Friday, September 28, 2007
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Monday, September 24, 2007
I guess my suggestion during my own senior year of high school that the Homecoming theme be inspired by Joan Osborne’s 1997 Pop-hit What if God was one of us? would probably have been off the table here, huh?
Dawn, a 14 year old freshmen at BGHS, has been made a pawn in her father’s 20-year obsession with denying 230 years of historical and cultural tradition that point to this being a God-fearing nation (with a secular government, of course). Equally frustrating, reporter Sheila Ahern of the Herald did an excellent job of failing to conceal her obvious approval of a tax-payer funded public school brazenly tossing aside a song that in 1938 was nearly declared our new National Anthem by Congress.
In the very same #214 school district, just last year, there was a highly publicized controversy over the more-than-questionable content of various books that the school board had approved for students as young as Dawn Sherman’s age. Topics included: masturbation, gay sex, drug abuse, and suicide. You know, the classics, right?
More to the point, the very same Daily Herald newspaper wrote extensively about the #214 students who had come to the school board meetings to voice their own moral objections to the material they were being encouraged to read. Far from the congratulatory tone Ms. Ahern and her colleagues used in writing about an atheist’s daughter objecting to a patriotic song during a time of war, the Herald lambasted the Christian students who had taken a stand for their beliefs as being the “brainwashed” children of religiously radical parents.
I smell liberal math here…
What is really taking place in high schools like Buffalo Grove is the systematic re-writing of our nation’s historical narrative to satisfy people who don’t like the moral and ethical implications that the word “God” carries with it. Why do you think those of us who went through the public school system (in the past thirty years) never learned about Congress’ first act as a legislative body (hiring a minister to pray for wisdom and guidance before each session), but can tell you exactly how blankets of small pox Judeo-Christian imperialists from Europe gave to unsuspecting Native Americans?
Or that we don’t know Thomas Jefferson (old Church-and-State himself) attended weekly church services IN THE CAPITOL BUILDING and General Washington held official days of prayer and fasting during the Revolutionary War? Or that Lincoln used a scriptural reference in nearly every single public speech he ever gave and FDR publicly prayed to the Christian God of the Bible on national radio on D-Day in 1944?
Want me to keep going? The idea I’m getting at here is summed up in a word that the secular Left in American academia and news-media are terrified of: CONTEXT. Nothing is put into context as naïve high school and college students today lap up the secular-progressive drivel their liberal teachers learned in high school, college, and graduate school while other Baby Boomers were busy starting businesses, raising families, and volunteering at their local church.
Sadly, all of the countless examples that I could give regarding the not-so-separate relationship Church and State have had since 1776 likely wouldn’t change the hearts and minds of people who resent the fact they live in a Christian nation. And, truth be told, even the most pious of the Founding Fathers knew we must keep the two entities mutually exclusive as much as possible.
But, the anti-God crowd knowingly misapplies the “freedom of religion” clause in the Constitution and consistently fails to put it into the context anyone with a library card and even a passing interest in what the Framers actually intended America to be could easily find out.
Dawn Sherman said, “The songs should be secular,” when asked about her reasoning for the part she played in removing the “offensive” song. Hers is the standard (but dead-wrong) answer most secular-atheists would give. The truth is we are entitled to freedom of, not from, religion.
The Founding Fathers knew their recent 16th and 17th century history and that King’s who ran the church and state (i.e. Henry VIII in England) always ended up abusing their powers. This disdain for impersonal, centralized power was the same reason Luther and Calvin and the Reformers of the 16th century broke away from Rome and her Pope.
The over-centralization of power in the hands of anyone but God Himself was a terrifying thought to the men who defeated the British and constructed the greatest form of government the world has ever seen with little more than a rag-tag army, a commitment to democracy, and a collective firm belief in the Almighty and His providence.
I have but one question to ask the Sherman family, the Daily Herald, or any of you reading this that have been so liberally indoctrinated with political correctness (and the antipathy toward any claim of objective truth that typifies the “tolerance” championed by the Left in American public schools and news journalism): When Thomas Jefferson used the term “Creator” in the Declaration of Independence, what did he mean?
The foundational sentence in the foundational document of the freest, most prosperous nation reads: “…With certain inalienable rights, endowed by our Creator…life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Who or what is the “Creator” he references?
According to those who signed their names to that precious document, it is God, not Man, who grants freedom to the men, women, and children of these United States (and truthfully, the world).
What are we to do with this word, “Creator”? Those intent on seeing God removed from the American public square are not only knowingly attempting to re-write history, but worse still, they are removing the very core of our forefather’s argument to the world as to why they deserved to be free. Their God-centric conviction has anchored the freedoms and way of life we’ve enjoyed for more than two centuries.
And now we’re going to throw that all away because a 14 year-old girl’s dad shamelessly fed her (and the other 40 students in that Student Council meeting who voted along with Dawn) a lie that God Bless America would in any way be antithetical to the spirit of tolerance that millions have flocked to the United States to enjoy since its conception?
Either we are a nation that believes in the “first principles” espoused by Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and George Washington, or we are something far, far worse…Europe. There they have adopted the “anything goes, as long as God isn’t brought up to ruin our fun” lifestyle, and now boast: the lowest birth rate of any continent (save Antarctica, but it’s a close one); economic instability to the point where they had to gang up in a Union to compete with Uncle Sam’s free market; and perpetual threats from radical Islamic terrorism which come from within their own European population (see: citizenship of 7/7 and Madrid bombers, and Vincent Van Gogh’s grandson’s murderers).
America could have been founded by Bedouin sheiks from the Middle East who prayed to Allah five times a day, but it wasn’t. It could have been Torah-believing Jews from the Holy Land who settled Plymouth Rock and Jamestown, but it wasn’t. It could have been Buddhist monks from China who penned the Declaration, but it wasn’t. Look at what the ideologies of Atheistic Communism and Theocratic Islam have produced the past 230 years, and compare it to our country's history. Can it be just coincidence or natural selection that those men, at that time, in this place formed the prolific government and economy we now (supposedly) cherish?
The story of America, of the Western Civilized World itself, is (for better or worse) inseparable from the Judeo-Christian heritage that spawned it. This is the simple, uncomfortable, unadulterated truth. It’s not a perfect history, but it's our history.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
The UN is denouncing the Jewish State as well, citing the possible infraction of international law.
Are there any sections in that international law about violent military coups of duly elected governments (Fatah's, in this case), including the systematic murders of innocent women and children (all of which Hamas is more-than-guilty of)? Hamas has been declared an "enemy enmity" by the Israeli government because....surprise, surprise...they are an enmity which proudly calls themselves an enemy of the nation of Israel.
Monday, September 17, 2007
“Austria became the latest European country to grapple with the threat of terrorism as it arrested three people with links to al Qaeda who posted an online video threatening attacks against Austria and Germany.” (AP News)
Since September 11th, 2001 there have been scores of “incidents” involving radical Muslims in Europe. There was the violent reaction to a Danish newspaper’s printing of a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad that insinuated Muslims often over-react violently to trivial events (like cartoon caricatures) that they alone are allowed to call offensive. There was the Madrid bombings in 2004 that changed the outcome of that year’s elections in Spain, and led to a complete withdrawal of the Spaniards in the War on Terror.
These “incidents” range in size, scope, and damage from this week’s problem-free arrest of three 2nd generation Austrian-born Arabs, to the London bombings that claimed more than fifty lives on 7/7/05. Paris, Copenhagen, Hamburg and many other cities have fallen victim to the not-so-peaceful actions of radical adherents to the “religion of peace.”
Here in the United States during that time, despite what John Edwards or The New York Times say, we’ve had it pretty good. Last fall, in response to disingenuous calls for the non-existent torture of enemy prisoners at Guantanamo Bay to stop, President Bush divulged the fact that pre-emptive interrogations of captured terrorists (like 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Muhammad) had yielded information that prevented at least four different attacks on American soil before they occurred.
Regardless your impression of the man, President Bush and his administration has kept us safe for six years. We keep hearing that its not “if”, but “when” in terms of the next cataclysmic event here in the States. While likely true, we’ve been hearing that since September 12th, 2001 and it has yet to be realized. If Bush gets the blame for every single thing that goes wrong on this planet, he at least deserves some credit for adverting disaster thus far at home.
My point in bringing up our relative safety in relation to that of European nations is this: maybe, just maybe, the unwavering message from the White House since 9/11 that this jihadist enemy wants all of Western Civilization to fall under an Islamic caliphate (kingdom) is as true for Bjorn and Pierre as they are for Brad and Angelina. In fact, maybe even more so for the former rather than the latter.
Wait, but I thought terrorists only hate George Bush, the United States, and Israel? Why won’t they leave the Old World alone? Don’t countries like Germany allow immigrants to come and live for free on the government’s dime while they spend their days in radical mosques plotting terrorism (this is literally how and where the attacks of 9/11 were planned)?
You see, Europe is in all but name a Socialist state. They’ve adopted the secular-progressive, liberal view of humanity and government that is the “paper tiger” equivalent of the Chicago Cubs starting lineup in they eyes of a Cubs fan each Spring Training. What begins as, "Hey, on paper this team looks like a winner,” by the end of most every season turns into, “How in the world are these bums even allowed on the same baseball diamond with real teams?”
Liberalism, Socialism, and their crazy uncle, Communism, only work in the hypothetical world. Their policies fail every time they are implemented (i.e. the USSR, the “Great Society” under LBJ, etc.) and can only be kept alive when aided by the inevitable seizure of total control and power by the originally “egalitarian” oligarchy or dictatorship (i.e. Fidel’s Cuba, Hugo’s Venezuela, and present-day Communist China) that had convinced everyone it was a good idea in the first place. But, human nature being what it is, we (okay, Democrats) keep thinking that “if only I were the one in charge” these inherently flawed ideologies might work.
Europeans live in an eternal state of denial where their good intentions (i.e. curbing of economic growth, willingness to put the arbitrary standard of political correctness ahead of national security, and divorcing of almost all ties with the Judeo-Christian heritage that literally spawned the once-great Western Free World as we knew it) will somehow turn things around for a continent that is not-so-slowly being rendered inconsequential as China, India, and the United States economically and demographically "pull away" in power and size.
Consider this: Europe has what American Liberal Democrats passionately advocate for our own country. High taxes. Big government. Nationalized Healthcare. Four-day work weeks. Perpetual adolescence where marriage and children are frowned upon until you’ve had your fill of nightclubs, one-night stands, and penicillin. A weakened military that necessitates other foreign powers (America, in Europe’s case) fighting their battles for them. The need to consolidate national sovereignty and band together with more than a dozen other nations just to keep up with a Free Market economy (i.e. European Union).
Man, they got it all, eh, Hillary?
When it comes to terrorism, the open-border, open-armed pluralism of Fortress Europa seems only to encourage continued attacks, not quell them. Why is that do you think? Are they just unlucky? Is it simply because the terrorists are lazy and don’t want to travel across the pond again for another shot at the Sears Tower or Space Needle? Do jihadists hate the Euro exchange-rate as much as American tourists do?
My own personal, fascinating theory is that the Arab-Muslim mindset is such that they prey on the weak and feeble. I’m picturing a Discovery Channel documentary on hyenas set in the African Serengeti. Knowing full well that a frontal attack against an adult Zebra or even baby elephant would be foolish and painful, the cunning (cowardly) scavengers gang-up on the crippled animal in a herd and nip at the heels of the larger creature until it collapses from exhaustion.
Europe is the easy score. Europe has so many self-inflicted wounds that it has become easy pickings for the radical Islamo-fascists (hyenas). They attacked America on September 11th because they saw from the time of the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut in 1982, to the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, to the American Embassy bombing in Kenya in 1998, to the USS Cole bombing in Yemen in 2000, that America was, as Osama Bin Laden himself told ABC News in 1998, a “paper tiger.”
But then something they weren’t counting on changed after that day in September six years ago. The American President that most had written off as a bumbling dunce rallied the unparalleled will of the United States and unexpectedly parted ways with the appeasement-rich policies of his predecessor (think: cigar). He declared to the world, “You’re either on the side of freedom or the side of tyranny, but you better pick a side.”
He passed counter-terror measures like the Patriot Act (which simply lets the FBI and CIA treat terrorists like they treat the mafia). He received the confidence and votes of the American people, the United States Congress, and the United Nations Security Council to conduct a pre-emptive attack on a de-stabilizing force in the most unstable region of the world. He stood firm while nearly every other world leader found comfortable chairs in which they could play the role of armchair quarterbacks from.
We all know that nothing in life is perfect, and that even the people we love most dearly let us down from time to time. Mistakes have been made, but our President, Congress, and courageous military (with little thanks to the opinion poll-crazy Left) have protected us where European Prime Ministers, Presidents, Parliaments, and “peace-keeping” troops could not protect their own.
Don’t lose your resolve when you hear fear-mongers throwing around words like “wire-tapping” and “water-boarding”. Of course we must hold our elected officials accountable, but it is our duty to be grateful and appreciative when they do the primary job for which they were created: the protection of the citizenry.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Thursday, September 13, 2007
...You're a Traitor!
by: R.J. Moeller
Current congressman and presidential hopeful, Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), is no stranger to anti-American sentiments, but this time even he may have gone too far. His bizarre, quasi-treasonous rhetoric in a live interview on Syrian television during a recent trip to the Middle East is the seditious icing on his career-long incompetence cake. What’s the over-under on when this guy hold his “I’ve got no money and/or supporters” press conference? I’d say February 1st, and I’ll take the “under”.
"The United States must take steps to repair the damage that has been done to the
lives of the people of Iraq for the people who have lost their lives. We need to
help bring about a process of reconciliation between the Sunnis, the Shiites,
and the Kurds. That cannot occur as long as there is an occupation. We need to
see that there is honest reconstruction in Iraq, no Halliburton dishonest
cheating of the people of Iraq and the people of the United States."
There are times and places to voice opposition to President Bush or the War in Iraq. The time and place to publicly lambaste your own country, President, and military (during a time of war) is not while visiting a country who is a sworn enemy of the United States. This type of amateur-hour foreign policy is laughably ill-advised at best and purposefully subversive at worst.
“I've repeatedly challenged the thinking behind the surge…the United States must
end the occupation, close the bases, bring the troops home, but we must have a
parallel political process that reaches out to the international community, with
the help of Syria and Iran…”
Kucinich is living in a fantasy world I pray none of us ever see when he implies that only when saner heads (i.e. Iran and Syria) prevail in Iraq will peace and stability return. The world’s two largest state-sponsors of terrorism are going to be the ones that bring law-and-order to the very country that they have helped fuel insurrection in for five years? These diluted conclusions from Congressman Kucinich would be funny if it weren’t so shocking that he is actually an elected representative of the same America I reside in.
Imagine isolationist Congressional delegates traveling to one of the enemy Axis countries during WWII to give propaganda-rich interviews disparaging FDR and Ike? The reason this treachery is tolerated at all on the Left today is that so many of them still refuse to admit that we are at war.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
In today’s Wall Street Journal, Senators Joe Lieberman and John McCain emphatically condemned the actions of elected representatives in Congress who have decidedly put politics and their own re-elections in 2008 ahead of realities on the ground in Iraq and in the War on Terror:
Needless to say, the media and their cohorts in Congress have undermined anyone who thinks the war is anything but a categorical failure. They’ve disabled any Conservative or Republican from being able to comment on a war that the Left sees as being purely political. That is to be expected, as unfortunate as it may be for the American people who simply want real answers and real signs of progress.
What baffles me are the non-responses from Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Liberal pundits like Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann when their fellow ideological brethren publicly admit things have turned around in Iraq.
A Republican Senator who has been an outspoken critic of Gay Marriage gets caught toe-tapping in a men’s bathroom in the Minneapolis International Airport and only week-long, around-the-clock coverage will do for MSNBC and the Washington Post.
An anonymous soldier writes an article in the anti-war periodical The New Republic that U.S. soldiers are terrorizing Iraqis, and is quoted everywhere from the Floor of Congress to Wolf Blitzer’s Situation Room as gospel for more than two weeks, even after it was proved that the disgraced soldier had lied about the unsubstantiated accounts and his own military service.
A staunch critic of the President and life-long dovish Democrat Senator Carl Levin returns from a battlefield he voted against going to, has positive things to say about Iraq, and is pushed aside by his colleagues like a Barrack Obama illegal land-deal “scandal”.
Are the only stories worth reporting ones that defame and embarrass Conservatives? What are we to make of the obvious neglect shown stories that undermine Liberal positions and policies?
The truth is that Democrats are so invested in defeat in Iraq that anything that deviates from the storyline that the war is a monumental disaster cannot be tolerated. If the American people are bombarded with misinformation and led to think that Bush went to Iraq for political reasons, is incompetent, and his Generals are Pinocchio’s to his Gepetto, then they won’t be as able to discern the purely political reasons for the Democrats unwillingness to admit this war is not only winnable, but absolutely necessary.
The Left has disingenuously made the decision for voters one between un-ending military presence in Iraq for more than a century, and immediate withdrawal and temporary safety for American troops. Democrats’ shortcoming is the very thing they consistently accuse Republicans and President Bush of: an inability to see a “middle way” of adaptation and compromise en route to victory.
General Petraeus and his counter-insurgency “surge” plan should have been implemented two years ago. Rumsfeld and Bush were simply wrong about the troop levels this conflict required. President Clinton shouldn't have cut the military nearly in-half during the 90's so there would be more troops to use. Mistakes have been made across the board, and have yielded devastating consequences militarily and politically. This we know. This Bush knows.
Yet, the same "boorish" Texan who allegedly refuses connection with reality has in the past year: removed his Secretary of Defense, re-tooled his top military chain-of-command, and given his soldiers on the ground the means and lee-way to conduct this war in such a way that would cause Democratic Senators to change their rabidly anti-Bush, anti-Iraq War tune.
The President has changed. The Generals have changed. The results have changed.
What remains to be seen is if Democrats will be willing to concede they might have been wrong about pulling out of Iraq prematurely. For six years we’ve heard that it is the partisan politics of Bush and Karl Rove that have prevented any potential unity in Congress and across the nation. Here’s a chance for the Left to make good on their calls for consensus.
"A premature drawdown of our forces would likely have devastating
consequences," the general told a House panel as he and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq
Ryan C. Crocker delivered a highly anticipated assessment of the war. "There are
no easy answers or quick solutions," said Gen. Petraeus, who warned that Iran
and Syria are intent on destabilizing Iraq and that violence could spill across
Iraq's borders absent a U.S. deterrent
Thursday, September 06, 2007
A British military commander tells the London Telegraph that the war in Iraq is simply a proxy battle against the world's largest state-sponsor of terror: Iran. This is what Republicans, intelligence agencies, the President, and Israel have been saying for two years now.
Iran is the real threat. I'm not saying immediate military action is required, and we've got more than our hands full in Iraq (which, up until this year, was grossly mishandled), but to ignore the clear and present danger the radical theocracy in Iran poses is to miss the desert for the IED's.