Finish the Mission

Once you come to really understand and accept the fact that Islamo-Fascism represents a real threat to the United States, it is easy to see that the situation in Iraq is arguably the best position we could hope for. First, we have taken the fight to the enemy - people are dying in Iraq, not America. Al'Qaeda leadership considers the Iraqi conflict to be the pinnacle/center of thier global "jihad," dazzling proof of which is the recent letter between two of thier chief leaders. Now- I'm obviously not advocating the deaths of people in Iraq, but its better that our volunteer soldiers die in a combat situation on distant shores than civilians in America, i.e. 9/11. Secondly, the insurgents from all over the area are coming to Iraq in order to fight in the conflict. Its like a magnet for the radical elements of Islam. So instead of searching everywhere to hunt them down (Vietnam) they are coming right to us. Democrats are obviously not considering what would be the natural result of a pull-out from Iraq. We would just be leaving a festering swamp of America hatred and waiting for it to come back to our homeland. They have no logical strategy for National Defense, and asking for pullout from Iraq is proof-positive of that.

Given these facts, let us ask what would be the most hurtful thing to America the Democrats could be doing right now. Well - to be brief, precisely what they are doing. You see, you have to understand, a U.S. failure in Iraq constitutes a failure of President Bush and the Republican party, and a colossal opportunity to seize power for Democrats. That is the central fact you have to keep in mind as an observer of America right now - failure for Bush equals victory for Democrats. And putting people in power who have sold out to to the religion-hating, no-rules, liberal agenda in exchange for use of thier propaganda network to slander Bush and those who are doing all they can to keep us safe, is definately not a good thing.

So in contrast to the power-craven Democrats who would kill our troops, I say to the Administration, finish the mission. Enforcing a timeline for pulling out of Iraq is the worst thing we can do. It encourages the insurgents, would result in more of our soldiers dying (in the short term), and jeopardize the success for which so many have already died. Finish the mission, anything less is failure.

Political Spin Machine

The poliitical spin machine rages on here in our great nation. It is simple and consists of two components, deception and ignorance. And it is striking vicious blows against the public good all across America.

Briefly, I will illustrate the process.

- Politicians present certain issues to the public in such a way which leads people to incorrect conclusions. This is done purposely, and is called "Spin." I will present several recent cases of this below. The key thing to understand with this, is that it would never work without the media behind them. If the news programs were regularly exposing this deception, Americans would see through these politicians to thier dark motives, and they would decline in power and influence. However, in the current state of affairs, liars are rarely called out - so it only works with media support.

- Those who are educated and informed generally are not taken by this partisan sleight-of-speech. Many Americans, however, hear the ridiculous "Bush lied, people died" rhetoric fostered by the left, and they believe it. These people are not presented with a full picture of the facts. Is it ever emphasized, for example, that the Democrats also voted in favor of going into Iraq. Do they ever talk about that? They realized and made definitive statements about Saddam Hussein presenting a "real threat" to the U.S.A., and many Democratic leaders admitted he probably had W.M.D.'s. The fact of the matter is this - he refused inspections by U.N. security personnel, and action had to be taken. Otherwise, why does the U.N. pretend to impose regulations of any kind? Intelligence agencies, foreign and domestic, came to
the same conclusions as President Bush, and EVEN IF THERE WERE NO W.M.D.'S we needed to go into Iraq. The left does not want you to understand this, because failure in Iraq constitutes an opportunity for them to seize power, and that is what counts to them - not national security, not fascist dictators slaughtering thousands. And so they lie, they pull stunts, and they deceive.

The following are examples of recent issues of public interest about which Americans have been horribly misled.

- Supreme Court nomination Sam Alito

On Monday, October 31st, Democratic Sentator Chuck Schumer had this to say about the nomination. "Like Rosa Parks, Judge Alito will be able to change history by virtue of where he sits. The real question today is whether Judge Alito would use his seat on the bench, just as Rosa Parks used her seat on the bus, to change history for the better or whether he would use that seat to reverse much of what Rosa Parks and so many others fought so hard and for so long to put in place."

How ridiculous of a statement this is. As if Judge Alito is in favor of segregation. This statement even implies that he is a racist. It is an irresponsible statement for which Mr. Schumer should issue a formal apology. Notice though, someone who doesnt know much about Judge Alito would come away from this comment with a negative impression of the man.

- Proposition 73 in California (parental notification for abortion law)

You can check out some of the vile lies propagated against this law at http://www.noonproposition73.org. They imagine a Californian parent saying to themself, "If she can't come to me, I just want to keep her safe." Sounds like a good thing, keeping teens safe, right? I'll tell you something, if your teen is having sex and you dont know about it, she has already put herself into extreme risk. Allowing that to continue without your knowledge is not keeping her safe. Understand? This is the next step on the "take parents out of kids lives" agenda, and it is the most harmful thing happening to America today. Destroy the family, destroy America. Its that simple. "The real answer to teen pregnancy is caring families and age appropriate sex education, including teaching abstinence." Again, saying that sex-ed is the answer to teen pregnancy is taking the parents out of the equation. Parents should teach thier children about sex, not some teacher they dont know or care about. The movement
against prop 73 is full of lies, and they have done vast damage againt teens in America.

- Recent elections.

The left has completely spun the recent elections, claiming proof of a large-scale swing to the left in America. In truth, this simply isn't the case. The main "victories" for Democrats were the two
gubernatorial campaigns, in Virginia and New Jersey. The fact is that both of these states already had Democratic governors, and they elected new Democrats. No big shift there. As usual though, Chuck Schumer is undaunted by reality. "This portends really well for the future. Unless George Bush reverses his policies and reaches to the middle you're going to see many more victories like this." Reverse his policies . . . I see. I suppose then, Mr. Schumer, that you would be in favor of Leaving Children Behind, Non-Confrontation of Terrorism, and leaving Social Security untouched. Sounds like a plan!

The senate inquiry into last quarters oil profits proves that Republicans are not immune to the spin method either. Many politicians in both parties will go to great lengths, including deceptive
political stunts to consolidate thier power. America needs politicians whose first priority is to what is right and the welfare of thier constituents, not defeating thier opponents for
the sake of power. And that my friends, is a rare gem indeed.

Unfettered Abortion and Justice for All !

Somewhere outside the realm of my comprehension, beyond the sphere of reason, somewhere out there lie the reasons why people would come out to vote against proposition 73. I cant fathom it - but the defeat of this proposal highlights the moral decay and denial of right which has been slowly decaying our society for decades. Lets take a look at the proposal.

Proposition 73 would require minors to notify thier parents 48 hours prior to having an abortion. Not consent (which I would support), notification. This would not require a 13 year old girl to get her parents to consent to have this major medical operation, only to notify them that it is being done. Got it? Now, im not going to argue the morality of abortion here - it is among the most heinous wrongs being perpetrated in our country. Murder of the defenseless on a scale which even the Holocaust doesnt compare to. But thats point doesnt need convincing - any honest person can see its manifest truth.. However - just because something is wrong doesnt mean it should be illegal. And im not trying to say that this vote needs to be overturned, or anything of the sort. Democracy must respect the voice of the majority for Democracy to endure. But if Democracy doesnt respect a degree of what is right she will fail just as sure.

In 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville visited America and wrote the following:

"I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers, and it was not there; in her fertile fields and boundless prairies, and it was not there; in her rich mines and her vast world commerce, and it was not there. Not until I went to the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."

I believe the last sentence with all my heart, and in fact I took the title of this blog from it. America is still good, and she is still great. But the movement in our country which advocates the genocide of millions of the unborn each year, which would turn a blind eye to the opression and slaughter rampant in the world when she could do so much to relieve suffering is a corrosive acid which is eroding the fabric of our very society. If this movement has its way and this type of thinking enthroned in the majority, America will not survive the coup.

I do not believe it is the majority of Californians who feel this way, and I consider it a travesty of greatest proportions that so many of these God-fearing people did not come out to the polls. Surely Satan turned a jig in his lair when the tally came in on this one.

Separation of Church and State

With the recent Supreme Court decision regulating the display of the Ten Commandments at courthouses, and the general anti-religion movemement gaining stunning victories in recent years, I think it appropriate to take a look at the "separation of church and state" clause which is so often quoted in our discourse.

Here's a link to the Constitution if you want to read it, and heres my excerpt:

ARTICLES IN ADDITION TO, AND AMENDMENTS OF, THE CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE [I].

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Now, the first point I wish to raise here concerns the second clause - "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The government shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion - THIS INCLUDES CHRISTIANITY !!

The first clause is what I more particularly wanted to look at - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This ensures that the government will not establish a particular brand of religion as the state religion - the very thing many of our Founding Fathers were escaping. This does not say, however, that the government will not support religion in general, and belief in God and morals as essential virtues of every citizen. Quite the contrary, our country is built upon religion and religious principles. Put another way, there are certain principles inherent to any religion which encourange social order and prosperity. Here are a few -

1. Every man, woman and child will eventually have to answer to a Higher Power (God) regarding the acts performed while in this life. Good will be rewarded, and Evil shall be punished.

2. This Earth was created by God.

3. Each of us existed before coming to earth, or at the very least we will continue to exist after we die.
.
I might also mention a very important corrolary to number 2, that is that our blessed nation was also brought into existence by God - or at least that His involvement was central to her gaining independance. Nearly all of our Founding Fathers certainly believed this to be so.

Simple logic can show us how, when the citizens of a nation believe these principles, order is encouraged and chaos and crime go down. This is the type of environment in which nations flourish. One of the basic tenets of modern Economics is property rights - if people believe that they will be able to hold on to thier property, then they have incentive to improve what they own because then it becomes more valuable to others - so you can sell it for profit. Economic prosperity is impossible in chaos.

So when man believes he will be punished in Eternity for committing wrongs against his fellow, he is deterred from doing so. Belief in God refines a man in a way nothing else can compare to.

So the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, and the government (when it hasnt gone astray) for the past 230 years have encouraged religion. The trick here is to let everyone worship how, where and what they may.

Judicial Activism

The following is an excerpt from a statement made by Senator Harry Reid on October 31st, 2005, regarding the Presidents recent Supreme Court nomination.

“I look forward to meeting Judge Alito and learning why those who want to pack the Court with judicial activists are so much more enthusiastic about him than they were about Harriet Miers.”

A very disturbing statement, because I can scarcely believe it is geniune. And one of the greatest evils is a dishonest politician, because you know they aren't looking out for you, me, or the American people. Who are the people who want to pack the Court with "judicial activists," I ask you? I suppose to answer that question we can look at those on the Court now, determine who the activists are, and see who has supported them.

Heres the Webster definition of activism:

: a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue

Judicial Activism could be defined as a doctrine that supports vigorous action in support of changing the current Judicial system. These are people who want the courts to have more power.

You could do a weeks worth of research on this topic, but lets just take a couple of cases the Supreme Court has decided which change the current system and give itself more power.

Roe v. Wade, 1971
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992

You can read about them on your own, and there are many others but in Roe for example, the Supreme Court struck down laws passed by state legislatures. This means that the people of the respective states elected representatives, who then enacted the laws. Clearly, these laws representred the will of the people. But the Court took power unto itself, and wrought a sweeping change in the system. Activism at work.

To keep it brief, we will stick with just those examples. Clearly, those who want to 'pack the court with judicial activists' are those who oppose the recent nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, and favor Justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter. These are the liberal democrats, such as Harry Reid.

Now if Harry Reid really believes what he said, then I pity his misguided soul. But I can hardly fathom that he is so blind. If, on the other hand, he isnt sincere, then he is fomenting the worst kind of disinformation on the American people. He would be lying for power, and many, many people hear people like him and believe what they are saying, because that is the only message they are getting thanks to our insanely biased media.

"Diversity" on the Supreme Court

On October 31, 2005 White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan had
a press briefing. You will recall that this was shortly after President
George. W. Bush had announced Judge Sam Alito as his new nominee to the
Supreme Court. During this meeting with the press, one of the reporters
posed a very provocative question to Mr. McClellan.

Q: Why did the President give up on diversity on the Court? He used to say that was important. Is he satisfied with the diversity --

Diversity
on the Supreme Court. Lets look at that idea for a moment. What exactly
do we want the highest court in our land to do? What types of decisions
do we want rendered by this Court, decisions from which there is no
appeal?

Now it would seem obvious to me, that with the perfect
Supreme Court, we would have 9 Justices who would render unanimously on
every case in favor of the side that is right. Shouldn't that
be the ideal? Justice sides with those that are right, 100% of the
time? This seems self-evident. The problem comes up (and it is a
complex one) with deciding what "right" is. Thats why we have courts in
the first place, to settle disputes about who is "right." Now that
could become a lengthy discussion, but for the purposes of this debate
and the Supreme Court, lets just define "right" as the decision God
would render if he were directly making the ruling. However, since we
cant agree on what exactly He would do, we rely on the opinion of the
majority to determine what is "right." This is a very important
concept, and it is the foundation of any democratic system (such as our
government.) It is also the cornerstone of the Supreme Court- The
majority renders the binding decision.

On the Supreme Court,
our goal should be to have those who will be able to discern the proper
"right" the greater percentage of the time. The more times they get it
right, the better. And since there is only one "right" on any given
case (at least there is a best decision), the idea of "diversity" on
the Supreme Court by definition goes against this ideal.

So each
person develops an idea of what he himself thinks is right, then casts
his vote for that Presidential nominee who he thinks will nominate
people to the Supreme Court who will support his own personal ideal of
"right." Thus, the majority rules, and society has the best chance of
administering justice properly.

Look at what the Democratic
leadership has been saying about the recent nomination. They are
calling for a "mainstream" nominee, one who can "unify" America. They
are saying Judge Alito is too "right-wing." What they are saying is
that the Supreme Court should represent each faction and belief system
in America. We should have one atheist, one Catholic, one Republican,
one Democrat, ect. In this way, they postulate, each group can be
represented and every one is happy. This is clearly the opposite of the
ideal we should be pursuing, that I have outlined above.