his ability to get to the heart of the matter.

You've heard it from me before, and I'll say it again: this is clash-of-civilizations type of serious. We're staring down a major confrontation with Islam, like it or not. We appease, we delay, we postpone such a reckoning at our own peril; the threat only gets bigger with each passing day. And shame on American politicians who suggest neutrality in the conflict. There's not a more despicable position than looking the other way as an ally is threatened because we're too cowardly to face the brutal facts of reality.

Does this sound familiar?

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist--so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat--so I did nothing. Then they came for the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew--so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left who could stand up for me."

Martin Niemöller, a Protestant minister, who was an opponent of the Nazis.

(source: http://www.humanities.uci.edu/~rmoeller/body/lec2_ns.html)

One of My Favorite Stories

I'm reminded of this story because Katie's Dad at Unabashedly Unhyphenated (http://www.americankernel.com/) just got into a car accident (best wishes for a speedy recovery, Katie's Dad).

Ten years ago I was getting ready for my wedding in early May, and decided I'd make a lunchtime trip to the mall for something for my bride-to-be. It wasn't a big deal, nothing special (not wedding-related), but I wanted to get her a little something she'd find funny (I'm pretty sure it was a t-shirt).

I'm doing forty mph on a four lane road, with no dedicated turn lanes (left lane is for left turn, or straight through the light). I was in the right lane, and there was traffic backed up (3-4 cars and a large cargo van) waiting to turn left at the intersection I was approaching. There's a slight bend in the road, which obviously obscured me from the vision of someone who intended to turn left in front of me. He was obscured from my vision too, and only too late to see each other did we hit, almost head on (I hit the front right of his car, he the front-left to center of my front bumper).

We ended up on the far curb, out of the intersection. Luckily, I was wearing my seatbelt (I'm almost religious in my insistence that people in my car wear them) and doubly lucky, the airbag went off. After I pushed the thing out of my face and reached for my phone in the glovebox (there was a time when cell phones were too big to carry around and they were solely for emergency), I staggered out of my car to check on the other guy.

He's staggering out of his car when I see him and ask: are you OK? Which he answers in the affirmative when he takes off running down the middle of the street in the direction from which I just came. Not a good sign, so I elected to stay with my car and not give chase.

Later, the cops would pick him up. No license, no insurance, not his car, not even in the country legally. Lucky me.

What's my point? Not much, except I think it's a good story. Plus it was my first run-in (pun intended) with the costs of illegal immigration. The friction burn from the airbag was gone from my neck by the time of the wedding a couple weeks later - a small price to pay for getting to tell the story every now and then.

Hey, this blog can't be all political, can it? Check out my disclaimer above before you contact the complaint department.

Tyranny's New Look

Is it just me or does this guy seem to get more extreme every day?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_ISRAEL?SITE=PAYOK&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

It's important to resist the urge to describe this man, or his comments, as crazy, insane, or anything of that color. Although civilized people flinch in the face of such candor, and desperately search for some other explanation for his words and actions, it's important to not dismiss him as mentally imbalanced. Ahmadinejad truly believes that Israel should be wiped off the map. He's said so enough times.

Let's take him at his word.

I must stress that we're facing a threat bigger than most people are willing or educated enough to acknowledge. First, the goal of Islam is world-wide Sharia; rule under Muslim law. Every practicing Muslim wants this. Second, a certain percentage deems any actions under the sun justifiable to achieving those ends. If all infidels must be killed to achieve the goal, that's OK with them (and you can call this group Jihadists, Islamofascists, whatever tickles your fancy). Third, the rest of the Islamic world disagrees with the tactics of the Jihadists, but is willing to see if holy war can make it happen.

This is truly a clash of civilizations on the grandest of scales, and we dismiss the severity of it at our own peril. This iteration of the struggle between fascism and freedom has the potential to make WWII look like a playground fight.

An Extraordinarily Bad Idea

Can't get people interested in the political process because it's driven by big moneyed interests, and you want to find a way? Apparently the people of Arizona have engaged a consultant: Harrah's. Or maybe it's Trump Atlantic City.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/V/VOTER_REWARD?SITE=TXHAR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

So, the "voter lottery" would give one citizen a cool million just for voting.

Now, let's look at this in it's most basic terms. Voting is both a right and responsibility. As citizens, we choose our governors: this is a right of citizenship. The corresponding responsibility is to choose wise and virtuous leaders; to make educated voting decisions: this is our responsibility.

The proposal set for a vote this November trivializes this remarkably important aspect of civic duty to a virtual game of chance. I'm not surprised, however. There is an overwhelming sense of entitlement (just check out the comments of Mark Osterloh in the article, if you don't believe me), and a great book on the topic is Something For Nothing by Brian Tracy. Better yet, read that.

May an epidemic outbreak of common sense strike the people of Arizona and may they roundly reject such folly come November 7.

Greatest Presidents

As I've probably mentioned more than a few times, I'm reading the outstanding biography of our 16th President, Lincoln: A Life of Purpose and Power, by Richard Carwardine. Fast-paced and easy reading, I'd recommend it to anyone with even a passing interest in American history.

Lincoln was an amazing leader, and I'm more than a little ashamed to admit that there wasn't much I knew about him (chalk it up to a public school education, if you must have a reason, Dear Reader). He has grown considerably in my mind, to say the least.

So, I've been thinking, if I had to rate the five greatest Presidents, what would that list look like? Highly unscientific, here's mine, and please share yours as well.

1. George Washington
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. Ronald Reagan
4. Harry Truman
5. George W. Bush

The first two are really no-brainers, but I'll elaborate if you insist. Reagan won the Cold War, revisionist nonsense aside. He's the greatest modern President, hands-down. Truman I respect a lot for his courage to use the Bomb. A lot of people tried to convince him otherwise, and taking Japan conventionally might have cost a million more lives. War is a brutal thing, and not for the faint of heart. Which brings us to Bushie, as my dry cleaner calls him (as in: "Oh, Bushie, he try so hard. I don't like that other guy with the mean face." Of course, she was speaking of Jean-Francois Kerry). He was the right guy at the right time. As much as he drives me nuts with this "compassionate conservatism" idiocy, he's done a fine job prosecuting the war on Fascism.

On 9/12/01, if you asked people how likely they thought it was we'd have another terrorist attack, and would it be worse than 9/11, I think you'd have had affirmative responses probably 7 or 8 times out of ten.

P.S. I left out FDR because although he led this Republic through one of the most challenging periods in history, his failure to recognize the threat of Soviet ambition (and spies like Alger Hiss in his employ) exposed this same Republic to the threat of nuclear destruction for the better part of forty years.

Kerry Proposes Mansions for Every Person in North America

OK, not exactly, but the general idea is there.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/K/KERRY_HEALTH_CARE?SITE=TXCLU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Yes, he would want the Federal government to pay for this if people couldn't afford it. Yes, he'd repeal the Bush tax cuts for people earning over $200,000 (said cuts also known as the "Great Economic Growth Engine That Foiled a Terrorist-Attack Induced Recession") to help pay for this. Yes, Karl Marx would be proud.

I'm completely stunned that Democrats can say things like this and not be called out on it. How abysmally bad at math are reporters, anyway? A cynic might say that as long as a politician tows the Leftist line, they get a free pass to say whatever they want without someone pointing out how idiotic they sound. That's what a cynic might say, but since I'm not one, I won't.

Forget the math for a minute (as hard as that might be). Forget the pass that the Demos get from the MSM (because that's just old news). Does the average American realize that Kerry's talking about socialism here? And can someone - anyone - please point out to me a free society that has successfully chosen and implemented socialism and is better off for it?

The Demos whine about the big government that Republicans want. The Republicans whine about the big government that Demos want. I've got a solution: let's elect some Federalists and have no big government. After all, with both classes of kleptocrats unhappy, isn't that the definition of a good compromise?