JudgeRight

of God

2008-08-03T00:29:17Z

As a Christian, I use the term "of God" to communicate the concept of "ordained" by or "part of His original design" for human society. In the Jewish tradition, Jews use the term "kosher" extended from their dietary laws. In Islam it is referred to as "Halal" or approved, also extended from dietary laws. The Muslims also have a word for the opposite "Haram" where as the Christian and Jewish traditions use simple negatives to express the same concept of not being "of God" and not being "kosher."

Many liberal Democrats actually believe THEY are doing God's work by advocating for homosexual legitimacy, by protecting illegal immigrants, by favoring Islam, by forcing national philanthropy on Americans, by eliminating our right to be armed for self defense, (the shooters at Columbine and Virginia Tech violated 18 gun laws going onto the campus' with guns, do you think 2 more laws would have made any difference to them?) by forcing America's wealth into the hands of enemies and barely friendly states, by opposing war, by cutting the military budget, by advocating cultural diversity, by eliminating public Christian displays, by shutting down evangelism in public, by supporting radical feminism and the obfuscation of gender roles, debasing the level of civility, and defending pornography.

Examples follow:

Here is the way the original description of Prop 8 read:

• To provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Jerry Brown is advocating for same sex marriage using his position as Attorney General to describe a bill that has already passed in liberal California to sound more like a violation of human rights. Here is Brown’s new description:

• Changes California constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.

of God

This video illustrates the difference between a peaceful religion and a militant religion perfectly. Both have the right to free speech, both have criticism of the other, but one responds with truth while the other responds with violence, yet in our current mindset of multi-culturalism they are equally associated with hatred and intolerance.

John LeoBowling With Our OwnRobert Putnam’s sobering new diversity research scares its author.

25 June 2007

Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone, is very nervous about releasing his new research, and understandably so. His five-year study shows that immigration and ethnic diversity have a devastating short- and medium-term influence on the social capital, fabric of associations, trust, and neighborliness that create and sustain communities. He fears that his work on the surprisingly negative effects of diversity will become part of the immigration debate, even though he finds that in the long run, people do forge new communities and new ties.

Putnam’s study reveals that immigration and diversity not only reduce social capital between ethnic groups, but also within the groups themselves. Trust, even for members of one’s own race, is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friendships fewer. The problem isn’t ethnic conflict or troubled racial relations, but withdrawal and isolation. Putnam writes: “In colloquial language, people living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’—that is, to pull in like a turtle.”

In the 41 sites Putnam studied in the U.S., he found that the more diverse the neighborhood, the less residents trust neighbors. This proved true in communities large and small, from big cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Boston to tiny Yakima, Washington, rural South Dakota, and the mountains of West Virginia. In diverse San Francisco and Los Angeles, about 30 percent of people say that they trust neighbors a lot. In ethnically homogeneous communities in the Dakotas, the figure is 70 percent to 80 percent.

Diversity does not produce “bad race relations,” Putnam says. Rather, people in diverse communities tend “to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.” Putnam adds a crushing footnote: his findings “may underestimate the real effect of diversity on social withdrawal.”

Neither age nor disparities of wealth explain this result. “Americans raised in the 1970s,” he writes, “seem fully as unnerved by diversity as those raised in the 1920s.” And the “hunkering down” occurred no matter whether the communities were relatively egalitarian or showed great differences in personal income. Even when communities are equally poor or rich, equally safe or crime-ridden, diversity correlates with less trust of neighbors, lower confidence in local politicians and news media, less charitable giving and volunteering, fewer close friends, and less happiness.

Who cares?

Now I will grant that the Conservative lobby has its ills and I will grant that some of the actions taken by conservative led government has had some detrimental effect on our society and foreign policy but, it is hard to accept liberals are interested in culture when they are deconstructionist. Liberals don't embrace culture as being something handed down to them. They strive to create a culture (that is ideal and not based in historical precedent) at the expense of the one that was dominant from Jamestown until the 60's revolution. The effects of this deconstructionism in an effort to create 'a better world' has made the world worse in almost every instance in history. Justified by intent, anyone can feel sanctimonious in committing the most heinous crimes against humanity. It was under this very banner that Mao ordered the murder of millions in China and Stalin in Russia. It is under this banner that Islamists commit terrorist acts around the world by the thousands each month. (to establish the house of peace and to purify their culture) Most liberals do not go so far as even breaking a single law toward this end but most, (especially those in the most responsible positions in our society) do compromise their own values of right and wrong to forward their agenda. Nancy Pelosi for example was quoted by the Washington Post in explanation for not heeding American suffering from gas prices because, "I'm trying to save the world here." From the threat of DDT to the threat of heterosexual AIDS in America to that mass killer secondhand smoke, the left believes and spreads threats that, unlike the threat of Islamic terror, really are "scare tactics." Never underestimate the harm that cheap heroism can do to our society.

all wrong

What the liberal mind misinterprets about Christianity and conservatism is what they criticize in Christianity and conservatism far more often than actual philosophies of Christianity and conservatism. Naturally, the liberal will immediately argue the same is true of conservatives and Christians about other cultures and liberalism. This video demonstrates the obvious ignorance in American history leaving a false negative impression of conservatism and a false positive impression of liberalism. I'm not talking here of the commoner but of the the liberal experts and historians highlighting the worst of Christian and American human rights violations and self determination or the conspicuous absence of reference to the foundation of our cultural principals and in some cases outright denial of faith in founding principals.

On March 28, 1811, Thomas Jefferson wrote to William Duane from Monticello:

“The last hope of human liberty in this world rests on us. We ought, for so dear a stake, to sacrifice every attachment & every enmity.”

Our purpose as a nation in a world that does not value liberty so clearly as do we, is to encourage liberty everywhere and in every possible way we can. In that endeavor we cannot fail to send along with it, both our compassion to those suffering in lack of essentials and a call to individually self govern their behavior to benefit the whole of society. The more morality we subject ourselves to the less a government has to do it for/to us. But our first priority has to be instilling these values in our own people. With liberty as its highest goal, our society is most vulnerable to abuses of that very all important value by members of its own population. Since our leaders are reliant on public opinion in order to attain and hold the positions of policy makers, on the relatively minute volition of speech alone our nation can be reduced from the lone superpower and the desired destination of the vast majority of immigrants to literal non-existence and even worse, into despotism.

"Society is best described as a grouping of individuals which is characterized by common interests and may have distinctive culture and institutions. We are a society of freedom, a society of life, and a society which includes family, friends, and even faith. By faith, I mean that we were founded on the principles of a natural God, a Creator, and it was believed that a free society could exist only with the moral code of natural law (God's Law)." Hat tip to The New Conservative. I am therefor begging Americans to use your judgment to determine what is right, good, beneficial or of God.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Ratings? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Ratings

2008-07-30T06:57:16Z

What we don't get in the main stream media. I don't know where this town hall meeting took place or when, but the video was posted in January this year.

What we're not getting from the main stream media

Or how about this article?

Non-citizen voting -- election fraud in the making
A new study warns that fraudulent votes by non-citizens, including illegal aliens, could swing this year's local and national elections.

"When you learn that half of the 9/11 hijackers were registered to vote, that's when you realize that the honor system the country has for its voter registration system is broken," explains Hans von Spakovsky, a visiting scholar at the Heritage Foundation and author of a new report titled "The Threat of Non-Citizen Voting."

The study says tens if not hundreds of thousands of non-citizens, including illegal immigrants, are registered to vote nationwide. Former Federal Election Commission member von Spakovsky points out the U.S. expects individuals, when they register to vote, to comply with the law and not register if they are not American citizens -- but people are clearly breaking that law and there is no way for the government to detect it, he states.

What do you suppose the approval rating is for the main stream media? Could it be lower than Congress' approval rating at 8-9%? I don't think media in any form could stay in business if it's ratings were that low. But wait, they are losing viewers and readers by the droves. The L.A. Times is reducing its staff reporter ranks by 1/3.... again. Are they getting a clue yet? Nope, just look at the latest fiasco with the big three sending their highest paid employees to cover Obama's foreigner campaign trip, and what did they have to report? The world loves him! Shock!! Surprise!! Astonishment!! Of course THEY love him, he is a Citizen Of the World. He isn't running for president. He's running for Grand Potentate of the world. Does anyone on the left realize that foreigners aren't supposed to vote in this election?

Congress won't go out of business with low approval ratings, they might be strung up, but they won't go out of business. News media apparently aren't aware that they are reliant on ratings. People vote with their wallets when it comes to papers, and they vote with their remote controls when it comes to TV news. I guess FOX and CNN will be buying NBC, CBS, and ABC before they get it figured out.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Speak Truth to Power? NO, Authority to Power

2008-07-28T07:23:30Z

Over at the group, "Rethinking the Church and its Relationship to the Community" I watched this video posted by Butt Rock Ken of Mark Lowry interviewing Tony Campolo. Now I oppose Tony Campolo's work on separation of church and state, but the rest of his writings, sermons, speeches and thoughts are utterly clear, sound thinking. In this interview he demonstrates this in recounting the difference between power and authority. So this is the seed of this article.

Authority

Power
1 a (1): ability to act or produce an effect (2): ability to get extra-base hits (3): capacity for being acted upon or undergoing an effect b: legal or official authority, capacity, or right2 a: possession of control, authority, or influence over others b: one having such power; specifically : a sovereign state c: a controlling group : establishment —often used in the phrase the powers that be darchaic : a force of armed men echiefly dialect : a large number or quantity3 a: physical might b: mental or moral efficacy c: political control or influence4plural : an order of angels — see celestial hierarchy5 a: the number of times as indicated by an exponent that a number occurs as a factor in a product <5 to the third power is 125>; also : the product itself <8 is a power of 2> b: cardinal number 26 a: a source or means of supplying energy; especially : electricity b: motive power c: the time rate at which work is done or energy emitted or transferred7: magnification 2b8: ¹scope 39: the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis in a statistical test when a particular alternative hypothesis happens to be true

Authority
1 a (1): a citation (as from a book or file) used in defense or support (2): the source from which the citation is drawn b (1): a conclusive statement or set of statements (as an official decision of a court) (2): a decision taken as a precedent (3): testimony c: an individual cited or appealed to as an expert2 a: power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior b: freedom granted by one in authority : right3 a: persons in command; specifically : government b: a governmental agency or corporation to administer a revenue-producing public enterprise authority>4 a: grounds, warrant authority for believing the claim> b: convincing force authority to the performance>

In my experience, the church is involved in sacrificing for their community and for the world. Every church I have been a member of (admittedly a small number) has been involved in giving food, services, and care to their communities and giving to poor and needy people around the world. I don't mean giving out of their wealth either. I mean often giving when they are in need. I agree with Tony Campolo's assessment about authority and in my opinion the church does earn that authority. While there are instances of some churches trying to impose political will on the nation at large, this is not to be confused with the authority bought and paid for by sacrificial giving. As Mother Theresa had the moral clout to speak to college kids about their immoral lifestyles and to President Clinton about abortion, the giving church has moral clout to speak to their communities about their immoral policies. This is where I believe Tony deviates from his own message on the separation of church and state. Tony is himself involved in politics, why then would he suggest that the church should not be involved in the same way. Is it the organizational aspect of the Christian voice? What then? Are we to leave the political power to the secularists who've demonstrated an effective collectivist activism and influence on the political system? It would be a suicide of reason and result in the loss of our fundamental right to freedom of religion to vacate the opposition of the anti-Christian movement.

On Christian involvement

My greatest criticism goes to the main stream media and to the generation which disrespects authority. The generation that had as one of its mantras "Never trust anybody over thirty." Another is "Speak truth to power" as if power is by definition seats of deception and corruption. Positions of power are not born in corruption though they have been and some currently are filled with corrupt individuals. Jack Murtha is the first to come to mind. Those powers were born of necessity for a civil society to function. We try to judge which candidates would fill those roles to best benefit the society they govern. This brings us to the crux of Christian involvement in political activism. Who better to judge who has moral clout? Who better to influence those powers for the benefit of society than those willing to sacrifice of themselves for that community? The media influence on the popular view of religious people is similar to the one we see in the arena of science debate. Christians have real reasons to debate the theory of evolution, but we have been shut out of the discussion and ridiculed for our belief in a Designer. Our explanation for the existence of everything has been labeled 'fanatic' and 'superstitious.' This view has progressed to the point that our belief is banned from the institutions of education. The media continues this system of demarcation by putting a ? in front of every interview with a religious figure, yet it is those same Christians who are sacrificing of themselves to go to the drug addicted, pimps, poor, homeless, and even into the prisons to bring about real benefit to those trapped in their circumstances.

We are earning moral clout and nowhere is that more evident than in the personal lives of those who've escaped their addictions and economic traps through the aid of the Christian community. Where we are ridiculed and shunned is in the very halls of authority that those we emulate established. We began the fight that ended slavery, we began the fight for human rights and self rule and determination. We continue that fight to this day. Those are the values this nation was born on and not, as the secularists claim, on the mix of many cultures. Mixing the cultures is good, but it wasn't the idea of many cultures mixed. It was the idea of a Christ centered heritage open to all comers.

Back to authority. What authority is bought by holding up a sign that says "No Blood for Oil?" There is no sacrifice in that. Neither is there any benefit to society locally or globally. What sacrifice to march through the streets of Washington shouting slogans for equal rights to marriage for gays? These groups have no moral clout, no authority to speak of rights. This is merely a selfish demand as is the anti-war campaign. They see the war as a 'sacrifice' they are not willing to make. This is why giving in to these demands is a step away from morality rather than toward it. These are anti-sacrificial movements pushing greater evil into the world born in and fueled by selfishness.

Speaking truth to power means nothing when truth is described as relative by pop culture. "What's true for you is not true for me." Truth used to mean we all assume one way to be true and all others to be false and wrong. How about speaking authority to power? Where the voices that are buying credibility by investing in the society with their sacrifices are more valued than the voices demanding of society rather than investing in it.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Dangerous and Foolish

2008-07-26T06:58:28Z

I started out digging into the story behind Nancy Pelosi. Twana had asked me to do an expose` on her but as I dug in, I found that Nancy is straight up Democrat Party hack to the core. She has a further left voting record than Barak Obama. Where Obama's voting record shows he has voted along party lines 96% of the time in the Senate (more than any other senator, Nancy has voted along party lines 98% of the time in the House of Representatives. The further I dug, the more I realized that all of Nancy's astoundingly stupid moves have not been Nancy moves but Democratic moves. She is simply following the party line and agenda. The astounding dangerous games with national security and foreign policy are founded and supported by the Democratic version of wisdom. So, here is what I've learned.

In the House of Representatives, the captain of the football team or the quarterback is the speaker of the house. The position is the third highest in the U.S. government after the president and the vice president which means if anything should incapacitate both the president and the vice president, the speaker would assume the position of president until an emergency election could be held to fill the position again. The fourth would be Harry Reid, president pro-tem of the Senate. A Speaker of the House is elected by the elected Representatives. So, when Democrats won the majority in 2006, Nancy assumed the position by House vote. In this position she controls which bills come before the House of Representatives to be debated and voted on. In essence as long as the bill is in the house, the speaker controls the political football. The most visible responsibility of the Speaker is wielding the gavel in the House to allocate time for opposing parties to argue their points over each bill and to keep the order in the House. This position requires a certain decorum. One has to be fair to the minority party delegates with regard to counting votes and declaring wins or losses. Often these are made verbally in the interest of expedience, but are sometimes disputed and so go to a recorded vote. What happens if the speaker is less than honorable?

games with national security

I'm using the game metaphor because that is the way the Democrats have been treating the policy making process. Partisanship and political strategy takes priority over any other factor whether foreign policy, national security or issues of morality being legislated by our policy makers. It doesn't matter if its pulling our troops out of Iraq or if its embryonic stem cell research or economic stimulus efforts, self defense via citizens legally arming themselves, or corporal punishment. Results don't matter, good intentions are what matter to Democrats. In my estimation, they don't believe the American voters' attention span is long enough to notice the damage done by their policies or agenda.

One demonstration of this strategic partisan games playing with foreign policy especially in regard to national security and the war effort in Iraq was Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria to engage in talks with a hostile government for the express purpose of undermining White House efforts designed to put pressure on Syria to disengage from support for Muslim insurgency in Lebanon as well as material support for insurgency into Iraq. The Wall Street Journal called this visit 'Dangerous' and 'Foolish.' This gaming with policy in relation to hostile forces in the region does not just undermine the Bush administration, it undermines national and ally interests by emboldening our enemies making our national will appear divided and weak. This puts our troops in the battlefield in greater danger and makes their mission that much harder to accomplish.

Syrian perspective on Pelosi visit

So why would Nancy be willing to play partisan politics on issues as important as national security? A short look at her bio tells me a lot. Nancy was born into politics and has had as her goal in life nothing but politics. She is a political hack from the district that is furthest left in a state that is competing for the title of furthest left. She is dependent on her base in San Francisco, California to stay seated in Congress. As demonstrated by her base, if she wanders too far from their ideals, they loudly call her out any variance from the party line. But that isn't all. I submit to you that she is acting in line with the Democratic agenda to undermine president Bush at any cost for simple political clout.
http://www.petitiononline.com/everyman/petition.html

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000197/

PELOSI, Nancy, (daughter of Thomas D’Alesandro, Jr.), a Representative from California; born Nancy D’Alesandro in Baltimore, Md., March 26, 1940; A.B., Trinity College, 1962; chair, California State Democratic Party, 1981-1983; finance chairman, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, 1985-1986; elected as a Democrat to the One Hundredth Congress, by special election, to fill the vacancy caused by the death of United States Representative Sala Burton, and reelected to the ten succeeding Congresses (June 2, 1987-present); minority whip (One Hundred Seventh Congress); minority leader (One Hundred Eighth and One Hundred Ninth Congress); Speaker of the House (One Hundred Tenth Congress). (Source.)

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000197/

Nancy Pelosi has voted with a majority of her Democratic colleagues 98.1% of the time during the current Congress. This percentage does not include votes in which Pelosi did not vote. See a list of her votes against her party since 1991, a list of all Representatives in the 110th Congress with a similar score, or a full list of party voters.

base condemns Nancy

As Barak Obama has the highest record voting along party lines with 96% in the Senate, so Nancy holds the highest record voting along party lines in the House. What this means is a party hack with the most extreme leftist voting record is the third highest power in the land. At the same time the fourth highest position of power in the land is occupied by Harry Reid, at the same time the highest party line voter in the Senate is the DNC pick for the Democratic presidential candidate. If successful, the most extreme Leftist body in Washington will have full control of two of the three branches of government with the last one (the Supreme Court) having a history of taking specific cases to write laws by precedent and move our government and culture to the left. This means, should Barak Obama win the presidency, for the first time in American history the dissenting voice of conservatism will have been shunted to the sidelines for at least two years and more likely as many as eight years of one sided power control.

What's at issue with partisanship is this self destructive nature of the Democratic agenda. From national budget issues to workers' rights to human rights, every vote and every bill authored will be cementing into our governance further and further socialist action than we have ever known in America. Nearly every position is either detrimental to freedom, to human rights, to societal health and strength, to even naming evil and will have no check or balance to limit this agenda. The liberal mind is either dead set on destroying the greatest force for good in recorded history or simply doesn't believe our system is fragile enough to crumble under the weight of selling national pride for political currency. Instead of defending the reputation of America's efforts to bring good and right into the world, they are celebrating its decline..

Party of national suicide

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

First, Know Your Enemy

2008-06-18T06:23:56Z

The Enemy Has a Name

By Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com | 6/17/2008

If you cannot name your enemy, how can you defeat it? Just as a physician must identify a disease before curing a patient, so a strategist must identify the foe before winning a war. Yet Westerners have proven reluctant to identify the opponent in the conflict the U.S. government variously (and euphemistically) calls the "global war on terror," the "long war," the "global struggle against violent extremism," or even the "global struggle for security and progress."

This timidity translates into an inability to define war goals. Two high-level U.S. statements from late 2001 typify the vague and ineffective declarations issued by Western governments. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld defined victory as establishing "an environment where we can in fact fulfill and live [our] freedoms." In contrast, George W. Bush announced a narrower goal, "the defeat of the global terror network" – whatever that undefined network might be.

"Defeating terrorism" has, indeed, remained the basic war goal. By implication, terrorists are the enemy and counterterrorism is the main response.

But observers have increasingly concluded that terrorism is just a tactic, not an enemy. Bush effectively admitted this much in mid-2004, acknowledging that "We actually misnamed the war on terror." Instead, he called the war a "struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies and who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world."

A year later, in the aftermath of the 7/7 London transport bombings, British prime minister Tony Blair advanced the discussion by speaking of the enemy as "a religious ideology, a strain within the world-wide religion of Islam." Soon after, Bush himself used the terms "Islamic radicalism," "militant Jihadism," and "Islamo-fascism." But these words prompted much criticism and he backtracked.

By mid-2007, Bush had reverted to speaking about "the great struggle against extremism that is now playing out across the broader Middle East." That is where things now stand, with U.S. government agencies being advised to refer to the enemy with such nebulous terms as "death cult," "cult-like," "sectarian cult," and "violent cultists."

In fact, that enemy has a precise and concise name: Islamism, a radical utopian version of Islam. Islamists, adherents of this well funded, widespread, totalitarian ideology, are attempting to create a global Islamic order that fully applies the Islamic law (Shari‘a).

Thus defined, the needed response becomes clear. It is two-fold: vanquish Islamism and help Muslims develop an alternative form of Islam. Not coincidentally, this approach roughly parallels what the allied powers accomplished vis-à-vis the two prior radical utopian movements, fascism and communism.

First comes the burden of defeating an ideological enemy. As in 1945 and 1991, the goal must be to marginalize and weaken a coherent and aggressive ideological movement, so that it no longer attracts followers nor poses a world-shaking threat. World War II, won through blood, steel, and atomic bombs, offers one model for victory, the Cold War, with its deterrence, complexity, and nearly-peaceful collapse, offers quite another.

Victory against Islamism, presumably, will draw on both these legacies and mix them into a novel brew of conventional war, counterterrorism, counterpropaganda, and many other strategies. At one end, the war effort led to the overthrow of the Taliban government in Afghanistan; at the other, it requires repelling the lawful Islamists who work legitimately within the educational, religious, media, legal, and political arenas.

The second goal involves helping Muslims who oppose Islamist goals and wish to offer an alternative to Islamism's depravities by reconciling Islam with the best of modern ways. But such Muslims are weak, being but fractured individuals who have only just begun the hard work of researching, communicating, organizing, funding, and mobilizing.

To do all this more quickly and effectively, these moderates need non-Muslim encouragement and sponsorship. However unimpressive they may be at present, moderates, with Western support, alone hold the potential to modernize Islam, and thereby to terminate the threat of Islamism.

In the final analysis, Islamism presents two main challenges to Westerners: To speak frankly and to aim for victory. Neither comes naturally to the modern person, who tends to prefer political correctness and conflict resolution, or even appeasement. But once these hurdles are overcome, the Islamist enemy's objective weakness in terms of arsenal, economy, and resources means it can readily be defeated.

Mr. Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org), director of the Middle East Forum, is the Taube/Diller Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University during the spring semester.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The New Old Peace Corp

2008-06-05T04:33:21Z

The price of greatness is responsibility. If the people of the United States had continued in a mediocre station, struggling with the wilderness, absorbed in their own affairs, and a factor of no consequence in the movement of the world, they might have remained forgotten and undisturbed beyond their protecting oceans: but one cannot rise to be in many ways the leading community in the civilized world without being involved in its problems, without being convulsed by its agonies and inspired by its causes.

If this has been proved in the past, as it has been, it will become indisputable in the future. The people of the United States cannot escape world responsibility. Although we live in a period so tumultuous that little can be predicted, we may be quite sure that this process will be intensified with every forward step the United States make in wealth and in power. Not only are the responsibilities of this great Republic growing, but the world over which they range is itself contracting in relation to our powers of locomotion at a positively alarming rate.

We have learned to fly. What prodigious changes are involved in that new accomplishment! Man has parted company with his trusty friend the horse and has sailed into the azure with the eagles. Where, then, are those broad oceans, those vast staring deserts? They are shrinking beneath our very eyes. Even elderly Parliamentarians like myself are forced to acquire a high degree of mobility.

But to the youth of America, I say "You cannot stop." There is no halting-place at this point. We have now reached a stage in the journey where there can be no pause. We must go on. It must be world anarchy or world order.

Law, language, literature - these are considerable factors. Common conceptions of what is right and decent, a marked regard for fair play, especially to the weak and poor, a stern sentiment of impartial justice, and above all the love of personal freedom, or as Kipling put it:

"Leave to live by no man 5 leave underneath the law" - these are common conceptions on both-sides of the ocean among the English-speaking peoples. We hold to these conceptions as strongly as you do.

We do not war primarily with races as such. Tyranny is our foe, whatever trappings or disguise it wears, whatever language it speaks, be it external or internal, we must forever be on our guard, ever mobilized, ever vigilant, always ready to spring at its throat. In all this, we march together. Not only do we march and strive shoulder to shoulder at this moment under the fire of the enemy on the fields of war or in the air, but also in those realms of thought which are consecrated to the rights and the dignity of man.

If we are together nothing is impossible. If we are divided all will fail.

I therefore preach continually the doctrine of the fraternal association of our people, not for any purpose of gaining invidious material advantages for either of them, not for territorial aggrandizement or the vain pomp of earthly domination, but for the sake of service to mankind and for the honor that comes to those who faithfully serve great causes.

Here let me say how proud we ought to be, young and old alike, to live in this tremendous, thrilling, formative epoch in the human story, and how fortunate it was for the world that when these great trials came upon it there was a generation that terror could not conquer and brutal violence could not enslave. Let all who are here remember, as the words of the hymn we have just sung suggest, let all of us who are here remember that we are on the stage of history, and that whatever our station may be, and whatever part we have to play, great or small, our conduct is liable to be scrutinized not only by history but by our own descendants.

Let us rise to the full level of our duty and of our opportunity, and let us thank God for the spiritual rewards He has granted for all forms of valiant and faithful service.

To learn who spoke these timeless ideals and read the full speech click here.

Remember the message of the anti-war and peace activist crowd as we committed ourselves to ousting Saddam Hussein?

Has war been declared under a cloak of conspiracy? Has America's huge appetite for oil driven it to war for the oil in that country and to protect the value of the American dollar? Has President Bush cherry picked a country and a regime to fight because he thought a war president can't be questioned? Has America started WWIII? Was the US lying about Weapons of Mass Destruction so it could take control of Iraq's oil? Was President Bush taking his religion to the extreme to drive Christianity into the Middle East? Was he trying to set up the New World Order his father spoke about when he was president? Was President Bush's motive to recharge the American war industry and get those weapons factories back into big government contracts? Was he trying to set up a military state in the US to gain militant control and therefore establish a permanent position as the leader for the US? Is anybody still saying the war in Iraq is a total disaster, a mess, a catastrophe and that its not going to get any better, that its only going to get worse?

Oberman on Patriotism Question

Given a chance to see the war prosecuted and work some real progress, we can now start pointing to the evidence of what the evil nation building Bush regime intended to do in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are not stealing the Iraqi's oil and we are not setting up a puppet government. We are working with the indigenous people to establish law and order and drive out the criminal elements of terror and intimidation. We are rebuilding the infrastructure better than we found it. We are creating an environment where people can choose their own rule of law and write their own constitution and live in a community of agreed upon standards of behavior rather than either the oppressive regime that was toppled or the rogue powers that would fill its vacancy.

Buying a better tomorrow: CLB-6 dispersing, CAG use money as a weapon in Haditha Triad

From the local to the regional level, Shives believes the combined effort of the CAG teams and CLB-6 dispersing is paying off throughout his AOR. It’s a change especially felt by the Iraqi citizens.

“A year and a half ago, I was afraid to do business and had to move away from my home,” said Achmad Nasir, the head of the Haditha business association. “Now, more and more businesses are coming back to Haditha and bringing work to the community. I feel secure in my home and my city.”

“I think working with the CAGs is the best part of what I do,” said Cpl. Eric McClure, a pay agent with CLB-6 dispersing. “I feel like I help these projects reach fruition, which will lead to a successful end for us and the Iraqi people.”

This is us in their countries. Now let's have a look at Muslim controlled countries as they have developed naturally from the war clans of Mohammad's design, and a look at them in our countries.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,360925,00.html

A young blind boy has died after a teacher at his Islamic school in Pakistan hung him upside down and beat him for not learning the Koran, Agence France-Presse reported Friday.

Teacher Qari Ziauddin allegedly hung Muhammad Atif, 7, from a ceiling fan at Qari Latif Islamic school near Lahore, Pakistan, on Thursday.

Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has ordered an investigation into the boy’s death, AFP reported.

"The Prime Minister has expressed his deep sorrow and concern over the tragic death of Muhammad Atif, who reportedly died as a result of corporal punishment by his teacher,'' an official government statement said.

Pakistani police said Ziauddin has been arrested and charged in Atif’s murder. The police also report Ziauddin did not take the boy to the hospital after his condition deteriorated following the beating.

Local police official Akram Niazi told AFP an autopsy report confirmed that physical torture caused Atif’s death.

"Qari Ziauddin hanged Atif upside down with a ceiling fan in the school after beating him with sticks, which caused his death,'' Niazi told AFP.

25% say terrorism justified

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/010608dnmetfunerals.216ceab.html

Their Christian funeral service Saturday – followed by a Muslim service later in the day – served as a reminder of the promise their short lives held and the needless tragedy of their deaths. Police believe they were killed by their father, a 50-year-old cabdriver.

And the police presence was a reminder that the girls' Egyptian-born father, Yaser Abdel Said, is still on the run.

Amina, 18, and Sarah Yaser Said, 17, who both attended Lewisville High School, were found shot to death in a taxi at an Irving motel Tuesday night.

http://www.nysun.com/national/islamic-groups-named-in-hamas-funding-case/55778/

A list of co-conspirators was released in connection with the federal trial in 2005 of a former college professor, Sami Al-Arian, on terrorism support charges. However, when Enron executives went on trial last year, the list of alleged co-conspirators was kept under seal. Prosecutors on the Holy Land Foundation case could not be reached yesterday and did not respond to an e-mail.

The inclusion of the Islamic groups on the list of alleged conspirators could give ammunition to critics of the organizations. CAIR, in particular, has faced persistent claims that it is soft on terrorism. Critics note that several former CAIR officials have been convicted or deported after being charged with fraud, embargo violations, or aiding terrorist training. Spokesmen for the group have also raised eyebrows for offering generic denunciations of terrorism but refusing to condemn by name specific Islamic terrorist groups such as Hamas or Hezbollah.

In addition, one of the Holy Land Foundation defendants, Ghassan Elashi, founded CAIR's Texas chapter. CAIR's Washington office was also set up in 1994 with $5,000 in seed money from the foundation, according to congressional testimony by a researcher into Islamic extremism, Steven Emerson.

Our military actions around the world over the past century have nearly always been with the intention of bringing help to the oppressed, food to the hungry, human rights to the abused, protection to the threatened, and hope to the downtrodden but we have been described as anything but a force for good by the Left of this generation. War dissenters lie. They called President Bush a liar which is a twist on the definition of a lie in the first place. They lied about America's motives. They lied about America's goals. They lie about our efforts. They lie about our accomplishments. They lie about our abuses. They lie about our methods. They lie about our troops' behavior. They lie about our history. They lie about how we get into wars. They revisit history in our schools and media. I refuse to believe mainstream news media anymore unless I can get independent verification through neutral or opposing sources. I approach reputable organizations' studies and reports with suspicion. There is no honesty in American and indeed world discussion of politics, ethics, values, or America's role in world leadership within the academic, political, economic, or even theological circles of intellectuals. It is a rare voice that is not so set in his beliefs that he will consider arguments from the opposition. Integrity and honesty in the discussion is required to heal the division in our own culture and politics. That's why I call on everybody to judge right.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Republicans Get a Bad Rap

2008-05-08T03:26:22Z

I was doing a little research on another article when I came across this great site. On it I was acquainted with a video series on YouTube which reveals tolerance training our corporations are subjecting their employees to. This training series was created in 1968 by a third grade school teacher. (Jane Elliot) With the exception of including women's rights and homosexuality the training hasn't changed in 40 years. She subjected her third grade class to this exercise to teach them about racism. I have no doubt that racism still exists in America today, however, as demonstrated by Reverend Wright in the past month or so, much of today's racism is propagated by blacks. I had the privilege of living outside this racist society for two years courtesy of the U.S. Air Force and I know the difference between a society that expects little of blacks and places failing programs in their communities with its blacks carrying a chip on their shoulder and believing that most people actively work to victimize them and the society that has blacks integrated into the society. When I met a black person there, I knew he did not expect me to think less of him than of people from my own heritage. But there is much more to the story than tolerance training is willing to deal with and therefor tolerance training is an ineffective means by which to address these issues. In fact, if you watch all twelve segments of the video, you will see this former third grade teacher discount assimilation as meaning "make you like me." In some ways that is true, but the way it was applied the very idea is to blaspheme the tolerance gods. Assimilation means to work within the system with the same rights, protections, and benefits as the rest of us, not to make your heritage irrelevant and certainly not to excuse self destructive behaviors or to give special privileges to atone for our racist sins. This has to be true of all cultures in the melting pot.

The reason integration is failing is not the responsibility of the white Christian male anymore. When a white man is 60 times more likely to die at the hands of a black man than a black man is to die at the hands of a white man, fear of blacks is not unreasonable. This is not xenophobia, phobias by definition are unreasonable fears. Blacks are much more likely to die at the hands of black men than white and whites are much more likely to die at the hands of whites so we should be more afraid of our own kind than of others. When crime rates are staggeringly lopsided on race indicators, it is not the broken system to blame for the high representation of blacks in our prisons. When broken homes and unwed mothers are staggeringly lopsided on race indicators, it is not the white communities debt to blacks that can fix these problems. Liberals want to do something for blacks, well guess what, Conservatives do too, but I don't want to throw good tax dollars after bad. I want systems that work, rather than propping up miserable failures. That's why I'm Republican. Republicans are the party of ideas that work. Republicans are the party that worked to free slaves, the party that institutes programs that work the same as we have done in national parks, environmental cleanup programs, and a host of others. Look at the history of Democrats' programs. Which one, which single program has helped black people out of oppression? There isn't one.

The same is true of the women's movement. Women won the right to vote on the Republican controlled legislative process in both houses in the 19th amendment where it failed under the Democrat controlled body. The first woman congress member was Republican. The Democrats run around making noises about caring for the poor and oppressed but they enact programs that ultimately do much more damage than they help. But, come election time, they make those appeasing noises and the milk toast voters believe every honey dipped word of it. They have been on the wrong side of every conflict we as a nation have ever been in save two. That was when a Democratic president was in office and either he had a difficult time making the call for war or had a very difficult time calling his party into the fight for right, good, and humanitarian causes.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Idea Man

2008-05-06T15:05:27Z

Newt gingrich

Repeal the gas tax for the summer, and pay for the repeal by cutting domestic discretionary spending so that the transportation infrastructure trust fund would not be hurt. At a time when, according to The Hill newspaper, Senator Clinton is asking for $2.3billion in earmarks, it should be possible for Republicans to establish a "government spending versus your pocketbook" fight over cutting the gas tax that would resonate with most Americans. Lower taxes and less government spending should be a battle cry most taxpayers and all conservatives could rally behind.
Redirect the oil being put into the national petroleum reserve onto the open market. That oil would lower the price of gasoline an extra 5 to 6 cents per gallon, and its sale would lower the deficit.
Introduce a "more energy at lower cost with less environmental damage and greater national security bill" as a replacement for the Warner-Lieberman "tax and trade" bill which is coming to the floor of the Senate in the next few weeks (see my newsletter next week for an outline of a solid pro-economy, pro-national security, pro-environment energy bill). When the American people realize how much the current energy prices are actually a "politicians' energy crisis" they will demand real change in our policies.
Establish an earmark moratorium for one year and pledge to uphold the presidential veto of bills with earmarks through the end of 2009. The American people are fed up with politicians spending their money. They currently believe both parties are equally bad. This is a real opportunity to show the difference.
Overhaul the census and cut its budget radically. The recent announcement that the Census Bureau could not build an effective hand-held computer for $1.3 billion and is turning instead to 600,000 temporary workers to do a paper and pencil census in 2010 is an opportunity to slash its budget, shrink its bureaucracy, and turn to entrepreneurial internet-based companies to build an information-age census. This is an absurdity that cries out for bold, decisive reform (see my YouTube video "FedEx versus federal bureaucracy" for an example of what I mean).
Implement a space-based, GPS-style air traffic control system. The problems of the Federal Aviation Administration are symptoms of a union-dominated bureaucracy resisting change. If we implemented a space-based GPS-style air traffic system we would get 40% more air travel with one-half the bureaucrats. The union has stopped 200,000,000 passengers from enjoying more reliable air travel to protect 7,000 obsolete jobs. This real change would allow the millions of frustrated travelers to have champions in congress trying to help them get places better, safer, faster.
Declare English the official language of government. This real change is supported by 87% of the American people including a majority of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and Latinos. It is an issue of national unity that brings Americans together in a red, white, and blue majority.
Protect the workers' right to a secret ballot. The vast majority (around 81%) of Americans believe that American workers have a right to have a secret ballot election before they are forced to join a union. Last year the House Democrats passed a bill that would strip American workers of the secret ballot. A new bill should be introduced reaffirming that right, and it should be brought up again and again until marginal Democrats are forced to vote with the American people against the union power structure.
Remind Americans that judges matter. Senate Republicans should mount an ongoing fight (including a filibuster of other activities if necessary) to get the American people to realize that liberals want to block all current judicial appointments in order to maximize the number of left wing radical judges they can appoint if they win the White House. This issue has three advantages. It reminds people that judges matter and that a leftwing radical Supreme Court would be bad for the values of most (70 to 90 percent, depending on the issue) Americans. It shows the Democrats are not engaged in fair play. It arouses the activism of those who have been disappointed by Republicans and have forgotten how bad a liberal Democratic Presidency would be.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Myrick Plan

2008-05-02T09:44:11Z

Home

Get Involved

Donate

Chapter Information

Contact Congress

Issues and Legislation

News

Visit our News page

Dear JudgeBob,

As predictable as the sun coming up in the East, a spokesman for an Islamic organization has condemned Congresswoman Sue Myrick’s “Ten Point Plan” to wake up America to the threat of Islamic terrorism.

Just as predictably, the “condemnation” makes no attempt to refute the plan or make a factual case against it. The reason, as so aptly pointed out below, is that the Muslim spokesman cannot refute the plan. Thus, the “condemnation” consists of the same tired, worn-out, name calling and ad hominem attacks that are standard fare for Islamic apologists. It’s an age-old propaganda technique – if you can’t refute the message, try to destroy the messenger.

We should be encouraged by this lame attempt to smear an honorable Congresswoman. It should motivate us to work even harder to spread the truth about Islamofascism far and wide! The more people see the truth, the more they will recognize that those who try to defend militant Islam have nothing to offer except, well, fear-mongering and name-calling.

Shock horror: Muslim leader condemns Myrick anti-jihad plan!

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020830.php

"'Myrick's latest attempt at fighting terrorism is nothing more than a fear campaign,' said Jibril Hough, a spokesman for the Islamic Center of Charlotte. 'It is nothing more than a new McCarthyism, or Myrickism. As Muslims, we have become expendable as politicians like Myrick seek political gain.'

"Myrick said she wants the group to give a point-by-point rebuttal of her plan."

Yes, that would be most interesting. What could Jibril Hough say? Let's go through the Myrick Plan and see:

1. Investigate all military chaplains endorsed by Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was imprisoned for funding a terrorist organization.

Alamoudi is doing 23 years for funding jihad terrorism. Is it possible that some of the military chaplains he endorsed shared his jihadist views? Can Jibril Hough explain why not?

2. Investigate all prison chaplains endorsed by Alamoudi.

Same question as for #1.

3. Investigate the selection process of Arabic translators working for the Pentagon and the FBI.

An FBI whistleblower has reported that Arabic translators there cheered the 9/11 attacks. Can Jibril Hough explain why this should not be a cause for concern?

4. Examine the non-profit status of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations has had several of its officials convicted on jihad terror-related charges, and was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas funding case. Can Jibril Hough explain why its tax-exempt status should not at least be examined?

5. Make it an act of sedition or solicitation of treason to preach or publish materials that call for the deaths of Americans.

Objections, Mr. Hough?

6. Audit sovereign wealth funds in the United States.

If these funds may be used to conduct warfare against the U.S., what exactly is Mr. Hough's objection?

7. Cancel scholarship student visa program with Saudi Arabia until they reform their text books, which she claims preach hatred and violence against non-Muslims.

It is demonstrably true that they do. Does Mr. Hough endorse this?

8. Restrict religious visas for imams who come from countries that don't allow reciprocal visits by non-Muslim clergy.

This is simply in the interests of mutual tolerance and understanding, is it not, Mr. Hough?

9. Cancel contracts to train Saudi police and security in U.S. counterterrorism tactics.

Given ongoing Saudi financing of the global jihad, what exactly is Mr. Hough's objection?

10. Block the sale of sensitive military munitions to Saudi Arabia.

Same question as #9.

But I doubt that Hough will provide a point-by-point refutation, for the same reason that John Esposito will not debate me. What can they say?

"Muslim condemns Myrick plan: Senator says she welcomes dialogue on anti-terrorism proposal," by Jim Morrill for the Charlotte Observer (thanks to Twostellas):

A spokesman for a Charlotte-area Islamic group Monday accused U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick of leading a "fear campaign" with her proposal to curb the expansion of radical Islam.

Myrick, a Charlotte Republican, proposed a 10-point "Wake Up America" plan this month that, among other things, calls for investigations into the selection of the Pentagon's Arabic translators and some Muslim military and prison chaplains.

"Myrick's latest attempt at fighting terrorism is nothing more than a fear campaign," said Jibril Hough, a spokesman for the Islamic Center of Charlotte. "It is nothing more than a new McCarthyism, or Myrickism. As Muslims, we have become expendable as politicians like Myrick seek political gain."

Myrick said she wants the group to give a point-by-point rebuttal of her plan.

"I'd be glad to have a dialogue with them," she said. "The whole point is that we're trying to get people to work together."

Myrick's proposal has also drawn criticism from the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations. One of her proposals was to investigate the group's nonprofit status....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACT for America
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
www.actforamerica.org

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

HOW CAN I TELL OTHERS ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION?
Send a personalized version of this message to your friends.

HOW CAN I SUPPORT YOUR ORGANIZATION?
Click here to give an online donation.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend