Realmscapes

Words

How does the opposition try and attain the socialism they want for the country so that they can empower themselves? Through subtlety.

Here is SECTION I (short title) of the bailout bill that failed to pass in the House yesterday (formatting is mine):

"Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, Section 2, Purposes:  Provides authority to the Treasury Secretary to restore liquidity and stability to the US financial system and to ensure the economic well-being of Americans."

Here is the Preamble to the United States Constitution (again, formatting is mine):

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

That is how close the Democrat-led Congress--with support from President Bush and Republican leaders!!--came to putting socialist ideology into U.S. law books. That is frightening. What is more so is that this bill is not dead, and I doubt Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) will be foolish enough to be partisan again when a bill with similar language comes before the House again.

This bailout MUST be defeated again on the principle that such language in a law is 100% un-American. Contact your Congress representatives and tell them to reject any bailout with this kind of language.

Palin's Undelivered Speech

From Haaretz.com (archived in the case the page becomes inaccessible):

"In the speech which Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin was to have delivered at a Monday rally protesting the UN appearance of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, she was to have said that the Iranian president "dreams of being an agent in a 'Final Solution' - the elimination of the Jewish people."

Her appearance in the rally in Dag Hammarskjold Plaza was cancelled in a flap between protest organizers and Hillary Clinton, who had also been scheduled to speak. Clinton aides were quoted as saying that they had been "blindsided" by the decision to invite Palin, which they called a partisan move. In the ensuing controversy, Clinton withdrew her participation, and Palin's invitation was rescinded.

The text of the speech follows:

I am honored to be with you and with leaders from across this great country - leaders from different faiths and political parties united in a single voice of outrage.

Tomorrow, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will come to New York - to the heart of what he calls the Great Satan - and speak freely in this, a country whose demise he has called for.

Ahmadinejad may choose his words carefully, but underneath all of the rhetoric is an agenda that threatens all who seek a safer and freer world. We gather here today to highlight the Iranian dictator's intentions and to call for action to thwart him.

He must be stopped.

(The rest of the speech can be read by clicking the link below.)

The Democrats' Mess

From Bloomberg.com's "How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis":

"The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter."

Also bear in mind all the top Democrats that have benefited from Freddie and Fannie campaign donations.

Economic Dunce

There is just no other way to describe Barack Obama after he blamed Bush economic policy for the collapse of Lehman Brothers, and the subprime mortgage crisis in general. "Eight years of policies that have shredded consumer protections, loosened oversight and regulation, and encouraged outsized bonuses to CEOs while ignoring middle-class Americans have brought us to the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression."

He gives no specifics as to what he would do...although I guess his assumption is that we will assume simply the opposite of the above...? Notice he got a dig in on the "evil" CEOs, but laid no blame at the feet of the American citizen?

Someone amongst his 300 advisers needs to tell him that the crisis happened because banks were irresponsible with their own investments and because people requested loans that should not have been requested.

Palin a Religious Zealot?

For anyone who still thinks the media doesn't have an agenda against conservatives and the Christian community, there is this recent story that the AP printed that essentially makes Gov. Palin sound like a zealot of the same cloth as those we are fighting in the War on Terror.

I remember reading this story when it originally came out and immediately seeing that the article's headline completely misrepresented Gov Palin's quoted statement. But now it has come out that the AP grossly "misprinted" the actual quote. As was reported on Glenn Beck's weblog:

According to the AP, Sarah Palin said this about the troops while at church:

"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God,"

According to real life, Sarah Palin said this about the troops while at church (with the AP’s selective quoting underlined):

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God,"

The AP quote means "Iraq is a mission from God."

The actual quote means "We pray Iraq is a mission from God."

Rev Falwell Was Wrong Too

Fowler issued his cookie cutter apology today, citing his comments as being a "satrical comment" on those of the late Rev Falwell's concerning God & 9/11. So of course, it is ultimately the Christian community's fault.

Anyway.. For those who don't remember, Falwell basically said that 9/11 was God's punishment on the U.S. for our pursuing civil rights for homesexuals, not outlawing abortion, and our seeming general indifference to immoral and atheistic living. To the extent that is true is a debate for another day.

In any case, Rev Falwell was incorrect both in his original statement and in his apology (both of which can be read above). In his apology, Rev Falwell said, "I therefore believe that that created an environment which possibly has caused God to lift the veil of protection which has allowed no one to attack America on our soil since 1812."

Our relationship with God is no longer in a state of The Law of the Old Testament, but the Gospel of the New Testament. Statements like the above have caused Christians such as myself (from as far back as Martin Luther) to be tripped up spiritually. Words such as those do not represent what it is to be a follower of Christ.

Although we deserve it, God does not punish. He does not bring evil or suffering, whether it be terrorist attacks or natural disasters. In Hosea 6:6 God says, "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice"; and later, Paul writes to the Thessalonian church in the 9th verse of the 5th chapter of his first letter there, "For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath, but to receive salvation though our Lord Jesus Christ."

Certainly He disciplines and rebukes through His Word (see Hebrews 12) in a way that is revealed by the verses in this post (and many others); although He has given us the free will to walk with or apart from Him, yet His love never wanes in spite of our failures. And when we find ourselves outside of that "veil of protection", exposed to the evil that would destroy us, it is not by God's desire or will.

The blame is ours through bad choices, faithlesssness, or allowing evil to exploit our natures. That is the meaning of Proverbs 14:23 (and similar verrses). Also remember that God did not create us for death, but this is what Adam and Eve chose for themselves and their descendents. (And immediately thereafter, God promised us salvation through His son.)

Still, despite our flawed humanity, the veil remains (see Joshua 1:5).

9/11 was organised and executed by grossly misguided and evil souls; it was successful largely due to the immorality of a U.S. President, and the breakdown of communication between intelligence agencies due to human arrogance and pride.

To say that God caused or wanted 9/11--or any other terrorist attack upon innocents--and/or the suffering that resulted from it, is a statement of ignorance, misunderstanding, or slander against our Creator.

If one is to know God, he must seek God through His Word. Thus will we know to whom we should hearken.

Accepting the Nature of Islam

Rush interviewed Andrew McCarthy on his show yesterday. Andrew was the leading U.S. attorney in the prosecution of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the villain behind the 1993 WTC bombing.

The interview reminded me of an important issue--and frequent misconception--surrounding the religion of Islam. Being a Christian, I obviouslly believe my faith to be "the one". But the Islam religion is very different in the pantheon of faiths. Since 9/11 we have heard many times over that the Muslim jihadists (or "Islamofascists" as I prefer to call them) have hijacked the Muslim faith. This in fact is not true. I know this is not politically correct to state, and I can see a conservative Christian such as myself being accused of sabre-rattling, but the facts are the facts; and the fact is, the nature of this 1500-year old religion is often emasculated by the media and "experts".

MCCARTHY:  Well, I was the lead prosecutor, and [an] informant turned out to be the main witness in the case, and he was my witness, so I spent, you know, quite a bit of time studying what he had done and also, you know, having to do the other odds and ends that you do when you do a case like this, one of which was to try to get prepared in the event the [Sheik Rahman] decided to testify, which, you know, ultimately he didn't do but that didn't mean we didn't have to prepare for it.  And that was an eye-opener.  In fact, the whole experience in watching the dynamic of him and other people in the Muslim community throughout the trial was a real eye-opener for me.  I wanted to believe in 1993 the stuff that we were putting out, you know, that he basically perverted who was otherwise a peaceful doctrine.  But what I found was going through all of his thousands of pages of transcripts and statements, was that when he cited scripture to justify acts of terrorism, to the extent he was quoting scripture or referring to it, he did it accurately, which shouldn't be a surprise.

... There's no other way of putting it.  And it shouldn't have been a surprise.  I mean, he was a doctor of Islamic jurisprudence, graduated from Al-Azhar University in Egypt.  Why in the world I would have thought that I or the Justice Department would know more about Islam than he would is beyond me now that I look back on it, but back then I was pretty confident that we must have been right when we said that he was basically perverting the doctrine.

So the truth is, when Iran's president or the leaders of the Taliban and Al-Qaida, admonish the Muslim community for being traitors or soft when helping the West combat terrorism--the truth is they are correctly rebuking their fellow Muslims according to their scriptures; Muslims who practice their religion as a peaceful faith are really the ones hijacking Islam (in the eyes of the greater muslim world). Take this exchange:

RUSH:  We live in the United States of America, and the people who live here, many of them have not traveled abroad; and as a result there are many things that they take for granted and one of the things I think a lot of people take for granted is that we're pretty much like the rest of the world, except they're very impressionable and they're told that the rest of the world hates us. They despise us because of our affluence, because our productivity, because we are a small portion of the world's population and we use a majority of the world's resources. All these things, and the education system labels guilt throughout our society.  You mentioned these people in the fourteenth century.  One of the things I constantly try to tell people is that -- to demonstrate the true greatness of western democracies, representative republics and a western civilization, a culture. We are all born as little savages.  If we were not raised by parents -- if we were not instructed in right and wrong, morality and so forth -- we would turn out however we did.  These people remind me of just that.  They're being raised to behave and think as they do.  I'm talking about the jihadists, this culture that's 1400 years old.  Human beings are not by instinct, not by nature good.  That has to be programmed into them, it has to be raised in them -- and these people of course have a different definition.  They think they are good, they're doing everything in the name of God, and yet their crimes are against humanity.

MCCARTHY:  You know, Rush, that's exactly right.  It actually brings me to another memory of the dynamic between [Sheik Rahman] and the community, which was an eye-opener and a frightening one to me.  We had very long defense case in the case. It actually went on for about two months; and during the course of it, any number of moderate people came in -- and they really were authentic moderate people.  There's no way on God's green earth they ever would have crossed into terrorism activity. But every now and then when they were on the stand, a question of theology would come up, of doctrine. You know, "What does jihad mean? What does this concept mean?" and at least three different times, they answered, "I wouldn't be competent to say. You'd have to ask someone like [Sheik Rahman] about that."

Andrew added this important point at the end of the interview:

"Even if you don't agree with why we went to Iraq in the first place -- and, you know, say we should never have been there --the fact is that the worst thing we ever did was pull out of Lebanon in 1983 when the Marine barracks got hit.  The next worst thing we probably ever did was pull out of Somalia when that got ugly.  These people -- and when I talk about "these people," I mean people like Bin Laden and [Sheik Rahman] -- if used to a fair thee well as a recruiting tool this notion that they're the strong horse, we're the weak horse; and if they make it ugly enough and bloody enough for us, that we will pull out.  It's like when a very strong team plays a very weak team in sports.  The strong team can never give the weak team a sniff, because the minute you do and they start to think they can win, and they start to believe in themselves, they become much more efficient. It becomes much more easy for them to recruit, to raise money, to do all the things they have to do to take on a superpower.  What they have going for them that we don't, is they have basically eradicated our threshold idea of what is civilized behavior.  They are willing to do anything to win, and they're absolutely sure that history is on their side.  Unless we become more sure than we are now that we're right, and that we have a need to show them that however long it takes, we're going to do what has to be done to win; you know, we can't rely on the fact that we're a super power and that it's inevitable that we'll win this thing."

Even a brief walk through history reveals that the Muslim world exists today through its military conquests and sectarian world-view. Do you think it a coincidence that the war between Islam and the West is almost as old as Islam itself? The first real step towards combating Islam is first understanding that at its core it is not a peaceful religion. Its followers are not brain-washed lemmings, but zealous followers of their teachings. Talking about them in this fashion makes Christians such as myself sound extreme...like we are calling for a crusade of our own. Ironically that is exactly what they like to hear because it justifies their inhumane actions.

I am not calling for a crusade, but we do have the right to defend ourselves and support our allies who desire to live in a world of freedom. This we should do without the veils of political correctness or ignorance, and with the firm conviction that we are right in doing so.

Conservatism Winning in Europe

Congratulations to the Tories in England and Wales, and specifically Boris Johnson, the new Mayor of London, for their country-wide landslide victory of the 2008 London and local elections!

A heartfelt and belated congrats to the Italian conservatives who also took control in their elections some weeks ago...

And lets not forget Sarkozy...

These Euro winners won on solid conservative principles, proving that optimistic attitudes and policies of conservatism will win when it isn't watered-down. I might also add that all of the winners are pro-America, something else that no doubt shocks the liberals both in the U.S. and Europe. (As an aside: the current Pope is also very pro-America.)

Now, if only our own Republican candidates would take some inspiration from our conservative European brothers and sisters and show some bold courage this November in our own mega-important Presidential Election Year.

Again - Misguided

Liberals pride themselves on supposedly giving voice to the poor, the down-trodden, the minority, the starving, the sick, the oppressed, the suffering...

If you believe that load of crock here are two stories for you.

March 31, 2008
The Washington Post: Gore launches ambitious [$300 Million] campaign on climate

April 7, 2008
Reuters: Key scientist sure "God particle" will be found soon
The Times (UK): At 78, scientist hopes for proof soon that he was right about the Universe

$300 million in advertising to convince mankind we are able to control nature...

$2.36 billion for an "atom smasher" to attempt to prove that God doesn't exist so that atheists can sleep better at night, and so that a scientist can win a medal...

Don't tell me that liberals care about this world's starving and destitute when they support these kinds of selfish money-burning projects and scams. Make no mistake: a liberal's only interest is their vanity and their pursuit to be free from moral responsibility.

The Writer's Strike: Proposals

For anyone following (or just aware) of the strike going by the members of the Writers Guild, and would like a simple update without all the hype, the Writer's Guild-East website has a brief article outlining the two proposals that are currently on the table.

U.S. No Longer Worst Polluter

...at least according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

So does this mean the World can stop blaming the U.S. for man-made global warming now? </sarcasm>

Nah. American innocence doesn't fit within the global warming theology. And oh yeah, China is exempt from the Kyoto Protocol because they are a "developing country". (In contrast to who?) How convenient.

Pelosi Botches Power Grab

Laugh. Out. Loud.

The situation of Nancy Pelosi screwing up her own trip to the terrorist-state of Syria shouldn't be that funny. But no wars have started, so I guess we can laugh at Israel's version of Rock's People's Eyebrow as the nation sends the over-ambitious House Speaker a collective "HUH?" The story is impossible to find online at any of the big lib media outlets (unless you want to pay for a subscription and try to maybe find it that way), but happily the Israeli media is happy to report the U.S. Democrat's international "whoops".

Hey Nance: How about leaving the foreign policy to the professionals.. thanks.

Irony at the Oscars

Melissa Etheridge won an Oscar for Best Original Song for the Al-gore's global warming propaganda docu-bullsh. The name of the song? "I Need To Wake Up".

Yep. I agree.

Go Dems!

The Democrats are looking to re-neg on their authorisation given to the President in 2002 for the Iraq War.

Take notice America! The Dems are showing you that they cannot stand behind anything.. that they have no guts to tough out the difficult challenge of protecting the American culture.. that they have no knowledge of what the war is, what it means, or the statitics of success on the ground.

I love watching the Dems shoot themselves in the foot. They are a national Chinese fire drill of a party.

E-Mail from Tazz, Airman in Iraq

As posted at RushLimbaugh.com:

Hey Rush,

I am scratching my head here. None of this makes any sense… but I wonder what you think about all of this…

The national news media shows lots of our American servicemen and women dying over there in Iraq and getting killed, helicopters being shot-down, roadside bombs going off…etc…etc. Yet, when you are there, when you work with Americans and Iraqis who are actively engaged in re-building the country, who are out going after the enemy… there’s this ever-present sense of optimism, this prevailing up-beat mood of doing good. Just go talk to the wounded servicemen at Brooks or Bethesda… they’ll tell you the same. Likewise… the Iraqi gentlemen (civilians) I worked with were excited about their economic prospects. They were eager for their families to experience a better life than the life they had under a totalitarian regime.

Rush, there’s an upbeat mood out there in Iraq. The country and its new democracy are moving forward. And the enemy hates it.

On the subject of “civil war” or “civil strife” in Iraq…

From what we can tell… there’s no “civil war” or “civil strife” as the news media puts it. The terrorists are coming from outside the country and killing civilians – as many as possible – to gain a foothold in Iraq. They play this stuff on TV to make us sick. It’s working… we are getting sick… but Iraq is getting strong. If there really is civil strife in the country… then WHY don’t WE hear statements in the news about Shia leaders taking responsibility for Sunni killings, and vice-versa? WHY? This is why: Because they aren’t doing that Rush. THAT’S WHY we NEVER hear news reports from the so-called “civil strife” combatants themselves… because there aren’t any… the IRAQIS are trying to build-up their country and make it work… MEANWHILE the enemy comes and kills everyone they can… and they run away from the scene (or die in the blast themselves).

One more thought…

I HATE DOING MATH…BUT THINK ABOUT THIS….

Rush…there’s anywhere from 500 to 1,000 road vehicle convoys per day in the country of Iraq. One or three of these vehicle convoys (at most) get hit by an IED each day, which destroys maybe one or two vehicles. Most convoys have anywhere from 20 – 100 vehicles…NOW…what’s your odds (e.g. CNN reporter) of being tagged by an IED????

In Summary…

I remain confused, amazed, and dumbfounded by the news-media view on the war. And yet Americans are buying it…WHY??? How can we believe only one side of the story without seeing the whole picture… the whole story as it unfolds? Does ANYONE really know (other than those who are there) what’s REALLY happening in Iraq??? Is there any chance of getting any of this news reporting being done right???

America is doing good things over there. Our troops are awesome… they are an inspiration… a model of courage and of selfless patriotism. Why don’t people back home trust them?

Mega Dittos Rush

Very Respectfully,

Tazz

High Noon

What a great allegory for the present War on Terror the classic western, High Noon (1952), is.

(Fair Warning: There could be spoilers following.)

The movie is about a principled lawman, Will Kane, who is in the twilight of his career as Marshal. Then word comes that a dangerous gunman, Frank Miller, has been acquitted by the courts and is headed back to the town to take down the man that (five years prior) tried to get him hung for his crimes. Will is just married and has the town's full blessing to leave, but Will knows that if he leaves, not only will the town return to the cesspit he found it in (courtesy of Frank Miller and his boys in the first place), but that the Miller Gang will only hunt him down anyway.

So the Marshal decides to make a stand and, minute by minute, it is revealed that not only does the town not intend to help him, but they want the Marshal gone so that upon his Frank Miller can return the town to its former low-moral standing and create business.

The allegory for the War in Terrorism is less in the plot of the story, but more in the characters, the principle of Duty, and the characters' motives and beliefs surrounding that:

Marshal Will Kane (George W Bush) believes there is a sworn duty to stand up against the kind of evil brought by the Miller Gang (take your pick of Terrorist leaders for these four roles). In the past the town (Democrats & many World leaders) supported the Marshal in this initial duty (think the Gulf War). But in the years that have followed, the town now believes that trouble can be avoided if there is no confrontation between the two rivals. Not only that, but the Marshal is bad for business... the kind of lucrative business that only immoral behaviour can bring.

The Marshal still believes in his allies--the same allies that helped him take out the Miller Gang five years prior. But one by one, the allies fall by the wayside: first Kane's deputy (the United Nations), Harvey, an immature kid who quits out of jealousy because he craves the power and auto-respect he think he will get wearing Marshal's badge*; then Sam (the U.K.), one of Kane's closest friends, abandons him out of pressure from the town; next Kane is told by the world-worry former Marshal (I wonder if George Bush SR played this role, or perhaps Colin Powell), that the town isn't worth saving and being a lawman isn't worth the trouble; even Mahin (the "moderate" Christians), the town preacher, tells Kane he won't back him; and finally, Herb (the "moderate" politicians), the deputy that wants to help but only if the odds are favourable, otherwise he has his wife and kids--and any other good excuse he can to think of to shirk the hard call of duty.

Who will you be backing when High Noon strikes in this War?

*There is a great line uttered by one of the female leads to the young deputy that the U.N. would do well to accept--"You're a good-looking boy: you've big, broad shoulders. And it takes more than big, broad shoulders to make a man."

RE: MJ Fox & Rush (cont.)

For those of you out there that still (naievly/arrogantly) insist that the media is not biased--because I know you are out there--notice that CNN, MSNBC, et al are still featuring this story between Rush and Michael J Fox, and yet they have happily buried the John Kerry recent embarressment.

Conservatives (Not) Voting in 06

Rush dedicated a good portion of his show today to the attitude some conservatives are showing towards the current Republican administration, specifically Congress (since the Bush Admin is not up for re-election).

It seems that some conservatives are intending to sit this election out in protest to the Republicans who walk too far from the conservative values. I am as conservative as the next guy, and I am also somewhat frustrated with the spineless-ness of many member of the Republican party. But is it really all that smart for conservatives to not vote and thus allow the Democrats to possibly take control?

According to one conservative caller, he was sitting out the election because he feels that America needs to learn a hard lesson. Now, there are times when "all or nothing" is a good route to take. However I cannot see this as one of them. Politics is sometimes about giving the enemy one battle so you can win another, more strategic one. And as any military general will tell you, a battleground doesn't stop being a battleground after one battle. It can be fought on again and again.

What I'm saying is that where the illegal immigration is most certainly a vital issue that needs to be addressed, it's not worth getting in a tizzy over to the point that the liberals get control and pull the troops out of Iraq--that is just as much a security issue and with more global implications. Besides, do you really think a D-controlled Congress will even look at immigration? Don't you think there's a much higher chance that the issue will be re-addressed in a new Republican-controlled Congress?

On Election Day, vote and give the country a chance to continue its work at trying to make this world a better and safer place for everyone.

Not Enough

Mel Gibson conducted an interview with Diane Sawyer with the intent to repair what he believes to be a damaged reputation after his drunken arrest incident. We all know what he said, and we know even more how much he has apologized. But the critics and Jewish community continue to say "It's not enough".

Not enough. When did humans decide it was their right to decide what is enough and what isn't. When is it enough to accept an apology and move on? When our tattered prides are mended? When the offender has sunk his reputation into depths he cannot escape? Maybe after the situation is large enough so that all the talking heads can have their gospel say ala the parable of the pharisee and the sinner (Luke 18:9)?

I always told people that the God of the Christians and Jews is the same God. After reading the article about Gibson's interview. I officially recant this belief. Apparently the god of Jewish faith teaches that we each have the right to decide when we think someone is sorry enough to be worthy of our forgiveness. But the Word of God (aka The Bible) is rife with examples of God telling us to forgive our brothers and let it go. I should not have to remind the Jews how many time their Biblical ancestors said stupid things to God and about God. And how many apologies did it take for the nation to receive God's forgiveness?

"The blame was cast on the drinking and not really what he thinks and feels," says Rabbi Mark Diamond. "I think he has a long way to go in accepting responsibility and confronting the disease of alcoholism." Seems to me that it's not Gibson who needs to come to grips with what he thinks and feels, it's everyone else. It also seems to me that the Jewish community ought to be focusing on real anti-Semitic problems e.g. the United Nations and Iran.

Islamo-Fascists

That's what they are. The only crime the Pope committed was apologizing for calling the Muslim faith what it is. I am no longer convinced that the majority of Muslims in the MidEast are part of a peaceful faith.

Take the reaction to the Pope. And I suppose a scholar quoting Mein Kampf is a Nazi? Of course not.

These Muslim terrorists are so tightly wound that it could have been a fly landing on the Pope's cheek in a certain way for them to communicate to the World what they intend.. and that thy are very close to the holy war. These people are 100% committed to our conversion or extermination:

"([W]orshipper[s] of the cross) and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword."

Christian or not, it doesn't matter to these Islamo-Fascists.

Stalin is Smiling on the Dems

It is incedible what Clinton, his former admin, and the Democratic Party are attempting to do about this TV movie, The Path to 9/11. This lated liberal hissy fit illustrates perfectly how the mainstream media isn't only biased in favor of the libs, they are owned by them. Why else would Clinton et al. make these public outcries unless they 100% believed that--and still expected not to be called on it by the American public? Do you think Hollywood would have pulled All the President's Men from theatres if Nixon had written the poducers a letter? And if the Republicans had, what would have been the response? "OO! OO! OO! They want it pulled! The movie must be right!! Show it and let the truth be known!!"

Exactly.

Rush calls these censorship tactics Stalin-ist. And the Dems bristle when they are called un-patriotic. Do libs have a better description of their behavior?

Watch and learn from the reaction of Clinton and his kooks to this film, folks. Regardless whether the movie gets pulled or not, the flag should be raised for those of you who believe the Clinton "legacy" was some kind of positive, or that this country would be at all safe under their leadership.

Timely Star Wars Readings

"Distances are irrelevant to injustice. If not stopped soon enough, evil eventually reaches out to engulf all men, whether they have opposed it or ignored it."

You know who wrote that? George Lucas in the Star Wars - A New Hope novelisation (it is a line spoken by Obi-Wan to Luke). GL: You rock and have inspired me as a writer like no other, but your current public politics and stance about the War on Terror don't jive with your morality.

On the heels of reading this, I have taken a new stance on the New Jedi Order series. I still am not a big fan of the series as part of the Star Wars saga, but I do have to point out that politically the NJO saga is very timely. The saga is about a bloodthirsty alien race on a religious crusade of religious domination. The crux of their religion is fear through mass unmerciful death. Their heroes are those who kill and physically deface themselves.

The alien race cannot be negotiated with even though the government in charge of the Star Wars galaxy tries and tries and tries. Even when the alien race makes clear their terrorist ends, the President of the New Republic *still* believes in diplomacy. Only when the alien race succeeds in conquering a third of the Star Wars galaxy and then takes the capital planet, does the President realize his mistake. He pays for it with his life, as do countless thousands.

This Star Wars series gives us a chilling glimpse at what life would be like under Democratic leadership, and worse, under a liberal, wishy-washy, touchy-feely, "what does the world think of the U.S. today" President.

When are the libs in this country going to wake up and realize that Iran and Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah are not interested in diplomacy? Their Islamo-fascist beliefs are intent on death to all who do not share their radical beliefs. How do you negotiate with someone who wants nothing short of your death? They don't care about your political slants, just one question: Are you a part of their religion or not.

Inter-Immigration War

There was an excellent segment on FOX news' Hannity & Colmes program last night. Pat Buchanan, was the special guest promoting his new book, State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, about the threat of Arab immigration (legal and illegal) to not only America's national security, but Western civilisation as a whole.

Mr. Buchanan discussed some of his research and data that you will find in the book, and even the liberal host was mostly silent... except at the end when he urged the watching liberal audience to check out the book before forming a hasty opinion.

I find this issue more and more fascinating, especially since it was an issue that worried such respected intellectuals as CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien. Even in the mid-20th century, Lewis and Tolkien insisted that the Crusades, which started in the 11th century, are still going on. The War on Terror... escalating problems with Iran... these are all proofs that Arab extremists are still fighting the Crusades, except they are the ones on the offensive at this point in history.

Of course, Lewis and Tolkien were concerned about their native Europe. But now America is part of that front with members of Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda being smuggled over the U.S. border from Mexico, and possibly Canada. It's a shame that these extremists are ruining oppurtunities for the honourable Arab peoples who want to come to the West to start new lives and be a part of Western culture (while keeping their religious faith). But such is the world we live.

I highly recommend checking out Pat Buchanan's new book.

No Cease-fire

Don't mistake this cease-fire for a peace agreement.

The only reason Nasrallah has agreed to this resolution is because the IDF has been successful in its operations and Hezbollah needs time to recuperate.

And don't make the mistake of thinking that Lebanon wants the cease-fire for its citizens. Why should Lebanon care about its people now when they have allowed Hezbollah to use the Lebanese and its government in order to strengthen its political position for the last decade? Why do you think Lebanon fought so hard NOT to have an international force disarm Hezbollah? Nasrallah knows that the Lebanese army sure can't disarm them--and the UN "force" acts as a nice screen while Hezbollah rearms and retrains.

So why did Israel vote unanimously for this resolution? Because at best, it works. And at worst (and what I imagine they and the U.S. expects) is that this resolution will accomplish as much as the last UN resolution, meaning that it's only a matter of time until Hezbollah is stupid enough to attack Israel again. And when that happens, Israel will once again show the world how grossly incompetent the boys in the baby blue are.

Unfortunately, the Islamic fascist nations and terror groups will still be able to claim a small victory against democracy because Israel will bring its full strength to bear on the terrorist group, resulting in Lebanon's cities being bombed to sea level. But that is Lebanon's choice to make. And yes, it is Lebanon's choice--being a free democracy is not a guarentee that your sons and daughters will never die in its preservation. Post-WWII America is in danger of making this mistake--we'll know soon enough in the next Presidential Election.

This cease-fire will make the rest of 2006 interesting. And depending on what Iran is going to do by their self-imposed deadline on Aug 22, things could become interesting even sooner.

Not that we should need another reason...

"We are ready to attack key interests of Israel and the United States worldwide. If [America wants] to start World War Three, then we say let them come."

A quote from the leader of the Hezbollah contingent in Iran (as read today during John Gibson's The Big Story on FOX News).

"Why are we in Iraq"

According to the media, it's a question asked by many Americans these days. According to their polls, two-thirds of Americans are unsure of why we're still there (or worse, why we're even there in the first place). I don't put muxh stock in the media or their polls, but there is a thread of truth to the reportings of both.

I support the war in Iraq. We need to be there because it is the right thing to do. America is about fighting for those who cannot fight for themselves. We won our freedom over 200 years ago. It is our obligation to ensure a free world. That is the role God has deemed for this country.

You can read politics or economics or greed into the war as much as you like. Fact is, all of those can be read into anything, and are often convenient excuses for not getting involved in anything. But if America and Britain (read: Champions of the Free World) don't lead the way who will?

France? Germany? Japan? Anyone?

I don't think anyone disagrees that Terrorism is an evil. But it seems many mebers of the Free World believe that anyone BUT them should be fighting it. So George Bush and Tony Blair have decided that they will act for the Free World and do the job that no one else wants to do (and to be fair to many countries, cannot do).

I don't care about intelligence reports or poitics. And I don't care what everyone says are the "underlying motivations". I care about the fight of Good versus Evil. I care that my nation does its part in that fight, and that it fights on the right side. (Oooo, there's another taboo--how dare I say "Right side" in this world of grey!) I care that countries such as America and Britain and Australia continue in the fight against Terror because otherwise terrorism wins, and the World loses.

I just wish the Leaders of America and Britain would get up and say this clearly:

"This war is just and right."

How do they know its right? Because they are losing in the polls.

Weapon of Mass Destruction

It's amazing to me to listen to liberals zero in on the Bush administration concerning the lack of nukes, checmical and bio agents, and other similar weapons that were NOT found in Saddam's arsenal.

WHO CARES!

As an old school American, Saddam Hussein was a threat while he had power. But as a human being and a Christian, Hussein is evil. And as a human being and Chrstian I support the eradication of evil from the world as much as it is possible. It baffles me that libs just can't get past this fact! They are just so excited that they can say "You were wrong" and meanwhile completely overlook the fact that Hussein himself was a major "weapon of mass destruction". While in power, he destroyed lives.. he destroyed countries.. he destroyed hopes and dreams.. and he destroyed Freedom.

But the best the liberals out there can do is continue to denouce the War on Terror and insist that Hussein should have had a chance to make peace with the U.S. and the world.

I wonder--no shudder--at what would have happened if these same libs had been in power when Hitler waged war on the world and humanity. You know, he didn't have nukes or chemical weapons either...

Congressional Bully Pulpit

It was a long time since the last time I saw my favorite baseball player, Mark McGwire. But last night was not I how wanted to see him.

Maybe I'm just protecting the innocence of my childhood. I remember planning my whole life around the nights or afternoons when the Red Sox or Yankees were playing the A's so I could get a look at the Big Bopper. And maybe--JUST maybe--he would hit one out for me. I remember the pain of his trade from Oakland to St. Louis. I've been a fan of the Swingin' A's since I knew what a baseball was. And to have my favorite player traded from my favorite team was devastating. But I got over it and was happy to rejoice with him and the baseball world when he broke Maris' record as a Cardinal. It's the only time one of my favorite sports heroes ended doing something so famous and important.

I also remember all the card shows I went to with my Dad, racking down the latest McGwire sub-set card. Or the elation of finding something unique like a mini-set dedicated to his playing career.

And then there was that baseball card that I kept in my favorite A's hat that I wore everywhere, from ballgames in New Britain to school.

And then there was the first McGwire replica t-shirt that my Dad bought me during one of our many Cooperstown trips. (I still have that shirt for my son to wear someday.)

All these memories flashed past me as I watched the great Freedom-loving, Justice-seeking legislative body of the this nation--the United States Congress--tear apart the reputation of one of modern day baseball's greatest icons. I am heart-broken... and very angry that the US Congress would feel their need to make Big Mac the object of their saber-rattling. I mean, why embarrass one of the leading spokesmen for abused and neglected children?

You know, maybe McGwire made a poor choice when he chose to take a "performance enhancer". But the fact remains that Mr. McGwire has broken no laws--the drug was perfectly legal back then--or compromised his or baseball's integrity. I mean really.. any player can walk into a gym in the offseason and come back looking like Triple H (c. 1998) without any help from anything other than steel weights. So McGwire got himself bigger. The ballparks these days are more expansive than ever, and it sure was a thrill to watch a "tape measure shot".

But back to the issue. I'm pretty sick of our Lesgislative Branch being out of touch with issues and then blaming everyone but themselves when an issue becomes a problem. The government went after the wrestling business in the 80's for steroid use, why did they wait so long to call the rest of the professional and amateur sports on the issue?

I'm also pretty sick of our government (and media) believing they have the right to use the Past (as selected by them) to make themselves knights in shining armour. You know Congress, with all your clever campaign slogans and political rhetoric, you always seem to forget the one that goes People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.