The Philosophical Warrior

A History Revised, a Heritage Stolen

2010-06-15T15:19:00.001-04:00

     Never let it be said that our forefathers did not understand America in its intent and origin to be a Christian nation. The very idea betrays a willful lack of understanding of our history, and a shameful intellectual dishonesty. Throughout our history, those influential men who forged this nation into what it is today, in speeches, letters, and comments, clearly stated what was thought by the broad populace of the time, and only a revisionist history would deny the truth, that America was, and is, a nation founded upon Christianity, by Christians.
     Take President John Quincy Adams, who said in a July Fourth speech in Newburyport, Massachusetts, this...
     "Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and venerated festival returns on this day the Fourth of July? Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?"
     The first signatory of the Declaration of Independence, the flamboyant John Hancock, said "Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."
     Benjamin Franklin, scientist, economist, genius, claimed that "[h]e who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world."
     John Adams stated that the "general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity."
     Patrick Henry, he of "Give me Liberty, or give me Death," once said that "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
     Noah Webster, creator of Webster's Dictionary, said "No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges for a free people."
     This was our heritage, handed down to us from men of wisdom, men of prayer, men our contemporary handlers would rather we saw as flawed, intemperate, racist, and bigoted. So why is it that we have allowed our heritage to be wrested from us so? James Garfield, twentieth President, was no less then prescient when he said, "Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, if is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If is be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. If the next centennial does not find us a great nation, it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces."
     So here we are, less great a nation than we were a centennial ago. Why? Because we allowed those whose disdain for things Christian manifests itself in visible hatred, to revise our nations history, its cultural heritage, into something less than it is. Our exceptionalism has been reduced to commonality, our birthright muddled into a multicultural stew. All because we tolerated ignorance, recklessness and corruption in our leaders, and in ourselves. We stopped demanding purity, and put up with mediocrity. We stopped demanding bravery, and tolerated cowardice. We stopped demanding intelligence, and accepted elitism.
     Take an honest look at history, brush away the cobwebs, and we may yet turn our nation around.

Memorial Day Redux

2010-05-28T10:22:00.000-04:00

Courtesy a friend from across the pond, the fourth line of this poem is read at memorial services in Great Britain, every November 11, Remembrance Day, recalling that World War I formally ended after 11 am, on November 11, 1918, when the Germans signed the Armistice.

For The Fallen, by Laurence Binyon

With proud thanksgiving, a mother for her children,
England mourns for her dead across the sea. ... See More
Flesh of her flesh they were, spirit of her spirit,
Fallen in the cause of the free.

Solemn the drums thrill; Death august and royal
Sings sorrow up into immortal spheres,
There is music in the midst of desolation
And a glory that shines upon our tears.

They went with songs to the battle, they were young,
Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow.
They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted;
They fell with their faces to the foe.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

They mingle not with their laughing comrades again;
They sit no more at familiar tables of home;
They have no lot in our labour of the day-time;
They sleep beyond England's foam.

But where our desires are and our hopes profound,
Felt as a well-spring that is hidden from sight,
To the innermost heart of their own land they are known
As the stars are known to the Night;

As the stars that shall be bright when we are dust,
Moving in marches upon the heavenly plain;
As the stars that are starry in the time of our darkness,
To the end, to the end, they remain.

Patriotic Music

2010-05-27T14:38:00.000-04:00

This is by no means a complete list, but I offer here my favorite patriotic music. I'd be happy to hear any suggestions.

   8th of November, by Big & Rich
   America, I Believe in You, by The Charlie Daniels Band
   America The Beautiful, by Kathrine Lee Bates and Samuel A. Ward
   American Soldier, by Toby Keith
   The American Way, by The Charlie Daniels Band
   Battle Hymn Of The Republic
   Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue, by Toby Keith
   God Bless America, by Irving Berlin
   God Bless America Again, by The Charlie Daniels Band
   God Bless the Mother, by The Charlie Daniels Band
   God Bless The USA , by Lee Greenwood
   Fifty Ways to get Bin Laden, by Ray Stevens
   Have You Forgotten, by Darryl Worley
   In America, by The Charlie Daniels Band
   Last Fallen Hero, by The Charlie Daniels Band
   Letters from Home, by John Michael Montgomery
   The Marine's Hymn
   My Beautiful America, by The Charlie Daniels Band
   My Country 'Tis of Thee, by Samuel Francis Smith
   Only In America, by Brooks and Dunne
   Our America, by Big & Rich
   Some Gave All, by Billy Ray Cyrus
   The Star Spangled Banner, by Francis Scott Key
   Stars and Stripes Forever, by John Philip Sousa
   Stars and Stripes Forever, by R.W. Lowden
   That's Freedom, by Pete Robertson
   The Taliban Song, by Toby Keith
   This ain't no Rag (it's a Flag), by The Charlie Daniels Band
   This Is My Country, by Don Raye and Al Jacobs
   This Land is Your Land, by Woody Guthrie
   Where the Stars and Stripes and the Eagle Fly, by Aaron Tippin
   Where Were You, by Alan Jackson
   You're a Grand Old Flag, by George M. Cohan

Where did our mother country go?

2010-05-27T09:57:00.001-04:00

     It can be said without a doubt that America is the rebellious child of Great Britain. Asserting our independence and creating out of the cacophony of war a multi-threaded yet harmonious symphony of a nation was destined to happen, whether by chance, fate, or as I believe, by God's hand. But throughout our nation's history, it can also be said that the nation we severed ourselves from became quickly our staunchest ally.
     Through two world wars, countless conflicts, and numerous times of trouble, Britain has stood by us, and we it. Yet now, Britain seems almost paralyzed with the same palsy afflicting much of Europe. Our mother country has been overtaken by Socialism, Islamism, and a general sense of existence without purpose, without direction, without value.
     Great Britain is no longer great. It has devolved into just one of many nations succumbing to the rationalization that says we're all equal, regardless of what we do, regardless of what we believe, regardless of what we wish. Great Britain needs to wake up. Our once proud, indomitable, and courageous ally needs to shake off the dust of complacency, return to its roots as a bastion of intolerance, and become once more the lion of old.
     Yes, I said intolerance, but not the kind we think of today. Britain once would brook no thought of becoming any less than it was, any less Anglican, any less British. To become like the French, or any other European country for that matter, was unthinkable. The greatness of Britain stemmed from its inexorable march toward empire, toward strength, toward dominance, toward making the rest of the world more like itself.
     Somehow, somewhen, that changed, and dominating the world, physically, economically, politically, became a sin, something to be ashamed of, and being strong was associated with aggression. Britain needs to shake off the blinders of yesteryear, and realize that strength is just that, that aggression need not be allowed to rule a strong nation, and that the desire to make the world more British did much to propel the world out of the Dark Ages.
     Britain has much to be thoughtful, even remorseful about, but so does every other nation, if they're honest. It's time Britain stood up, held its head high once more, and acted as though it was still Great.

The Ultimate Dis

2010-05-26T17:32:00.000-04:00

     Memorial Day is meant to be a day of commemoration, a day of remembrance. For President Obama, it seems more likely to be one he wants to forget, or soon will be.
     Foregoing the usual presidential appearance at our nations most celebrated military cemetery, the President has elected to take a vacation, no doubt planning a community cookout at the old community center, with a round or two of golf, and a quick memorial service via Blackberry on Sunday morning.
     It should probably come as no surprise that this is how President Obama acts on such a day as Memorial Day, given the anti-military actions of his nominee for SCOTUS, but it gives a much clearer picture of his true feelings for America. These are Americans we commemorate, their sacrifice the ultimate, for peace, security, and freedom, for ourselves, and for the world.
     To disregard as simple a thing as an appearance at a cemetery shows President Obama's lack of respect, not only for our military, but for his office, and for Americans as a whole. Each of the war dead had a father, mother, perhaps brothers and sisters, relatives no doubt, all Americans. Some of our war dead are not long such, and families still grieve.
     President Obama will regret taking a vacation this weekend. It's one more example, concrete evidence, that the man that America put into office is not worthy of the title American, much less President.

Memorial Day, 2010

2010-05-26T13:02:00.000-04:00

     Memorial Day. The day we commemmorate the fallen who made the ultimate sacrifice for the protection of their country and the cause of Freedom. The day we set aside for pilgrimages to rolling fields of white crosses, adorned with little flags. The day we remind ourselves that Freedom is not free; it is the one thing that often costs everthing.
     Go, all who would know the price of Freedom, to the rolling hills. Survey for yourselves the cost it demands. Let your little ones gaze in uncomprehending wonder, your old in rememberance, and reflect within yourselves the blood-price of Freedom.
     Weep, all who would remember the cost that was paid. Weep for those lost in the Argonne, at Bastogne, at Tarawa, in Korea, Vietnam, Mogadishu, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Weep for the blood poured out upon the alter of Freedom, so willingly shed for so noble a cause.
     Fly, all who would show the world our continued dedication to liberty, the Flag of our forefathers, the Flag that flew over Iowa Jima, the Flag the flew over the Pentagon, the Flag the flies over our capital, the Stars and Stripes, Old Glory, the symbol of all that is good and great and wonderful in this world. Fly the Flag of Freedom.
     Stand, all who would enoble their own hearts. Stand with those who slogged once and still through sand and muck and mud and blood, into the thunder and fury of battle, unswerving, undaunted, to dimly-seen victory. Stand with those long-gone, silent sentinels, ever watchful, waiting to see who next will pick up the guidon of Freedom. Stand and be counted.
     I am no hero, but I count myself fortunate to have served with some. I have no claim to personal bravery or courageous action, but I know some who do, and bear the mantle of many who did. I am lifted up by their spirit, and encouraged by their memory. In the early morning hours I will go to the rolling fields and there I will weep. I will fly the flag in rememberance and honor of those gone before, and I will stand, with them, and with you, when next the clarion sounds, and Freedom demands once more its price be paid.
     Who then will stand in the gap, for Freedom?

Making a Mockery

2010-04-28T08:51:00.002-04:00

     Congressman John P. Murtha is dead. Let him rest in peace. The problem is, some people won't. Despite his attempts to rake the reputation of Marines everywhere through the muck, it has been decided that his name is to grace the hull of a warship, a troop carrier.
     Why do they need to do this? Why the push to enshrine the memory of a man despised by most in the military - at least most I know - by naming a ship after him? Apparently, the once honored member of the Corps who later turned on his brothers, claiming they were killing innocent people "in cold blood", is so respected by the liberal left that his name deserves to be memorialized on a ship, meant to carry those same warriors he denigrated without proof.
     This isn't just a statement about how the left views Murtha, it's a statement about how they view the American warrior, a loud and clear one. Here's a statement for them - we read you, five-by-five. We'll send our next message in November.

Getting it wrong

2009-11-02T20:19:00.002-05:00

     The CW is wrong. Contemporary Wisdom says the party-backed candidate beats the independent every time. But not in New York's 23rd District. Not only has the independent candidate forced the party favorite out of the race, but it looks like Doug Hoffman may be the first Conservative candidate to win a congressional seat.
     The problem is, this isn't what the GOP thought would happen. They didn't expect it, for they, like the Democrats, have become used to the apathy of American politics. They've become used to single-lever supporters, who, like me so many times in the past, reach for that party-line lever, instead of voting for each individual on the ticket according to their stand on the issues. This is what the GOP thought would happen, when the New York party bosses chose a liberal RINO as its standard bearer.
     But this isn't a normal election year. This is the Year of the Tea Parties. This is the Year of Referendum. This is the Year of Stopping Obama. And this is the year when people stopped being single-lever supporters, and started acting like Americans.
     When it comes to politics, we stopped acting like responsible Americans long ago. We became apathetic. Party was everything, no matter the principles relinquished. And that's where the GOP got it wrong. No longer are Americans content to choose whichever candidate the party masters provide. Doug Hoffman is but the forerunner of a greater movement. Presented with two options, neither of which was particularly palatable, Mr. Hoffman did what all Americans could and should do. He presented himself as another option. So now, in one district, Americans do not have to choose the lesser of two evils, they can look to their principles, and choose a candidate that exemplifies them.
     Even Newt Gingrich doesn't get it. This is how politics is supposed to work. Candidates are presented, and it is the responsibility of all Americans to look hard at the positions of the candidates, and then to vote upon their principles. When neither candidate is acceptable, two options are available to every American - sit by and watch, or create another option out of whole cloth. This is what Doug Hoffman has done, and whether he wins or loses, his actions have set in motion a fundamental shift in conservative voters actions.
     This is where the GOP gets it wrong. Doug Hoffman is a good thing for American politics, for his candidacy, and those voting for him, and the resulting removal of the party favorite, is the best of American political responsibility.

The Passing of a Greater Generation

2009-09-10T12:20:00.004-04:00

     Every generation stands upon the shoulders of the prior, to its betterment, or its downfall. We who now stand, lifting the next higher, do so at our peril, for it is our responsibility if they fall prematurely. Thank God we had better men than we to lift us up.
     So many have passed on, so many have struck their colors at the end of the longest march, ready to finally pull off their boots. But this is a nation that, as a whole, has forgotten how to mourn greatness.
     Ed McMahon, TV Celebrity, was remembered fondly by all, but his greatness was glossed over. CNN remember it with one line: "He later joined the Marines and served in World War II and Korea." Colonel Ed McMahon, USMC, was more than a TV celeb, he was a real man, a father, and a hero.
     Much has been made of celebrities like Eddie Albert, Bea Arthur, Gene Autry, Humphrey Bogart, Charles Bronson, Jimmy Stewart, Michael Caine, Kirk Douglas, Clark Gable, James Garner, Audrey Hepburn, Lee Marvin, Walter Matthau, Ray Milland, Audie Murphy, David Niven, Sir Laurence Olivier, Jack Palance, Tyrone Power, Rod Steiger, Peter Ustinov, and others, known more for their silver screen achievements than anything. But none of them made much of themselves, as heros never do, for each served their country with distinction in time of war. We mourn many of them without realizing what heroes they were. We should thank those left for their service.
     Though not a celebrity, another true hero has left us, Colonel Timothy Donovan, father of John, of theDonovan and Argghhh!, who passed yesterday. Rest in Peace, Sir, and know we mourn the loss of another hero, one who held his family, and his country, high.

An Inheritance Unwanted

2009-07-29T10:36:00.003-04:00

     I believe President Obama has a problem with his inheritance. He doesn't like the fact that our country existed prior to his taking office, that it had an economy, a debt, a standing on the world stage. He doesn't like it one bit, and he's back to blaming President Bush for his woes. He won't ever say that Pres. Bush inherited his problems from Pres. Clinton, or Pres. Clinton from Pres. Bush, etc.
     But what he also won't say is, "I'm sorry," to the multitudes of generations to whom he's leaving a grossly weakened economy, an immeasurably higher debt, and a considerably lessened standing in our world. We're a joke waiting for a punchline.
     We're owe our souls to the company store, and it's owned by the Chinese, who are giving us advice on how to run a capitalist economy. There's a joke for you. And all the President can think of is passing health care reform that will further indebt us and our children.
     Fathers used to look forward to leaving an inheritance to their children. Now, I wonder just what that inheritance will be, and will they damn us for it.

Tax the what????

2009-07-28T08:58:00.002-04:00

     Taxes, taxes, taxes. Tax this, tax that. Tax income. Tax cigs, tax beer. Tax clothes, tax homes, tax cars. Tax soda, tax fast food, tax cosmetic surgery.
     Hmmm. Tax things purchased. How about we just limit taxes to that. Let's get rid of the Income Tax, and just tax everything that people purchase. You know, like, a SALES TAX!
     That's what Congress is floating. Not a sales tax per se, but a piecemeal taxing of goods purchased, according to whomever they think owes more to society, according to their views on human health and behavior.
     The problem is, that defies the Constitution, and won't hold up under scrutiny. The Constitution states that one of the powers of the Federal Government is to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
     The problem here is the 'uniformity' of the taxes proposed. Even the sliding scale of taxation on income could be said to be non-uniform, if pushed. But a sales tax, say 10%, that would be uniform.
     Granted, people would at first slow down on purchasing luxury items, even higher-price non-luxury items, but only at first. People would learn to budget, something Congress has never bothered to try to learn, and our society would begin to save before purchasing, such would be the power of seeing the 10% added to the bottom line every time they pulled out their wallets.
     But given time, spending would resume, as people saw greater and greater return on their hard work. Every paycheck would be a little slice of instant gratification. Bank accounts would skyrocket, investing would boom, and our economy would soar.
     Income taxes are confiscatory, sanctioned thievery, and should be abolished. A Sales Tax would be a voluntary contribution, paid by all, uniformly, and would stimulate the economy like President Obama has failed to do.

Obama stops short

2009-07-27T11:36:00.004-04:00

     Liberals always stop short of solving a problem, simply by refusing to get to the root.
     Root Cause Analysis is the process of figuring out the chain of events that caused a problem, and fixing each in turn, right down to the first. But for liberals, when it comes to fixing problems, they tend to stop at whatever solution makes for big government spending more money.
     One of the primary reasons health care costs have risen so much so quickly is the litigious nature of our society. In all the rhetoric about President Obama's health care plan, no one, and I mean no one, in congress has mentioned the rising cost of physician insurance, which has skyrocketed in comparison to personal insurance. Doctors pay through the nose for malpractice insurance, not because so many of them perform poorly, but because lawyers manage the tort system so well that a single suit can shut a doctor down.
     Tort Reform won't happen though, and it should be no surprise to anyone that that's the last piece of the problem that will ever be addressed, simply because the majority of politicians are lawyers.
     Maybe that's the root cause of a lot of our problems.

2010

2009-03-07T08:44:00.003-05:00

     I'm looking forward to 2010. In all honesty, I think it will be a great year for America. We should be in the midst of a mild depression, President Obama will probably have nationalized health care, China will be the only super power on the planet, and Hilary and Newt will probably be talking up running against Obama in two years.
     You're probably asking why 2010 would be a year to look forward to, in light of all that. Only one thing could give me such hope. Conservative America.
     In America, there are Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Communists, and Independants. There are Hispanics, Native Americans, Asians, Anglos, Euros, and Africans, Americans all. But there are only three types of people in America that matter in 2010. Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives.
     It is the Conservatives that give me hope for 2010, for in light of all that President Obama has said, and all that he has done regardless of, or in spite of, what he has said, Conservatism seems to be finding its voice, singular and stentorian. A united voice, not so much against anything specific, but for a set of ideals that are diametrically opposed to the President's current paradigm. Conservatism has found the will to express itself. No longer are we the Silent Majority.
     In the end, as 2010 ushers in a new Conservative Congress, as I think it will, the epitaph for President Obama's administration may already be written. In my opinion, President Obama, the messiah of change, will go down in history as the man soley responsible for the resurrection of American Conservatism.

Barack "Nuance" Obama

2008-08-19T08:34:00.005-04:00

     If there was ever a window on the gulf between the man Senator John McCain is, and the adolescent Senator Barack Obama remains, it was opened wide by Pastor Rick Warren. Watching Obama answer his questions was like watching a Pomeranian bounce around on a trampoline. He was all over the place.
     McCain had his weak moments, don't get me wrong. His answer regarding Embryonic Stem Cell Research was so boilerplate he could have had his 3x5 card right there in his hand. But Obama seemed to be cutting his answers from whole cloth. Or hole cloth, since there were so many holes in his answers, you couldn't strain pasta without losing half the bowl.
     Perhaps it's Obama's obsession with Nuance. Remember John Kerry? He was said to be "too-nuanced" for the average American. I stopped counting in the double digits, during Fox News's coverage, in which the two former Dem strategists mentioned about how nuanced Obama was, or how well he understood the nuances about this or that.
     There was no sense of Nuance about John McCain's answers, save that one, but if Obama doesn't drop the Nuance, and start actually answering questions, McCain's 50 Cal. style of shooting straight with the American people is going to gain in appeal.
     Message to Obama: Nuance is good.

Is America ready for a Racist President?

2008-01-13T08:40:00.002-05:00

     I don't believe Barak Obama to be racist. He's much to intelligent to hold such an antiquated and irrational position. But then again, I could swear I heard an echo of Dr. Martin Luther King Junior in Obama's victory speech in Iowa. "We shall overcome!" Overcome what?
     Hilary is no better, but then we knew that already. The rhetoric is clear, not that either is racist, but that both have bought into the pathetic martyrdom of the African American leadership.
     The truth is, whether America as a whole is ready for a president well-versed in racist rhetoric, much of Black America is. Racism is an issue still today because Blacks make it such. It is the foundation of today's Black Leadership's social and political agenda. Without it, Black Americans become simply Americans, and that is not yet acceptable to them.

Truth, or Kwansequences

2007-12-01T08:51:00.002-05:00

     The Truth is an inviolate thing, often remaining hidden from view behind a cloud of ever-changing Facts. Science is filled with examples. So is Society. Take Kwanzaa.
     In 1966, a college professor in California named Ron Everitt created Kwanzaa. He changed his name to Maulana Karenga, shaved his head, and began wearing traditional African clothing. He created seven principles, integrated the harvest celebrations practiced in Africa, and built a strong cultural identity into the celebration. Each of the seven days of Kwanzaa is dedicated to one of seven principles, which together comprise Kawaida, Karenga's name for his belief system. They are...
     1. Umoja (Unity) To strive for and to maintain unity in the family, community, nation and race.
     2. Kujichagulia (Self-Determination) To define ourselves, name ourselves, create for ourselves and speak for ourselves.
     3. Ujima (Collective Work and Responsibility) To build and maintain our community together and make our brothers' and sisters' problems our problems and to solve them together.
     4. Ujamaa (Cooperative Economics) To build and maintain our own stores, shops and other businesses and to profit from them together.
     5. Nia (Purpose) To make our collective vocation the building and developing of our community in order to restore our people to their traditional greatness.
     6. Kuumba (Creativity) To do always as much as we can, in the way we can, in order to leave our community more beautiful and beneficial than we inherited it.
     7. Imani (Faith) To believe with all our heart in our people, our parents, our teachers, our leaders and the righteousness and victory of our struggle.
     These seven principles define a cultural and community unity, and are celebrated by blacks across America.

     Those are the facts of Kwanzaa, propogated by the Old Media and Academia. The Truth of Kwanzaa has been deliberately hidden, for if it were common knowlege that Kwanzaa, as an institution, is diametrically opposed to racial integration and Capitalism, and hides a violent past behind its holiday veneer, I believe few Americans would celebrate it. Its founder, Karenga, was at the time the leader of a violent anti-American group known as the United Slaves Organization, is a convicted felon, and came up with his decidedly out-of-the-mainstream views while serving a prison sentence. His stated goal was to create an alternative to Christmas, and his words are blantantly racist: "It was chosen to give a Black alternative to the existing holiday and give Blacks an opportunity to celebrate themselves and history, rather than simply imitate the practice of the dominant society."

     I suppose it would be easy to ignore the inherent problems of Kwanzaa's founder, were it not for its in-your-face display of the Black Nationalist flag. The red, black, and green color scheme is African in origin, but was first used as a flag in 1920, by Marcus Garvey, for the Black Nationalism movement. The red represents the necessity of bloodshed in pursuit of Black Nationalism, the black represents the color of their skin, and the green stands for land they feel they deserve. According to the The Kwanzaa Information Center, there is an ongoing 'black struggle'. "We lost our land through blood; and we cannot gain it except through blood. We must redeem our lives through the blood. Without the shedding of blood there can be no redemption of this race."

     The insidious facade of Kwanzaa doesn't end there, for Karenga's Kawaida, his seven principles, are drawn directly from Marxist Socialism. Karenga's principles are best understood if we add the qualifier 'Black' to them.
     1. To strive for and to maintain unity in the [Black] family, [Black] community, [Black] nation, and [Black] race.
     2. To define ourselves [as Black], name ourselves [as Black], create for ourselves [as Black], and speak for ourselves [as Black].
     3. To build and maintain [Black] communit[ies] together and make [Black] brothers' and sisters' problems our problems and to solve them together.
     4. To build and maintain [Black] stores, [Black] shops and other [Black] businesses and to profit from them together.
     5. To make [Black] collective vocation the building and developing of [the Black] community in order to restore [Black] people to their traditional greatness.
     6. To do always as much as [Black's] can, in the way [Black's] can, in order to leave [the Black] community more beautiful and beneficial than we inherited it.
     7. To believe with all our heart in [Black] people, [Black] parents, [Black] teachers, [Black] leaders and the righteousness and victory of [Black] struggle.
Why can we do this? Because the seven prinicples of Kawaida correspond to Karenga's desire for all African Americans to "...think black, talk black, act black, create black, buy black, vote black, and live black."

     My kindergartner came home with an art project just the other day. They had been learning about Kwanzaa, that wonderful celebration of Community and Culture. The facts had been given to her, as deemed appropriate for her age group by Academia, and the art project was indicative - a red, black, and green flag. No thought was given as to whether or not the beliefs of a pervert should be fostered upon young, impressionable minds. It infuriates me, that the rantings of a man once convicted for the imprisonment, assault, and torture of two women for two days could be found to have merit. In this bent and twisted world, a man who, as described by one of the victims, "ordered [them]to remove their clothes", "whipped [them] with an electrical cord" and "beat [them] with a karate baton" can become the founder of a holiday. Where is the sanity in teaching children about the beliefs of a man who put "a hot soldering iron" in the mouth and on the face of a woman, and "put detergent and running hoses in their mouths". No self-respecting father would allow even the word Kwanzaa to be spoken, were the truth about it's origin known.

     The price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance. Thanks to our Liberal friends, so too is the price of Truth.

Happy Veterans Day

2007-11-12T18:00:00.000-05:00

     I don't feel like a Veteran. Veterans are supposed to be heroes, at least that's how we're made to feel. I'm no hero, but I served with heroes. The Third Force Recon Company - those leathernecks are heroes. True, cut-from-Chesty-Puller's-BDUs heroes. But then, I doubt any of them would admit to it.
     Maybe that's what makes a Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine a hero. Doing the job, striving in the face of danger, and overcoming fear, saving the questions and remorse for later, should they come. No bragging, no boasting, just doing the job. That is heroism.
     The Soldiers that stormed the beaches of Normandy, the Marines that took Tarawa, the Airborne Bastards of Bastogne, all heroes.
     The men who flew the planes on that fateful mission to end Japan's hopes of victory, and their forerunners, who flew for vengeance for Pearl Harbor. Heroes. Those who survived Mogadishu, no thanks to the then President. Heroes. Those who died on United 93. Heroes. Those who live, today, memories fading, in the twilight of their lives, bullets and bombs only nightmares now. Heroes.

     To those returned home from honorable service,
     We offer a moment of thanks,
     and wish them rich, long lives.

     To those presently engaged in the business of War,
     we offer a moment of thanks,
     and wish them safety, and a swift homecoming.

     To those who served to the last full measure of devotion,
     our thanks will never be enough,
     for to them, our debt can never be repaid.

Would todays MSM wish the Marines a Happy Birthday?

2007-11-10T09:26:00.000-05:00

     Today is November 10, but most people will not celebrate this date. It is held in high regard by only a few, we few, we proud, we Marines. November 10 is the birthday of the Marine Corps, though it wasn't called that two hundred and thirty years ago.
     Back then, it was no big deal. War was at hand, and the Second Continental Congress decided to form two battalions of Continental Marines in 1775. Our first Commandant, Captain Samuel Nichols, signed up the first recruits at Tun Tavern, in Philadelphia, and a tradition that has stood America in good stead was born. Though the two battalions were never raised, contingents of Marines were placed on board ships for the express purpose of fighting. It is a testament to the truth of our motto, Semper Fidelis, that our creed has never changed, and our purpose has never wavered. Our Oath gives us a strength of purpose, a holiness of cause, that few uninitiated can understand. "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." It is interesting that we do not pledge to defend the United States alone, but its core, the Constitution. And not from enemies foreign born, but domestic as well. Ours is a responsibility deep and broad, of such weight, we must all be descendants of Atlas. The weight of our nation's security, and the defense of the foundation of its freedom, demands a dedication and commitment beyond words.
     I wonder, however, what would be said today, were such an event to take place. I can hear the MSM... "Neoconservative Hawks celebrated the creation of a new arm of the Republican war machine." Men with names like Durbin and Schumer would opine about the frightening strength of the warmonger regime in Washington, and its new Nazi-like enforcers. The public would be regaled with stories of the atrocities these barely human warriors were capable of. Anyone foolish enough to enlist would risk being called "monster" and "baby killer". The Old Press would have a heyday, exposing the viciousness of the training, and the degradation recruits had to endure.
     The President takes the Oath of Office. Doctors follow the Hippocratic Oath. But Journalists? Those so obviously desperate to be heroes, the self-proclaimed defenders of truth, take no such oath. Sadly, some journalists fall into the category of domestic enemy, as they constantly undermine the efforts of our true heroes to keep us safe. Would that we were allowed to defend our country from this particular brand of insurgent, but we can't. Instead, we pledge our safety, our lives, our sacred honor, to kill, and if need be, die, so that this fifth column of our enemy's ranks can sleep peacefully, having laid their pens to rest, having written not fact, but fiction, weaving their own versions of stories better men and women lived. Theirs is a dedication not to Truth, but to expediency. Their commitment is not to their craft, but to crafting a lie.
     I've ranted enough. Happy Birthday, Marines! Remember, no matter what is reported, ours is a history of noble endeavor, and great courage, one which those doing the reporting can never hope to match.

To Keep and To Bear

2007-05-01T11:10:00.000-04:00

     The gauntlet has been thrown down. "[T]he right to keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment belongs to individuals and not, as some have argued, only to National Guardsmen or members of government-organized "militias." "The phrase 'the right of the people, . . . leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual." "The wording . . . also indicates that the right to keep and bear arms was not created by government, but rather preserved by it." The metal is not in the whole, but in the last sentence.
     It is a sad commentary on our government that the last statement quoted from Judge Laurence Silberman, of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, rings so glaringly. One would expect the rights of the individual to have been, and to be protected, continuously, by our government. The opposite, in fact, is the case, as decisions such as Kelo make very clear. The idea behind Justice Silberman's decision, the paradigm (if a return to a previously understood concept can be called such), if you will, of Individual Right predating, and paramount to any governing bodies' will, can be construed to be true at any level, Federal, State, and Local, and is a resounding return to a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people", and it will be up to the courts to uphold that position. Now, it is a question of whether the constitutionally sound decision made by Justice Silberman will be upheld in review, or whether, if overturned, it will be heard by The Supreme Court.
      The ramifications of such a shift are sweeping, but there is still far to go. The idea reflects upon free speech and personal activities in almost every possible way. We have become such a litigious society, the very possibility of causing offense sends chills down the spine, and brings lawyers out of the woodwork. And we're not talking libel or slander here, only the idea of dislike. "I don't like what you said. You've offended me, and I'm suing!" That's all it takes, anymore, to get in serious trouble. In fact, a young man was recently charged (as reported in the Chicago Tribune) with disorderly conduct by police, and forced to attend a different school, simply for writing an essay in his high school creative writing class that his teacher found to be "violently disturbing", but "not directed toward any specific person or location." Sounds like the definition of a vaguely written horror or science fiction novel. Regardless of what was written, if no threat was made, where's the crime? Since when is the right to express oneself without physical violence trumped by the right of another person to not be disturbed or offended?
     The PC pendulum seems to have reached its zenith, and we can only pray that its return will be a quick one. Until then, people who write stories, or wish to own a handgun or two, or see the need to call attention to stupidity, will all have to be careful a little while longer. 'Til then, like Puck, if we offend, we'll have to make amends.

The Curse of Abundance

2007-05-01T11:06:00.000-04:00

We are a blessed land. We have an abundance of resources, an abundance of technology, an abundance of information, an abundance of freedom, and an abundance of choice. Abundance is a two-sided coin, blessing, and curse. Because of our abundances, we now have an abundance of obesity, an abundance of divorce, an abundance of promiscuity, and an abundance of self-indulgance. It is no wonder that we have time on our hands to create mischief. A century ago, a days work was still a hard days work. The industrial revolution hadn't quite permeated our culture with its effects, and the electronic revolution was a dream. Farms and Factorys were the mainstay of American life. Now, it's the Internet, Laptops, PDAs, Cell Phones, Robotics, and Outsourcing. Instead of going to the office, we've brought the office home. Wireless, VPN, B2B, and Infrared. Remote Desktops and Cubicles. Downsizing and Rightsizing. Databases, Spreadsheets, and Interactive Presentations. At the end of the day, we've accomplished less, but in so much more complicated and flashy a manner.
The simplicity of a hard day's work, of muscle ache and the satisfaction of doing things the right way, it's all going, going, gone. Soon, even the master craftsman will be controlling his tools via a cerebral link to a robotic system. Think, and it will be made. Creation by thought. Technology will bring us closer to God, and closer to godhood. Abundance is our blessing, and our curse, for to all the abundance with which we've been blessed, we have responded with an abundance of hubris, each leap forward spawning exponential growth, an ego accelerated. Some day soon, someone will say, "We can be as gods."

Thermopylea Redux

2007-03-08T14:18:00.000-05:00

     I can't wait to see "300". As a Marine, it is the ultimate tale of the Warrior's Sacrifce. However, the recent debate on whether President Bush is Leonidas or Xerxes is ludicrous.
     The question, posed by a reporter, is indicative of two things, namely, an obvious antipathy to the truth of history and an invidious activism to the detriment of the President. The latter is indeed much more generic a propensity in the Old Media, but the former may very well contribute to the latter. A general lack of understanding (or could it be a deliberate, selective misinterpretation based on a subjective bias) has given us a media that continually judges the present against a tweaked, misconstrued, misinterpreted, and even warped historical standard. If anything, President George W. Bush is Leonidas, and this, this war in Iraq, is our Thermopylea.
     Where once a despotic nation from the East, Persia, threatened the young republics and city-states of the West, now a despotic ideology, Radical Islam, yearning for a return to the practices of it's predecessors, threatens the democracies of the world.
     Where one lone nation, Sparta, stood against the might of the Persian Empire, ideologically and militarily, as one-time allies succumbed to bribe, flattery, and terror, becoming subjects of the enslaving power of the Persian Empire, now one nation, our nation, leads a half-hearted band of allies in a war against the fanatics, as nations succumb to the economic carrot of the region's oil riches, or capitulate in terror to the demands of the fanatics, as France, Russia, Germany, and finally Spain seek to undermine the actions of the United States.
     Sparta led a half-hearted band of allies into conflict in one battle, in a stalling tactic, to allow the city-states time to form an alliance. The battle of Thermopylea, in it's horrendous climax, was succesful in turning the tide of war against the Eastern foe, and soon the Persian army was completely repelled and defeated.
     The world waits for the outcome of our battle. Iraq is our Thermopylea, for if we fail here, we fail to unite the world behind us, and if we fail to unite the world behind us, we will surely fail to defeat Radical Islam. If we hold here, if we make our stand and hold the line, here is where the tide turns. The world will see that Democracy and Freedom are stronger than slavery and oppression.
     This is what the Old Media has failed to learn or chooses not to recognize. Xerxes thought to enslave the entire world under an ever-expanding Persian Empire. Leonidas fought to preserve and regain the right of every human to live in freedom. If anything, Usama Bin Laden is a modern Xerxes, for George W. Bush is truly a Leonidas.
     Molon Labe, and Semper Fi.

     To Steven Pressfield, thanks for Gates of Fire.

What can we now say, and how?

2007-02-13T10:46:00.000-05:00

     There are things that can't be said, like "FIRE!" in a crowded room. Apparently, one can't post songs with possibly offensive lyrics to one's My Space account to promote one's band.
     Ian Defeo had a job as a substitute teacher. He also has a band, Ian of Fire. He also has a My Space web site promoting his band. Put all this together, and somehow, it equals being fired from his teaching position.
     What can we say, and how, and where, and through what medium, that someone, somewhere, won't find offensive?
     Speeches, Lyrics, Posts, Blogs, Opinions, Letters to the Editor, Emails, where will it stop? When will someone who finds my posts here slightly offensive (and I'm sure there are many) lodge a complaint with Google, or try to find out who I am and for whom I work, and lodge a complaint with them?
     How did we get to be such a thin-skinned society? When did we stop recognizing the right to speak one's mind, to voice one's opinion, however offensive, without censorship.
     We have become a society where no offense can be tolerated, unless of course the offense is against Fundamentalist Christians, Global Warming Deniers, and Neoconservatives. No, there is no longer a right to Free Speech, no longer a right to voice one's opinion, or one's creative work, without the probability that someone, somewhere, is going to become so enraged as to file a complaint, a lawsuit, or even a threat.
     What is even sadder is the propensity for our society's establishments to take action on such complaints. DeFeo lost his job as a substitute teacher because someone didn't like the lyrics in some of his songs. I might not like the lyrics either, but I recognize his right to write, post, and perform his songs without any interference. I also have the common sense to realize that, as a teacher with a band, students may find his music attractive, while parents find it repulsive. That however, is a problem between parent and child, not parent and musician, and should be addressed so.

Success in North Korea?

2007-02-13T10:33:00.000-05:00

     North Korea may be on the verge of standing down. Reports are out that, for a substantial amount of fuel oil, the DPRK would be willing to cease its nuclear activities.
     Question is, will President Bush get the credit he deserves for pushing the diplomatic course of action when pretty much everyone who's currently criticizing him for NOT using diplomacy in Iraq has criticized him for sticking with diplomacy in North Korea?
     The answer, of course, is probably not. In fact, look for someone on the left to float one of two ideas: that former President Clinton laid the foundation for successful negotiations, which President Bush almost ruined, or that the imminent ascension of Hillary Clinton to the Presidency, in Reaganite fashion, has prompted the DPRK to make such a shift back to sanity.
     Either way, it's going to be someone else who gets the credit from the Old Media.

Black History Month

2007-02-06T08:59:00.000-05:00

     I'm all for learning history, and I believe the root cause of many of America's problems is the lack of historical perspective and knowledge evident in our culture today. The old adage is true; those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. However, there is a great difference in learning history and learning from history. Black History Month emphasizes the gap between the two.
     It is one thing to learn who Rosa Parks was, or George Washington Carver, Freddie Washington, Louis Armstrong, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King. It is another thing altogether to learn from what we know of them, and put it into practice. Great Americans, all, great people, each in his or her own way. But allow me one question. Are they great because they are black?
     Is Ronald Reagan a great man because he was white? Is Mother Teresa a great woman because she was white? Obviously, the answer is no. Men and women are great because of what they do, not because of their circumstances of birth. No one of us can say we were responsible for how we were born, or to whom. No one of us can say, I am responsible for the color of my skin. Why then should we constantly append the color of a person's skin to a claim to greatness?
     For decades, the black community has been led from racial segregation, thanks to Republicans, into a far more invidious slavery, thanks to its current leaders, and the American government has bought into the rhetoric wholeheartedly. Black America was freed from slavery and granted equality, only to trap itself in a self-imposed segregation of identity - African-Americanism - which has overflowed into all aspects of our daily lives. We are no longer Americans, no longer noble by virtue of living in a noble country. We must hearken back to our ancestors, we must proclaim our genetic heritage, and somehow, that makes us worthy of equality, respect, and a fair shake.
     Martin Luther King knew that this was the wrong way to go. In fact, his dream, spelled out so eloquently in his famous speech, proclaims the opposite of today's practice.
     "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.' ... I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. ... And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: 'Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!'"
     It was asked of Coach Tom Dungy of the Indianapolis Colts what it meant to him to be the first African-American coach to win the Super Bowl. Suffice it to say that his response has prompted me to switch allegiance among Pro Football teams. Recognizing the importance of his accomplishment, Dungy turned the issue into a much more controversial one, referring to the fact that he and his assistant coach are the first Christian coaches to win the Superbowl. To him, while there was a certain amount of historical import to the racial implications of his team's win, it paled in comparison to the faith implications. What a perspective. Unlike the current leaders of the "African-American" community, it seems to me Coach Dungy is truly free, for his words echo freedom from the slavery of a mind bent on segregating itself.
     It is my belief that Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, and all those who promote the slavery of identity segregation are not so free. They, like so many others, know the history of race in America, but they have failed to learn from it.

Who's to blame?

2007-02-05T15:01:00.000-05:00

     Who is to blame for the current state of our nation? The list is long.

     The Media is to blame. Perhaps it began with Cronkite's editorializing in the news that the Vietnam War was lost. The Old Media is no longer a reporter of news, but has become a purveyor of gossip, rumor, slander, and blatant agenda-driven opinions, all masked as news. The Old Media has lost its nobility, and become the pimp of elitist pablum.

     Atheists are to blame. Men and women unwilling to accept that they are not the ultimate authority have sought and partially succeeded in removing all traces of America's religious heritage, weakening our nation, destroying the very tolerance that allows them to be what they are.

     Republicans are to blame. Republicans are to blame, for they have lost sight of the foundational tenets of their party, and have become profligate and careless. Republicans are the new Democrats.

     Democrats are to blame. Democrats have allowed themselves to be co-opted be anti-American zealots who see a powerful America as unacceptable. Communists, Socialists, and Fascists dominate the Democratic party, demanding an anti-American agenda with the rhetoric of personal destruction.

     Radical Leftists in Academics are to blame. Teaching opinion instead of fact, subjective perception instead of objective history, these radicals routinely take sledgehammers to the foundation of our nation, for in their world, a nation of right vs. wrong is unenlightened. The shades of gray must be thoroughly explored and accepted. Theirs is a Fifth Column, working tirelessly in pursuit of a Utopian society of their own making, twisted and intolerant.

     Politicians are to blame. Politics has become the mud pit of our culture, as racism, jingoism, elitism, socialism, fascism, anti-Semitism, and all the other ism's more and more often rear their ugly heads. No longer led by statesmen relying upon principle, we now follow men and women who are gold diggers, with Uncle Sam as their doddering sugar daddy. Power is their blood feast, these vampires, and they fear no longer the light of day.

     Congress is to blame. The Houses of Congress have long been hotbeds of corruption, at once the pinnacle of power and the deepest cesspool of filth. No longer do we have men and women working for our nation's best, honest stewards of a nation's trust, but thieves and two-faced liars, no longer cognizant of the grave responsibility inherent to their posts.

     Bill Clinton is to blame. America's least effective president ushered in the era of irresponsibility, and left us open to attack from all sides. He gave us the semantics of sex in the workplace, a badly weakened and demoralized military, and Al Gore.

     Jimmy Carter is to blame. With words and tone, America's worst president inspired us to believe hope was lost, and our enemies to believe we were lost. Consistent to the end in his banal ineffectiveness, he has now proved to be the best friend of some of our worst enemies, and the worst enemy of one of our best allies.

     George W. Bush is to blame. As strong as President Bush has been on the War on Terror overseas, he has been weak on protecting our nation's borders against the invasion of illegal immigration. As visionary as his economic program and his hopes for a united, democratic Iraq may be, his shortsightedness regarding our nations borders is disturbing.

     Black America is to blame. Blacks have not sought freedom and equality as Americans, but have instead sought, and found, a dismal replacement, an invidious slavery without shackles, the slavery of identity segregation. They have allowed themselves to be bamboozled by political pulpiteers into thinking that being American is not enough, they must be less, in order to be more.

     The commonplace American, like me, is to blame. I am one of a majority, silent for so long, who allowed a ballot to speak for me instead of standing up and giving voice to my anger, resentment, and disapproval. The Old Media, corrupt politicians, radical leftists, environmental wackos, socialists, fascists, atheists, communists, Republicans, and Democrats should have heard from us long ago. "NO MORE!", we should have shouted. "NO LONGER!", we should have voted. But we did not. The Silent Majority stood by, afraid to break that silence, lest we be thought radical and intemperate.

     The time for temperance is gone. Who will shout with me?

A Day Like Any Other?

2007-01-29T12:14:00.000-05:00

     Was 9/11 really that bad? David Bell, a Johns Hopkins History professor has posed the question, and I feel obligated to answer with a resounding yes.
     In the history of America, we have yet to fight a war (and let's not forget that our Muslim enemies have consistently, even prior to 9/11, referred to their efforts against us as World War III) in which the opening salvo claimed so many lives, even military, as 9/11. The Revolutionary War, the French-Indian War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Pesian Gulf War all cost America the lives of her best and brightest. But never, ever, in the history of our country, has an enemy force set foot on our native soil and struck such a blow against our civilian population as on 9/11.
     It was Stalin who said, "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic." In the same vane, I would argue that the death of a soldier is to be expected, the death of a civilian is horrific. I can say this without impugnity, for I have been there. No one can Kerry me, for I have been a boot on the ground, a Jarhead, a Leatherneck, a Devil Dog. I have humped with pack in the depths of a cold, wet night, and carried one in the chamber with an eye on the horizon and an ear out for anything out of the ordinary. To die was a chance we took, and knowingly. To die is a chance those in Iraq yesterday, today, and tomorrow knowingly risk by choice. 9/11 was not such a choice.
     9/11 started off as any other day. Security lines at the airports, congestion on the freeways, cups of coffee and bagels. Mothers and fathers fixed breakfasts and lunches, men and women kissed spouses and loved ones goodbye. It was a day like any other.
     Then a group of monsters murdered almost 3,000 people.
     Was is a day like any other? Was 9/11 really that bad? You decide.
          2,819 people died.
          343 Firefighters and Paramedics died.
          60 Police Officers died.
          1,609 people lost thier spouse or partner.
          3,501 Children lost a parent.
          20% of Americans knew someone that died that day.
          115 Nations are represented in the number that died on 9/11.
     Was 9/11 really that bad? Bell compares it to what Russia experienced in its tumultous history, to military strikes like Hiroshima, to the total dead of wars past. Apples to oranges, I say. I'm not Russian or Japanese, and I'm not nuanced enough to push the emotional attachment I have for my country aside. My nation was attacked. My countrymen died. Perhaps I am not intellectual enough, but to my mind, to even pose such a question is an affront to those who died and those who lived, to the lost and their survivors.
     By my count, David Bell owes a lot of people an apology, more than 5,110.

America the Religious

2007-01-16T11:47:00.000-05:00

     There is a fundamental misconception about America, held by both Liberals and Conservatives alike. It is that America was founded as a Christian nation. Many, if not most, Liberals hold this misconception in fear and loathing, and work tirelessly to make sure the culture of our nation never returns to such an unenlightened state. Most, if not all, Conservatives hold this misconception as an anthemic reson d'etre, holding it as the foundation of Conservative Fundamentalism.
     The truth is, America was not founded as a Christian nation, and it was never meant to be one.
     I have come to understand what the founding fathers understood, namely that a Christian nation is by default Totalitarian by nature, albeit beneficent. If our nation had been founded as a Christian nation, one would expect some evidence of preferential treatment for the religion in its founding documents. However, no such preference is shown; indeed, the prohibition against just such a preference is guaranteed in the second amendment.
     America was meant by its founding fathers to be a religious nation, not a Christian nation, for it was intended that all good religions be respected and allowed to be practiced. It makes no difference that most of the founding fathers were themselves Christians, or that they prayed to a Christian God, followed the Protestant belief system, or personally promoted Christianity. What matters to America is that they held it vitally important that religion be respected, protected, and promoted. Good religions promote morality, and morality promotes good government. Such was the stance of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington. Indeed, so many of the founding fathers set down their thoughts regarding this, that there can be no debate as to what was intended when they formed the Republic.
     Sadly, it is our own fault that so few understand, on both sides, the truth of a Religious America. Now, religious groups fight alongside atheists to remove any trace of religion from our public culture, not understanding they promote their own demise. The founding fathers knew that, for a nation to remain truly free, able to address evil, and directed by a moral compass, that nation had to be founded upon a respect for religions that promoted just such values. They knew that the involvement of men and women of faith in government was imperative to the integrity of that government. The moral compass provided by a heart-possessed faith, whether Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Taoist, or other, was and still is the uplifting force that made America great, the lack of which now threatens to make America weak, or destroy it altogether.
     Hence the quandary many Americans find themselves in: whether to support a war against a religious ideology or not. Islam is the religion antithetical to all others. Where Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, or Shintoism teach that all mankind is worthy of respect, whether member or not, Islam teaches that no one is worthy of respect other than Muslims. Where most religions promote peaceful relations with others, Islam commands war. It is the lack of religious involvement, and the increasing prohibition of such, that has created a nation of weak, snivelling, emotional, "I feel your pain" weather vanes. For a nation of religious faithful is a nation able to recognize evil for what it is, and destroy it.
     We were such a nation for quite some time, through the First World War, World War II, even into the Korean War. But no more. Our nation is split, between empathizing liberals and enraged conservatives, between an increasingly socialist elite and an increasingly conservative middle class, between those who see no reason for war at any time and those who see the need to remain ever watchful, ever defensive, and willing to take the offensive if needed.
     We are the sleeping giant still, but the giant is so confused, it may not wake up in time.

From a Fool to all the Imbeciles out there

2006-12-21T09:12:00.000-05:00

     Joseph Rago thinks I'm a fool. He may be right, but since we've never met, and there's nothing out there on me for him to research, I'd be willing to be that he's painting with a brush the size of an SUV.
     Rago, in his WSJ extra, The Blog Mob, exhibits all we've come to expect from Old Media journalists, loquacious pomposity to the point that a Merriam-Webster should be provided alongside, a heavy dose of denigrating sarcasm, and the wonderful dearth of comprehension that so pervades the Old Media. Rago writes of the blogosphere,
          "Folks on the WWW, conservatives especially, boast
          about how the alternative media corrodes the 'MSM,'
          for mainstream media, a term redolent with unfairness
          and elitism."
Rago's failure to comprehend that, as we perceive it, the redolent "MSM" fits the bill perfectly, accurately describing the unfairness and elitism we observe on a regular basis, is typical of the Old Media. Perception is everything in a world where the truth is so often ignored.
     Rago also thinks we're so self-absorbed and narcissistic that we consider ourselves and our work 'significant'. Perhaps some are significant, like Powerline or The Radio Equalizer, but if so, it no result of self-promotion. These blogs have become respected sources of information, researched carefully, written carefully, edited carefully. It is in their lack of journalistic credentials that Rago finds all he needs to deem them insignificant. I'd love to listen as Mr. Rago tries to explain the insignificance of the blogosphere to Dan Rather.
     In truth, much of what Rago writes is technically correct. The blogosphere has given birth to a mob mentality, just glance at the Daily Kos for one. Many blogs, even those with rabid followings, are truly awful. Pronouncement is favored over persuasion, instantaneity has overrun the editorial process, and vapid, ideological ranting has taken precedence over discussion and debate. Of just such blogs, Rago's article is a perfect example. He jumps from pronouncement to pronouncement, often within paragraphs, without so much as a hint of persuasive effort. He allows no room for a future paradigm shift based on his theories, makes no attempt to foster discussion or debate, and gives no hope that things will get better. Rago even goes so far as to claim that grief over the state of things is pointless.
     What Rago seems to be so confused about is the fundamental nature, not of the medium, but of the blog itself. All great inventions are reactionary to the status quo. The electric light, the automobile, and even sliced bread were reactions to dissatisfaction, not as a general rule, but for someone personally, with the status quo. Bloggers aren't blogging to break news or make news, and bloggers know that reporting is best left to reporters. Yet Rago pines for the lack of actual reporting in blogs, citing such as his first basis for its insignificance. Bloggers blog to give analysis and commentary. The Blogosphere is the reactionary invention of men and women dissatisfied with the unwillingness of the Old Media to present both sides of an issue without bias or an agenda. Perhaps when Rago learns that the Blog is a correcting factor, not a news organization, he'll have more hope for the future of both.

Countdown to World War III

2006-12-11T12:41:00.000-05:00

     It's coming. Give it six to twelve months, but sometime next year, we'll be at war with Iran, Syria, and Lebanon. Iran, Israel, and our own intelligence sources all say that by 2008, Iran will have nuclear weapons, and neither Israel nor the US will allow that to happen. Diplomacy is no longer an option. War is inevitable. The outcome is dependent upon too many "What if" questions. What if Iran's new bedfellow, Russia, decides to get tough and play deterrent to our aggressor. What if Iran or Syria strike Israel with a nuclear weapon. What if Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and possible Iraq, decide we've had enough of an influence in the area, and take the side of their Muslim brothers. And what if our president is hamstrung by an anti-Semitic, leftist fifth column, which now seems to be running the show, both in Media and in Politics.
     If none of these what if's come to fruition, the regional conflict will be comprised of aerial bombardment and bloody house-to-house fighting. If any of the first three what if's happen, The global landscape will change forever. No longer will nuclear weapons be a deterrent, the middle eastern enemy will use them as an offensive first strike option. They don't care about deterrence. Annihilation is completely acceptable to them, as long as its mutual. The only real deterrent will be a functional deterrence on the part of Russia, keeping us from retaliating in kind, and trying to make us keep Israel from retaliating in kind. A combined Russo-Middle Eastern pact will be more than enough to make even our most earnest erstwhile supporters turn ostrich. It will be America and Israel against the Arab world. To my mind, Egypt is the only questionable participant, for which history suggest it may remain neutral.

Descent into Irrelevancy
     The final what if is a more diabolical one, in my estimation. Despite a wonderfully rich history, short though it may be, rising to heights undreamed of by it's founders, the descent of America into irrelevancy is assured. The questions are, how much longer before we reach that point, and how do we get there from here? Readers will no doubt ask why I state my thesis so emphatically, and without an inherent option for falseness. Simply put, I am a theologian, a believer of the scriptures, and a student of prophecy. From a political standpoint, the study of Biblical prophecy is beneficial, if only to see how it has been correct time after time, but also to see, if one recognizes it to have been correct in the past, what it says about the future, and it has little to say about America. Indeed, it mentions only "the West", and implies it to be impotent to affect the course of action taken by European, Middle-Eastern, and Eastern nations.
     Impotence. Strange, applying that term to the most powerful nation on Earth. And yet that is what the future holds for us, at some point. The problem is, I see the seeds being sown now for just such a future. Those responsible? The Old Media, and the New Left.
     The Old Media consists of those who have held sway over American broadcasting for decades, namely, PBS, ABC, NBC, and CBS, along with CNN, MSNBC, and various print organizations, such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, LA Times, and Washington Post. These have played a major part in the degradation of America over the past century. They lost us Vietnam, and are now losing us Iraq. Their decisions on what to broadcast and how to color it have been responsible for more damage to the greatness of America in her own people's eyes than anything done by any country, friend or foe.
     The New Left is the Old Left of the Sixties, only much more vocal and hatriolic. They are the radical hippies all grown up, entrenched in academia and politics, propagating vicariously the likes of the Kos-ites. The bitterness with which they attack even their own is evidence of the hatred they have for anything remotely leaning conservative. The New Left is against Senator Lieberman, no matter how often he might agree with them on most issues, because he disagrees on one. The New Left is against Senator Clinton, for she is not Left enough for their agenda. The New Left sees no need for America to be stronger than any other nation, to have an advantage over any other nation, to be greater or grander than any other nation. Indeed, the New Left sees in America the root of all evil, the cause of all tragedy, and the source of every problem that plagues the world.
     Together, the Old Media and the New Left have set us upon the road to a loss of national sovereignty and an impotent irrelevance on the global stage. They drive for open borders, without thought that what they may succeed in creating is nothing more than a fractured band of city-states, as often warring amongst themselves as with others, fighting for prominence while the rest of the world waits for a weakened victor. They drive for quitting the field of battle in Iraq, without thought of what that nation might become without us, subjugated to Iran, as Lebanon is to Syria, just another enemy, this time united with the other enemies we face in that region. Withdraw, redeploy, draw-down, all euphemisms for surrender.

The End Gambit
     In the end, this will be the ultimate test for President Bush. Already, his actions with Iraq and North Korea seem to imply a loss of confidence in what he can get Congress and the American people to go along with. If we cannot weather the coming storm, we have only the Old Media and the New Left to blame.

Who is Mr. Bush?

2006-12-04T13:47:00.000-05:00

     Paul Begala knows him. Mr. Begala has compared him to President Clinton on CNN's Crossfire. Mr. Bush is obviously a great man among men, to be compared, even negatively, to a former President.
     Fred Barnes knows him. Mr. Barnes has written about his ideas for the partial privatization of Social Security. Mr. Bush is a brave man, for not even Ronaldus Maximus, the great President Reagan, wanted to go there.
     Howard Wolfson knows him. Mr. Wolfson seems to think he has the ability to replace Supreme Court Justices. Mr. Bush obviously weilds enormous political power, to be able to dictate candidates for the Supreme Court.
     Peggy Noonan knows him. Ms. Noonan has claimed that Senator Clinton is trying to position herself to the ideological right of this man, and, though I'm not sure what his belief's are, that may not be a good thing for the leftists. What if Mr. Bush is a moderate?
     Jed Babbin knows him. Writing in the American Spectator, Mr. Babbin has offered that Kofi Annan might consider Mr. Bush "a despotic aggressor." If that is so, perhaps Mr. Bush is not a great man after all. Then again, this is Kofi Annan we're discussing.
     David Sanger knows him. In a New York Times story about the 2004 election, Mr. Sanger found the attack upon Mr. Bush by a Mr. Kerry highly unsual. That attack must have been a local story, for, as I follow the news closely, I didn't see anything about Mr. Kerry attacking Mr. Bush in the national news.
     Just who is this incredibly mysterious Mr. Bush? Power, influence, prestige, all these things men aspire to, but anonymity? While I have heard the forty-third President of our United States called many things by the hate-filled liberal left, I didn't expect this. Begala, Wolfson, and Sanger are not exactly hate-filled liberal leftists, but they are members of the left-leaning old media crowd, which means they should know better, but can be excused. But Mr. Barnes? Ms. Noonan? Mr. Babbin? Please. Having fallen into the old media trap of familiarizing a sitting president, and thereby demeaning him in his position, by referring to him as Mister, they owe us an apology, for these and other conservatives have added to the environment of political disrespect.

Mr. Rangel's Wake Up Call

2006-12-01T12:18:00.000-05:00

Here it is. I said he needed one, and I've not seen it done so well as the following editorial response from one Cliff Woodhall, printed in the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal online.

     "Both you and your readers have been pretty hard on Rangel over the past couple of days. A closer reading of his remarks suggests that he deserves our compassion, not our contempt. Rangel's words clearly reflect his act of lashing out. Most of us realize, from personal experience, that attacking the life choices made by others is quite often a way of expressing disappointment in one's own choices regarding life and career.
     "Mr. Rangel is, after all, a congressman, a job held in scorn, disparaged and disrespected by the general population, a constantly recurring punch line in the comic monologue of our late-night talk-show hosts. Most of a congressman's life between elections is spent "raising money" for his next election, "raising money" now being a phrase generally accepted in Washington as selling one's ability to write legislation to lobbyists, a procedure that involves, at best, compromising one's own most deeply held beliefs and, at worst, the acceptance of outright bribery. In short, it is not the sort of life that one dreams of when growing up.
     "It is generally acknowledged that an industrious person can earn more money working in the private sector than the public one. Sadly, however, it is a fact that America is a ruthless meritocracy, with the best and highest-paying jobs awarded to those who have the most talent or ability to perform them. Members of society who lack the skill to produce a product or provide a service for which others will pay money are forced to take whatever may be available in those jobs left over.
     "We don't know what sad circumstances, many perhaps not of his own choosing, have forced Mr. Rangel into his position as a congressman, but we can say with some certainty:
     "If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career or selling himself out to the highest paying lobbyist so as to become a member of Congress, you can bet your life that he would not be in Congress. If there's anyone who believes these youngsters want to spend their life arguing with each other and viciously maligning anyone with whom they disagree, you can just forget about it. No bright young individual wants to fight just to seize public funds for himself and his friends. And most of them come from backgrounds of very, very questionable ethical and moral circumstances, making it harder to get real jobs."

All I can add is that I wish I'd written this. Cliff, if you ever read this, well said, Sir, well said.

Mr. Rangel needs a wake-up call

2006-11-29T09:53:00.000-05:00

    Charlie Rangel has rankled the pride of many a military man or woman, and deserves to be ridiculed for his stupidity. But further, his comments, at least to me, seem to be not only stupid, in that he clearly misunderstands the character of those who willing choose to serve their country, but plainly mean-spirited and partisan, in that he casts the military in a light that reflects poorly on the war effort.

    I have news for Charlie Rangel. He's wrong about the educational and career aspirations of our military men and women. I entered the United States Marine Corps Reserves while in college, and completed my education without financial assistance from the government. (Thanks to men like Charlie, my alma mater can't accept federal assistance.) Since being honorably discharged from the Corps after eight years, I have completed a second Bachelor's degree and obtained a Masters. I'm now a Business Analyst. I never once despaired of having a decent career, and never knew a single Marine that did.

    Not only is Charlie wrong about the educational and career aspirations of our military men and women, he is wrong about American soldiers wanting to fight. Charlie Rangel doesn't understand the heartfelt desire to defend one's country, one's homeland, one's honor, and the duty a true patriot dwells upon to do so. I'm not sure how this happened, for he claims to be a decorated Korean War vet. I didn't shirk my duty when called up for service in the First Persian Gulf War; in fact, I was happy to go, I looked forward to it, as did the vast majority of my fellow reservists. I remember the drill when our commanding Captain stepped out to address the company and told us to stop volunteering, we'd all be going soon enough. The cheering, the ooooh-rahhh's, the grunting and barking from hard-charging Devil Dogs rang on the Parade Deck for several minutes. We all went, we all served, and we were all volunteers. Businessmen, shopkeepers, construction workers, attorneys, accountants, financial advisors, teachers, truck drivers, and a bunch of college students, volunteers all. None of us in poverty, none of us illiterate or lacking in education, none of us forced to join by circumstances beyond our control. We joined because we wanted to. It's not that we enjoy fighting, we are simply proud to defend America.

    Surprisingly, Charlie did, somehow, utter a single truth in the midst of all his blather. "No bright young individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits." He's right, there, as much as it pains me to say it. Charlie's right, but don't ask him why. In his world, only dumb young individuals who come from communities experiencing very, very high unemployment, and who have no hope of having a decent career want to fight for a bonus and education benefits. In my opinion, Charlie's no patriot, he's a patronizing ideologue spewing anti-American, anti-military, class-warfare hatriol. In Charlie's world, the best military force in the history of warfare is made up of dumb young individuals that had no other option than to volunteer to serve their country unwillingly, or just to get enough money to go to college. Charlie's ignoring reality to give his views a semblance of plausibility to which no one with a shred of intellectual honesty is about to give credence.

How to Rebuild the Republican Party

2006-11-17T12:55:00.000-05:00

     Much has been written and proposed on how Republicans can regain power in future elections. This, however, is akin to a doctor putting a Band-Aid over a sore without treating the infection that caused it. The recent bellwether loss for Republicans is a symptom; all the talk of how to regain power simply skirts the real issue, and all the effort put into retaining a majority was wasted. How to regain and retain is not the issue, but to deserve, there is the crux of the matter. Deserving the trust of the American people, especially conservatives, is on what Republicans need to focus. I've written about how moderate actions by Republicans alienated conservatives, and don't want to go into that here, so I'll admit that as a theory yet to be disproved, and frame my position from there.
There is only one thing that the Republican party can do to convince conservatives across the nation that they deserve to be in power: Stop being Politicians, and become Statesmen. It truly is that simple. But how does this translate into effective governance? How does this simple goal promote trust? From the ground up. Call it "Succession Planning for Government".
     Government is of the people, by the people, and for the people, and good government arises from the desire of good men and women to have it so, and acting upon that desire, making it so. It starts at the local level, with town councils, school boards, and mayors. It rises to the state level, with state representatives and senators and the office of Governor. It rises further to the members of Congress and the President of the United States. But it all starts at the local level. Not one current Senator, Representative, Governor, or Mayor was born in that position, though some act it. To a man or woman, they all were raised in a town or city, saw the actions of government, and decided that they wanted or needed to be part of the process. Here, in the small towns and city boroughs of America, is where the future of the Republican party stands. I say stands, for statesman do not sit on their laurels, they set them aside; statesmen are not there for the praise and adulation of the populace.
     Good government is made possible by good people, and good people are solidly grounded in the principles of conservatism. A smaller, less intrusive government; lower taxes; greater personal responsibility; state's rights over federal regulation; governance by the will of the people. These are the hallmarks of conservatism, best displayed by men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. All had a vision of a greater America, and all lived to see that vision, in some way, become reality. The Republican party needs to seek out, at the local level, men and women of vision, grounded in conservative principles, willing to act the servant, and of significant moral character, integrity, and intellectual honesty. These are the future of the Republican party, for in finding them, it will find a well-spring of trustworthiness, which now it sorely lacks. It is these men and women, who will serve, and serve justly, honestly, and impartially. But that is just the first step. These statesmen must be willing to serve for a time, and laying aside such service, return to honorable citizenry. So begins a cycle, whereby men and women serve locally while being mentored by those at the next level, run for higher office, server at the state level while being mentored by those at the national level, run for national office, and turn by turn mentor those rising in the ranks. Term limits will never pass as law, but in practice, Republicans should set the example, for good government is made by men and women who recognize that government is a tool, not an establishment, a guide, not an edifice. From the local to the federal, the Republican party would be better off spending its money seeking men and women of just such character and conviction, able to be trained and taught by those already in office, willing to offer themselves as candidates upon the basis of their convictions, character, and record, if applicable. Mud slinging should be a practice left to the other side, and negativism left to the issues and records of full elections, not primaries. Imagine, if you can, a Republican State Representative primary with three candidates, all of whom had been mentored by the sitting representative, all of whom had passed a lengthy background check, all of whom had experience at the local level. Imagine ads in which the three talked about their respective backgrounds, upbringing, and personal beliefs, without bad mouthing their rivals. Imagine the pleasant surprise from GOP voters, and the overwhelming turnout. Imagine a joint celebration as the final vote is tallied, where the winner stands and speaks of his or her friendship with one-time rivals, and one-time rivals speak of how well they expect the winner to perform in the coming years. The result? A general election in which the only bad taste in anyone's mouth would be from the other side. A general election where the character and conviction of the GOP candidate had already been vetted and found impeccable.
     Impossible, I think most would say. No one is going to relinquish such power so easily. No one would be willing to mentor someone so. I think such nay-naysayer are wrong, but then they would have a great deal of anecdotal evidence from today's power-mongers to back them up. Unfortunately, the cycle must begin at the top, or it will never begin at all. Our current leaders must decide to be Statesman, instead of Politicians, and such a change is difficult to make.

A Moderate's Platform - Part 2

2006-11-17T08:39:00.000-05:00

As I said in my previous post, I agree with much of what Michael says. His stance on eleven issues is actually right of the majority of conservatives, I believe. However, there are four issues with which I have significant disagreement, and if this is what Moderates believe, conservatives need to get out the message much better than they have been.

"7. Gays. Homosexuals do not threaten my marriage. Heterosexual marriages have their own troubles, but the fate of conventional marriages has nothing to do with whether same sex couples can marry one another or partake in a civil union. No guy now married to a woman is waiting in the wings for a court decision trying to decide whether to ditch his spouse and hook up with a man. As we seek to find some accommodation for same sex couples, we need to end that false argument."  I have one word for Michael here: McGreevey. Responsible for destroying his career and his marriage through homosexual activity, the first thing the former governor did upon hearing that the New Jersey Supreme Court was going to rule on the Gay Marriage issue was to state his desire to marry his lover. On a personal level, it may not seem to be a problem, and true, it does not effect my marriage, just as it does not effect Michael's. However, on a cultural level, history shows that the acceptance of alternative lifestyles as normal precedes, and perhaps signals, the imminent downfall of that culture. I like my culture the way it is, and, personally, I don't want the honorable state of matrimony between a man and woman degraded, in my eyes, by adding other versions. When every man does what is right in his own eyes, everything will be right, nothing will be wrong, and our culture will be lost.

"8. Abortion. I want to be registered in a party that has room in its tent for pro-life and pro-choice views. And Plan B should be sold over the counter to individuals 18 and over. And I surely don't want politicians determining my end of life plan."  Frankly, I expected better from Michael on this one, as logic alone dictates a different viewpoint. However, it is clear from the tone of both the text above and his discussions about this subject on the air, that he has an emotional attachment to the subject that he hasn't divorced from his perspective. That's the problem with the whole abortion rights issue: we as a nation are so emotionally charged on this point, that we can't look at it objectively. Consider, the abortion rights movement has always presented the issue as a "Woman's Right to Choose". However, they stop there, and any attempt to logically reason through the choices inherent to the issue are resoundingly drowned out with cat calls of "Keep your laws off my body". Here's my view, removing religion from the argument, and conceding the point that science cannot pinpoint the beginning of life in the womb. This means that there quite possibly may be no problem whatsoever with an abortion at any time during pregnancy. However, the probability of that is only 50%, meaning that there is an equal chance that abortion, at any time in a pregnancy, kills a human being. While I may offend people on the other side, I can't, in good conscience, condone a position that has a fifty/fifty chance of being murder.

"9. Embryonic Stem Cells Research. Do it. Fund it. Pardon my callous nature, but that which exists in a Petri dish is undeserving of the full rights that are afforded a viable fetus."  This is another one that I expected a more intellectual perspective from Michael. God forbid that I write 'intelligent', as I think Michael has me beat in that area hands down. But "Embryo" is the medical term for a baby from conception to the third month. After the third month, we switch terms and call it a fetus. At no time does viability make any difference in which is which - we're talking semantics - unless Michael is deliberately positing the idea that viability is not relevant until after one decides it's appropriate to change the medical term for a baby in the womb at some point in its gestation, and I don't think he is. In other words, left to itself, an embryo sitting in a Petri dish would become a human being if we allowed it to do so. That it would have to be implanted in a womb is a moot point. The fact is, an embryo in a Petri dish is as viable a human as an embryo in a womb. My response on abortion directly relates at this point.

"5. Iraq. We need an end game. And don't call it "cut and run". As a matter of fact, if anything is unpatriotic, it's not affording our soldiers an explanation of how their mission will end. It's time to articulate an exit strategy so as to light a fire under Iraqis and let them know they need to stand on their own two feet sooner than later."  I'm going to give Michael a pass on this one. He's not a military man, he's an attorney that raised his social status by taking a talk radio job. (Had to get that in -- just kidding, Michael.) Still, If he really believes there is no end game, he's wrong. Having been there, I know an exit strategy exists - no war is fought without its generals first preparing such - but it's no business of ours at home, and it's usually not known to the boots on the ground. As a grunt in-country during Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, my company didn't know when we would be returning state-side until a week prior to leaving. Whether military or civilian, we neither need nor should know what the exit strategy is, other than a general "We have a list of objectives that must be met before we can bring all the troops home." No attorney in his right mind publishes his closing statement in the middle of the trial. Neither should the administration or military publish its end game strategy in the middle of the war.

In conclusion...
Only four of Michael's fifteen points provide any room for disagreement on my part, but the disagreements are significant, in that, with no disrespect intended, they provide a view of moderation that exposes its emotional ties to the issues. Thinking with the heart is not the way to govern a country, it is the way to assist ones countrymen. As Winston Churchill once said, "If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart; if you are not a conservative at 40, you have no brain."

The great thing about being a conservative, for which anecdotal evidence abounds, is that, notwithstanding the differences of opinion, the Republican Party is inclusive enough to tolerate both of us. Reassuring, isn't it.

A Moderate's Platform - Part I

2006-11-16T10:26:00.000-05:00

Michael A. Smerconish is my morning man on the radio. Every morning, Monday through Friday, I listen at least two hours to his radio talk show on the Big Talker 1210, WPHT. Michael is one of those who is calling for a move to moderation by Republicans, else he fears the perpetual loss of Republican power through the alienation of moderates. He recently posted fifteen points of view, and asked his audience to vote on them as to whether or not they agreed with him. As much as I like Michael and enjoy his show, I have to
take issue with him over a few points. Just a few - he's not my morning man for nothing. Here are the points he makes with which I agree, whether to the letter, or just in spirit.

"1. Bin Laden. I want a continuous commitment of manpower directed toward finding and killing Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri. It matters not to me whether they are isolated, neutered, and disengaged, nor whether they are in Pakistan. I want them hunted, found and caused to suffer a heinous death. The full court press should never end."  Like Michael, I want UBL's head on a pike at the entrance to the White House. Love the "heinous death" part.

"2. Profiling. Let's look for terrorists who look like terrorists. Those who threaten us have similarities. In virtually every instance, they have race, gender, ethnicity, religion and appearance in common. Those characteristics should be considered as we seek to prevent terrorist strikes against the United States. Everyone needs to be screened, but some more than others. When the terrorists start looking like Thurston Howell, III, we will change accordingly."  For the literary inclined, there's no better text on the issue than Michael's Flying Blind. Here he's preaching to the choir.

"3. Torture. Once we identify the bad guys, we need to glean from them information of impending attacks by any means necessary, and that includes torture. If you believe it NOT to be efficacious, tell me why our best, brightest and most experienced interrogators continually seek to use it as a technique? Answer: it works."  Whatever it takes to keep Americans safe.

"4. Preventing Terror. We need to implement all the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, those who were entrusted to study what went wrong pre-9/11 and recommend how to prevent its recurrence."  While I agree with this in spirit, any commission that ignores issues like Able Danger should be questioned, not trusted implicitly. Sure, we haven't implemented all the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, but we also haven't been attacked since then either. I know I'm on the fence here, but whatever we're doing is working.

"6. Immigration. Our borders are porous. They need to be closed. Only when they are closed should we make decisions as to what to do with the millions who are already here illegally. It is impractical to believe we will ship them back to wherever they came from. But through attrition, and by ensuring no more of their friends and relatives join them, we will probably diminish the herd."  I'll go further here. 700 miles of fencing is an affront to the citizens of America, both born and naturalized. Build fences along both borders,
northern and southern, and man them with military personnel. Use these fences as training facilities to give our military a real border to watch.

"10. Term Limits. We need citizen politicians, not professionals. Two terms in the Senate and six in the House seems like plenty to ensure we get grounded folks who are capable of earning a living when not serving us."   Term Limits are the single most crucial change in politics we could ever hope for, to my mind.

"11. Campaign Finance. Let's stop trying to regulate campaign donations. Someone will always find a loophole. Let anyone spend whatever they are willing to affect the outcome of a race, so long as there is full and immediate disclosure, so voters can react accordingly."  This is the second most crucial change in politics we could hope for.

"12. Entitlements. Social Security, Medicare and other entitlements make up more than half of our federal spending. The number of people on Social Security and Medicare will double in the next 15 years, and life expectancy continues to grow. We cannot afford to continue the status quo. Time to confront AARP: the retirement age in this country needs to be raised from 65 to 70. Balanced Budget should not be two dirty words. I do not want my children and grandchildren saddled with paying for our wasteful spending."   How about we do this and more. It's not just time to raise the retirement age, it's time to confront a lazy, self-absorbed, entitlement-minded culture with a counter-culture of greater personal responsibility, promote fiscal conservatism on a personal level, and provide training on how to save money and handle finances, instead of doling it out. Then, entitlements could be scaled back, and our bloated federal budget could be slashed without jeopardizing people's way of life.

"13. Death Taxes. We all work so hard just trying to lead a comfortable life in the hopes of leaving nest eggs for our children. It's un-American that when we check out, Uncle Sam will be standing there with his hand out to tax our earnings for the second time. The estate tax must end."  'Nuff said.

"14. Global Warming. Beats the hell out of me. But given the apparent stakes if the concerns are valid, I think we should err on the side of taking precaution."  This is a typical socio-political coin. The two sides are, yes, we should be more careful with our environment and what we add to it. But Global Warming? The whole issue can be explained away by understanding the action of the rotational axis of the earth, which is why the old media was talking about the coming Ice Age in the early '70s. It may be warmer here than we're used to, but in places like South Africa, they're having record snowfalls. Cyclical changes in temperature are the norm, not causes for alarm. So, while I agree with the environmentally conscious spirit of Michael's statement, I find the subject of it questionable.

"15. Guns. A symptom, not cause of our problems. Single parent households pose more of a threat to safety than firearms. Let's address that issue."  I couldn't agree more.

So I'm eleven for fifteen. Not too shabby. The breakdown of Michael's incredible listener response (over 3000 respondents) is on his site. I'll break off here, and deal with our differences in my next post.

Return to Moderation?

2006-11-14T20:06:00.000-05:00

     Many pundits have, in the past few days, proclaimed the election a "call to moderation", a repudiation of conservatism. However, a look at the actions of Congress brings to light a move toward moderation that, I believe, directly depressed the conservative vote, which, in concert with the efforts of the old media to further depress it, resulted in the Republican loss of the '06 election.
     There are two things that conservatives thrive upon: greater personal responsibility, and less government. In the past few years, however, we have seen Republicans outdo the Democrats in both shirking responsibility and expanding government.
     Schiavo was an expansion of government, in that Republicans overstepped the bounds of federalism and intruded into an issue that was clearly the pervue of a state. The Prescription Drug Benefit was an expansion of government, as are gay marriage, and abortion, both states rights issues. The Foley and Abramoff scandals were abandonments of responsibility as were the calls for the Secretary of Defense to step down in the midst of war. The compromise of a few Republicans, namely those in the Gang of 14, allowed moderates to derail any potential move toward true judicial nomination reform, and did more to preserve the position of liberals in the Senate. So who lost?
   - Santorum, vocal on the Schaivo issue.
   - Chaffee & DeWine, members of the Gang of 14.
   - Foley's replacement, Negron.
   - The majority of Republicans up for re-election.
     Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the moderation of Republicans was the end all of the election, but it contributed, along with the intolerance of elite America with the length of the war effort, and the efforts of the old media to depress the conservative vote by spinning issues like Stem Cell Research. But no one, honestly, should be making the case for more moderation. Conservatives won't stand for it. They sat this one out.

On Returning to Power...

2006-11-10T16:18:00.000-05:00

We lost. No doubt about it, Congress lost conservatism another two years in power. It was Congress's departure from a conservative commitment to principals of smaller government, lower taxes, and greater responsibility, coupled with a focus on majority-building instead of remaining true to the principals that prompted American citizens to hand them the majority that brought about the loss of that majority.

Now, the time has come for the Republican party to return to the fundamental principles of conservatism. Republicans need to realize that it is their duty and responsibility to be good stewards of our nation's trust and resources, and recognize that they are there by our good graces, to represent us. If Republicans wish to return to power in Congress, they need to prove to America a renewed commitment to smaller government, and forge a second Contract with America. Such a contract ought to be drawn up right now, signed by every Republican, then posted online and published so that every American can read it, verify that their respective representatives have signed it, and hold them to it. Note that I'm not saying that Republicans should pander to any one group within the big tent, only that the they must return to the primary principles that have made Republicanism great. Here are just a few things that present themselves:

1) Republicans need to repudiate the culture of power-hungry corruption that so pervades our government, and pledge to limit themselves to two terms in the Senate and three terms in the House. This is going to be tough, for it takes a brave person to lay down a career to serve for a short while. But, with a proper plan of succession and training in place, outgoing members of Congress should be stumping for replacements who have strong conservative records in their respective regions.

2) Republicans should pledge to refrain from taking donations of any kind from any lobbyist or lobbying organization, period. Those that continue to do so should be ostracized by their peers.

3) Republicans need to remember that every dollar that comes into the government's hands is earned by the sweat of another American, and need to pledge to stand firm on making the current tax cuts permanent, and to work to simplify the tax structure and reporting system.

4) Republicans need to recognize that Eminent Domain is being used in violation of the Constitutional Right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, and should pledge to present a Constitutional amendment for referendum to make the use of Eminent Domain illegal for any other purpose than that specifically stated as follows: the building and expansion of public schools, roads, and bridges, and any property seized thereby must be recompensed for a sum greater than the value of that property.

5) Republicans need to set aside the temptation of political expediency, and work to protect our nation from terrorist infiltration and protect the interests of law-abiding citizens. They should pledge to reform immigration to make legal immigration easier, tighten our nations' borders, and enable the prosecution of those who assist or encourage illegal immigration.

6) Republicans, in order to validate the trust our nation has placed in them as stewards of its resources, must pledge to reign in Federal spending, tying it to a percentage of the GDP. They must forego the use of earmarks in perpetuity, and seek to bring a Constitutional amendment to referendum to give the President the right of Line Item Veto.

Republicans must not lower their voices, tone down their rhetoric, or sink into bipartisan silence. To do so is to risk political calamity, for in two years, if Republicans do not impress their base and the rest of the nation with the legitimacy of its views, and the propriety of its standards, our nation may well face a resurgence of socialist and politically correct dogma with greater liberal representation in Congress, and a second Clinton in the White House.

On the War on Terror...

2006-11-10T11:55:00.000-05:00

I believe in the justness of the War on Terror, and am proud of the righteous anger with which we prosecute it. But I believe the War on Terror is a misnomer. We are involved in a conflict not with an ideology, but with men who live to create an ideal, men who are more honest with themselves in describing the nature of this conflict, and possess a clearer understanding of the duality of the war than we seem to. Both in its global scope, and the breadth of the nations involved, the enemy is more truthful in describing the war, in that they call it World War Three.

This is truly World War III, for their goal is not the expulsion of an enemy from their lands, though the Old Media may play it that way. Their goal is the subjugation of all cultures not their own.

This is truly World War III, for their enemy is not a single nation, as some claim, blaming the actions of terrorists upon America, but all nations that do not ascribe to their philosophy.

This is truly World War III, for their aim is not the freedom of their people, but the oppression of all people, as they seek to enforce the laws of their theocratic beliefs upon everyone, and refuse to tolerate any diversion from them.

I believe in the justness of the War on Terror, but it is not just a war on Terror, it is a war upon all those who would see such terror succeed. To us has fallen the task of preserving freedom from those who would see it abated, of defending a way of life immeasurably more tolerant, more prosperous, more inclusive, more understanding, and more compassionate than any in the history of man, against the least tolerant, least prosperous, least inclusive, least understanding, and least compassionate ideology in the history of man.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt understood clearly what the nature of war was, and his words ring true to our conflict today...

"We are fighting today for security, for progress and for peace, not only for ourselves, but for all men, not only for one generation but for all generations. We are fighting to cleanse the world of ancient evils, ancient ills. We are fighting as our fathers have fought, to uphold the doctrine that all men are equal in the sight of God." - January 6, 1942

"Together with other free peoples, we are now fighting to maintain our right to live among our world neighbors in freedom and in common decency, without fear of assault." - December 9, 1941

"Free men are fighting desperately--and dying--to preserve the liberties and the decencies of modern civilization." - July 4, 1942

"We are fighting to free the people of this earth from...the most ruthless, the most savage enemy the world has ever seen. We are dedicating all that we have and all that we are to the combat. We will not stop this side of victory." - May 9, 1943

It is unfortunate that those recently elected into the halls of government show so little understanding of our current conflict, and so great a penchant to "stop this side of victory."

On Republicans losing the 2006 Elections...

2006-11-09T14:21:00.000-05:00

     In February of this year, I received a letter from the National Republican Congressional Committee asking for donations, noting the battlefield of the 2006 Elections. I responded with my displeasure, and a prediction, which, sad to say, has come true. I offer the bulk of my response for your perusal...

Dear Mr. Reynolds,
     While I appreciate your message, I have more than a few reasons why I will not be donating anything to the NRCC, which you deserve to know.
     As stewards of a nation's trust, our Congressional representatives have squandered what we have given them and abused their roles in the pursuit of perpetual power. Gerrymandered districts have made "of the people" a joke, for how can incumbents lose, if they can tailor districts to their liking. Elections still rule the day, but the ability of candidates to accept donations from "groups" and "committees" and "corporations" make "by the people" a farce. Our congressional representatives have forgotten the truth of political office, namely, that they are merely citizens, elected by citizens, to serve citizens. Special interest groups, lobbyists, and political action committees hold greater sway over those who represent the citizens of our nation than those selfsame citizens. Beholden to money, instead of principles, our representatives routinely give the interests of a few greater consideration than those of the citizens they represent.
     Commitment to principals of Smaller Government, Lower Taxes, and Greater Responsibility is falling to the wayside, as shown by your backing of Lincoln Chaffee, a virtual Democrat, whose posturing on Justice Alito's confirmation vote, versus his actual vote, prove him to be less "Right" and more hypocritical than some Democrats. But then, you're focused on building a majority, not remaining true to the principals that prompted American citizens to make you a majority.
     Smaller government is the lifeblood of a nation, for the larger a government becomes, the more it must take fiscally from its people, in order to function. And yet, Congress approved some of the largest earmarks in the history of legislation, at almost two per district, at a cost not to Congress, but to Americans, of billions of dollars. Congress is led by men who consider it their prerogative, as Majority Whip Roy Blunt has said, to use tax dollars to fund "earmarks" without any kind of legislative check and balance, in an effort to look good to their constituents, and thereby maintain their positions. One man can take hundreds of millions of hard-earned dollars and decide "I want to build a bridge." Temper tantrums abound when an "earmark" is challenged, and those out of whose pockets these dollars are ripped, are tired of it. Illegal aliens have gone from living lives of nervous invisibility to routinely taking advantage of Welfare, Medicare, and Social Security benefits once thought to be reserved for citizens. Such generosity with another's' money is repugnant.
     Congress talks of reform, then proposals are made for commissions to hold hearings in committees to discuss issues with experts, and on, and on, and on. Talk is cheap. It's time to act. If Republicans wish to maintain their current status as the majority in Congress, and indeed grow that majority, they need to prove to America their renewed commitment to smaller government, lower taxes, and greater responsibility. I urge you to forge a second Contract with America. Such a contract ought to be drawn up right now, signed by every Republican, then posted online and published so that every American can read it, verify that their respective representatives have signed it, and hold them to it.
[...]
     This Republican Congress has forgotten that it owes its continuance to the American people. It has become a bloated bureaucracy prone more to expediency and spending than stewardship and responsibility. As I recently wrote to Congressman Dan Lungren in response to his "Housecleaning" editorial in the Wall Street Journal, we don't need a little house cleaning, we need a good repudiation of current governmental practices on the vast majority of issues. You want to talk reform? Then clean house a little. Put a good face on things with new leadership. "Look, we changed." Want real reform? Then get back to the principles of '94. Give us a smaller, less intrusive government. Give us less taxes, and less programs. Give us a stronger nation.
     Clean house as has been suggested, and a nation appalled at the stewardship of it's trust will clean house for you, and the dust swept from the floors of Congress will be full of Republicans.