Keeping the Status Quo

The following commentary was authored by the American Life League President, Judie Brown. I offer it here because I agree largely with the sentiment it expresses:

Many pro-life groups are gleefully declaring victory following George W. Bush's apparent re-election, but I cannot share in their enthusiasm. It is true that Mr. Bush defeated one of the most solidly pro-abortion candidates to ever seek the White House. However, the Bush administration's first term has been less than sterling in terms of total commitment to the pro-life effort.

Let us not forget the only record that matters: whether a Republican or Democrat has been working in the Oval Office, during each four-year presidential term in recent memory, between 4 and 5 million babies have been slaughtered by surgical abortion, and countless others died as the result of chemical abortions and in the science lab. The killing continued unabated during Mr. Bush's first term, and indications are that abortion on demand will remain decriminalized during the coming four years.

Thus the status quo on abortion is going to be maintained, as will the ongoing public perception that we have a pro-life president. Organizations such as the National Right to Life Committee and Priests for Life now will focus on the Supreme Court. However, the justices will never focus on the true issue - personhood - unless they accept the proper case. Even in the unlikely event that Roe v Wade is overturned, the abysmal fact is that this would only return regulation of abortion to each state, which would do nothing to guarantee the protection of preborn children.

The malaise that will accompany Mr. Bush's re-election, I fear, will eat away at the edges of the pro-life battle without generating a clear victory for the personhood of every innocent human being. The definition of what it means to be pro-life will take another hit. Due to decay from within, this could spell the end of what we have known as the pro-life movement.

Mr. Bush is educable. He could learn that all abortions are bad, not just "partial-birth" abortions. He could learn there is no reason to excuse abortions in alleged cases of rape, incest, threat to the mother's life, or fetal deformity. He could pressure Congress to support personhood by passing the Right to Life Act. It is the responsibility of every pro-life leader to take whatever steps are needed to provide this education and cease patting Mr. Bush on the back until he adopts a true pro-life position. The babies are waiting.

Right and Wrong. . .Sort of

In case you missed it, I was right. Of course, the prediction about Kerry cannot materialize, now. But I still stand by my explanation for thinking as I did. The appropriate circumstances did not arise; but if they had, I'm sure Kerry would have reacted as I described.

And may the other prediction never come true.

Itty Bitty Clarification

Just so I'm clear, I loathed the very thought of a Kerry presidency. Nor do I subscribe to the notion that the two candidates are mere clones of each other. I see Bush as bad for our nation. I see Kerry as even worse for our nation. And though I am far from a Bush fan, I was ear-to-ear-grinningly delighted to see Kerry lose. No man born of woman ever deserved defeat more. And Bush has done some good things--like his tax cuts. But dropping coins in the offering plate and then pickpocketing the pastor as you stroll out of the sanctuary does not a saint make.

So yes, I'm glad that the dreaded Kerry succumbed in the fires of Mount Bush; but am I happy about the current occupant of the oval office?

Nope.

Election Aftermath

As Repuglicrums bay at the moon and highfive each other over the bloodied carcasses of their foes, I sit back and wax philosophical about the near future of our country. Based on Dubya's first term in office, we may reasonably assume:

1. Another possible tax decrease.
2. Enough spending to make Red Kennedy's stomach explode like a sodden, post-Halloween pumpkin.
3. Even more spending proposals from Bush, for the greater good of Ameritopia (had to be said).
4. Moderate judges appointed to Supreme Court. I predict this because Bush has never fought hard for conservative appointees, though he may attempt appointing some. We'll see.
5. Continued challenges of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, and continued ignoring of such attacks by the president.
6. Massive funds pledged to prop up medicare, social security, and other socialist inventions.
7. Another attempt at reinstituting the draft, led by the Democrats as they charge up liberty's hill and assault the bulwarks of freedom.
8. In general, a moderate to leftist looney presidency from Bush.
9. Further caterwauling from the Demonbrat Party, as they bemoan the supposed illegitimacy of a secong Bush term. Of course, these are the same folks who would be screeching an identical mantra if Bush won 100% of the popular vote, and only bin Laden voted for Kerry via absentee ballot.
10. More talk on the righteousness of the nebulous "War on TERROR," and how it must be fought at all costs--including the further cost to our liberty.
11. More ablutions to the U.N.
12. That's all I can think of, at the moment.

So in short, more of the same. I expect no major backtracking to follow a more Constitutional path, on Bush's part. And just think, Kerry would've been even worse.

Cyber Termite Exterminated

Well, after much nail-biting and gnashing of teeth, the problems afflicting this blog appear solved. According to Blogger Support, a bug (probably a cyber-termite) gnawed its way into the system and gobbled up my template. As a result, I had to rebuild this tower of achievement from the ground up. Anyway, for those of you who visited and saw a black page over the the last week, and ran screaming from your pc to curl up in a fetal ball in the corner, quaking in withdrawal--fear not. I'm back, and my regular posting schedule shall resume.

And thankee kindly, Blogger, fer helpin' me git back on track.

Founding Quotes of Note XIV

"Without liberty, law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without law, liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness." --James Wilson

I've always loved this quote. Short, to the point, and right on the money.

Election Day Stream of Consciousness

I hope everyone voted his/her/its conscience, today. Of course, voting is only useful if you have a clue about the candidates, the issues, and the world you live in. I've known quite a few people who are so ignorant of all three that I strongly suspect that they are extraterrestrials.

***

Don't the "MTV rock the vote" commercials annoy you? Every time I see one, my fists clench and my teeth grit, grinding against each other like a liberal's at an NRA meeting. These ads offer no perspective on why one should vote. Rather, they bludgeon you with their unsubtle message: "Vote! Vote, you stupid sheep! Queue up and wait your turn! No matter who you choose, it can't be a ba-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-d decision. Vote even if you can't tie your own shoes, mop up your own drool, or remember your own name. Voting is the be-all and end-all. The alpha and the omega. Voting in and of itself is important, though you likely couldn't point out the candidates if you were in a locked room, alone, with them. Vote for the sheer joy of yanking a lever or thumbing a button. And with a spring in your step and a gleam in your eye, exit the booth and stride proudly from the polls, knowing that you did your part in electing the next in a long line of political prostitutes, selling themselves to the populace for a vote. Ah, the elation!"

***

As I've stated before, I still believe Bush will win--love him, or hate him. I say this with no preconceived bias at heart. I voted for Michael Peroutka, of the Constitution Party.

***

I suspect the mainstream media will be talking about what a tight race it is until Bush's next inauguration.

***

I'm having problems with my blog, which I have brought to Blogger's attention. Thus most of you probably won't even read these words until after the election, anyway. Oh, well, it gives you something to do during the commercials on "Wheel of Torture."

Gollum for President

After a long and agonizing process, I've settled on the ideal third-party candidate--

Gollum.

Here's a brief excerpt of a recent speech:

"We wantssss it, we doessss. Give it to ussss! The presssidency, preciousssss! No more Kerryses. No more Bushes. Gollum. Gollum. All this talk of bifactionalissm hurtss uss. It burnsss uss. Smeagol hatesss it, precioussssss. Wantss to rip out their lying bonesses and gnaw the marrow, we doess. Staw away from Demo-orcsess and Republigoblinss! Yesssssss! Gollum. Gollum.

Oh, well. Perhaps he's not the most articulate frog in the pond. But voting for him makes almost as much sense, preciouss.

Flippedy-Flop

Here's a humorous audio clip, showcasing how Kerry has more positions than the Kama Sutra. Just click above the picture of the Waffle King and listen.

A New Link

For those who haven't noticed, I've added a new link to my list in the right hand corner. It's called Let's Try Freedom, and it's a nice place to drop in for a visit.

I don't have time for visiting large numbers of blogs, so I have links only to the ones I visit consistently. There are a handful of others that I visit, as well, from time to time.

Anyway, check him out. It's worth your time, I believe.

What Makes a Hero?

Dictionary.com: hero-A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life.

Merriam-Webster: hero-b : an illustrious warrior c : a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities d : one that shows great courage.

I realize that many people see John Kerry giving a speech, and they suddenly hear "The Marine Hymn," or perhaps "When the Caissons Go Rolling Along." Angel wings flutter, and harps of victory tinkle in their ears. They swoon to the words of this modern Alexander, bestriding the political landscape like a colossus.

Now, you may notice from the sound of my voice that my tongue is planted firmly in cheek, but I have a serious question: Kerry has--along with many of his supporters--portrayed himself as a hero, of sorts. So my inquiry is, "What makes a hero?" I'll try laying out my own meaning of the word. I believe it has a very specific definition, and has been bandied about entirely too often.

To me, a hero is someone who goes beyond the call of duty or service or what is accepted as an appropriate, justifiable reaction to a crisis. Doing more than the average individual, and standing out above all the rest, is the stuff of heroes.

Historical examples abound:

We know of stories in which people dived into shark-filled waters to rescue total strangers. That is heroism.

We know of situations where soldiers have shielded their comrades with their own bodies to save them from grenade attacks. That is heroism.

Sometimes, in our personal lives, we meet heroes. Like the parent who gives up a dream to do right by his children, who puts aside his own desires for their betterment and proper upbringing. That is heroism.

Look at the life of Nathan Hale, an American espionage agent and patriot, captured by the British during the Revolution. Though General Washington tried to save him, the British hanged him as a spy. His final words before his execution ring strong and true, even today: "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country." That is heroism.

And what of Davy Crockett and others who defended the Alamo, in 1836. Many of these people came to the aid of the Texans late in the game, almost certainly aware of the odds against them. Yet they came on, despite the stacked deck, making a stand for Texas' independence. That is heroism.

The last days of Constantine XI Paleologus, emperor of the Byzantine Empire at its fall, tell a story of heroic proportions. Besieged by an army of approximately 150,000 Muslim Turks, he managed holding them off for two months--wreaking horrific losses on their army--with only about 8,000 men. In the end, he and the remaining survivors rushed out of their citadel stronghold, into the streets, where they fought and died to the last man. It is said that the emperor charged straight into a horde of his enemies, sword swinging. That is heroism.

Though I easily could write a book exemplifying historical heroism, I have one more example to share; it is the most important one of all.

The story of Jesus.

Imagine spending most of eternity in the very presence of God. Imagine knowing what that's like. Imagine choosing of your own volition to descend to the earth in the form of a weak and fragile human being; to grow into a child and then a man; to begin a ministry for the express purpose of saving souls from hell. Imagine the love that comprises. Imagine the compassion.

Now imagine what it must've felt like to be mocked and ridiculed for your love and compassion; to be unwelcome in your hometown; to walk the roads a man alone, filled with sorrow at what you've seen. Imagine being arrested for proclaiming the truth, being tried and imprisoned, scourged and tortured. Imagine making your way to a cross and allowing nails to be driven through your hands and feet, then being hoisted into the air to asphyxiate and die in one of the most horrifying, shameful deaths ever devised by the twisted human mind.

Imagine knowing your entire life would culminate in such an event. Imagine going to it willingly, for the sake of people who hate you. That is heroism. Jesus epitomizes the word. No better example of a hero exists--from the Creation, until now.

Thankfully, you and I both know that this wasn't the story's end. But only the beginning.

I believe we've covered properly the definition of what makes a hero. Feel free to supply me with further examples of your own. In each case, I believe true heroism includes--and requires--a sacrifice.

And the next time you hear a certain someone touting his minimal war record at every conceivable opportunity, I hope you'll think of this post, and react accordingly.

Founding Quotes of Note XIII

It's a two-fer-one deal!

Will they scrawl this first one on Jesse Jackson't tombstone?:

"Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants." --Federalist No. 1

And:

Next time you watch MTV, or see one of those "vote even if you're an idiot and couldn't point out the President in a lineup" commercials, think of this one:

"If Virtue & Knowledge are diffused among the People, they will never be enslav'd. This will be their great Security." --Samuel Adams

Mmmmm, good food for thought.

Bravo!

Now this is an appropriate use of the U.N. flag, in Montana:

On Friday, KGEZ radio host John Stokes in Kalispell, Mont., got wind of a planned ceremony that afternoon at the state Capitol in Helena to honor the U.N. on United Nations Day (though Sunday was actually U.N. Day). Stokes tells WorldNetDaily the ceremony included members of the Montana National Guard carrying and presenting a U.N. flag that was to be hoisted over the building.

At 1 p.m., the time the Capitol ceremony was to take place, over 30 protesters gathered at Stokes' radio station for the flag burning. Stokes says the crowd included mothers, children, seniors and handicapped citizens.

"We began with the Star Spangled Banner blaring across the airways, saluting the U.S. flag flying high above the station, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and a very appropriate prayer for our nation, our Constitution and the Republic," Stokes explained.

"Then the volunteers provided the pole and gas, and I provided the despicable U.N. flag."
The crowd shouted out a verbal countdown before the flag was torched.

Said Stokes: "Whoosh. It was completely gone in seconds. I hope it was an omen."

God bless you, good people of Montana! May the U.N. meet the same fate as its flag, which it so richly deserves.

Bush and Civil Unions

It seems the president has parted ways with many in his own party, regarding civil unions:

"I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so. ...

"I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as a union between a man and a woman.

"Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others," Bush told ABC's Charlie Gibson in an interview broadcast Tuesday on "Good Morning America."

I agree that this should be a state issue, not a federal one, since that is consistent with our Founders' intended republican form of government. But Bush's rationale is strange. According to him, marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman; but people of the same sex should be able to unite in a civil ceremony, so that they may "have the same rights as others." Isn't this just parsing words? It comes across as Bush moving further to the left to appeal to disenchanted Democrats who aren't particularly fond of Kerry. Already, everyone has the right to live with whom they will, sleep with whom they choose, and will personal estates to whomever they choose. I can give the person I deem worthy power of attorney over my finances and properties, and no one is standing in my way. I can have whatever visitors in the hospital that I want. So this appears an attempt to look compassionate and tolerant--and that's all. I see little substance to the argument.

Kerry's Voting Record on Abortion

Here are some facts on Kerry's abortion views, according to this purportedly nonpartisan website:


1. Will not appoint Justice against Roe while Court is 5-4. (May 2004)

2. Kerry staunchly resists restrictions on abortions. (Apr 2004)

3. Partial-birth abortion ban undermine women's right to choose. (Nov 2003)

4. No criminalization of a woman's right to choose. (Jun 2003)

5. Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)

6. Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)

7. Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)

8. Voted NO on disallowing overseas military abortions. (May 1999)

9. Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)


Does he sound like a moderate, or an extremist, to you? Keep in mind that his supposed "religious faith" tells him that life begins at conception.

Psalm 23

1: The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.

2: He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

3: He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.

4: Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

5: Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.

6: Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.


This is one of the most beautiful chapters of the Bible. I find its evocative language and assurances comforting.

Who's Lying?

From The Washington Times:

U.N. ambassadors from several nations are disputing assertions by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry that he met for hours with all members of the U.N. Security Council just a week before voting in October 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq. An investigation by The Washington Times reveals that while the candidate did talk for an unspecified period to at least a few members of the panel, no such meeting, as described by Mr. Kerry on a number of occasions over the past year, ever occurred. At the second presidential debate earlier this month, Mr. Kerry said he was more attuned to international concerns on Iraq than President Bush, citing his meeting with the entire Security Council. "This president hasn't listened. I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them, to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable," Mr. Kerry said of the Iraqi dictator. Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York in December 2003, Mr. Kerry explained that he understood the "real readiness" of the United Nations to "take this seriously" because he met "with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein." But of the five ambassadors on the Security Council in 2002 who were reached directly for comment, four said they had never met Mr. Kerry. The four also said that no one who worked for their countries' U.N. missions had met with Mr. Kerry either. The former ambassadors who said on the record they had never met Mr. Kerry included the representatives of Mexico, Colombia and Bulgaria. The ambassador of a fourth country gave a similar account on the condition that his country not be identified.

Let's see: We have the U.N. on one side, and Kerry on the other, each with a different version of events. I know Audie Murphy Kerry is a liar, but I trust the U.N. about as much. I feel a headache coming on.

The Upper Crust is Moldy

Regarding our president, British spy novelist John Le Carre spews some venom, urging voters to kick Bush out of office, next month:

"Probably no American president in history has been so universally hated abroad as Bush: for his bullying unilateralism, his dismissal of international treaties, his reckless indifference to the aspirations of other nations and cultures," Le Carre wrote in the online article.

He also accused Mr Bush of having "contempt for institutions of world government, and above all for misusing the cause of anti-terrorism in order to unleash an illegal war - and now anarchy - upon Iraq".

There are legitimate reasons for criticizing Bush. I have serious grievances against him, myself, as most of you already know. But don't you get sick and tired of these blustering, limp-wristed elitist snots in other countries telling us how to run ours? It reveals volumes about such complainants that they usually resort to U.N. sympathizing and the dilapidation of national sovereignty.

Mr. Le Carre, you may be a native of the British Isles, but I find your French surname fitting.

Westradamus

Ok, ok, these are not astounding prophecies; but I have three predictions for the near future:


1.There will be another terrorist attack on America.

Here's my reasoning--Yes, Bush has made some progress in keeping terrorists at bay in Iraq and Afghanistan. Every dead maniac in those two countries is one less potential bomber in the U.S. But these do not comprise the only "Great Satan"-hating Islamic jihadis in the world. And with borders as porous as sieves (particularly the southern border), we're in deep trouble. Our government flatly refuses to secure this means of entry. In fact, it won't even address the problem.


2. President Bush will serve a second term in the White House.

For all Kerry's good show and attempted domination of all sides of every issue, he's a charlatan of the worst sort. His phoniness is neither subtle, nor appealing. I think the citizens of this country see through his lies. Personally, I think his antics regarding his military career will be his undoing.


3. If the election is close, the Kerry campaign will attempt a coup through the court system.

Remember the 2000 election? Boy, I do. It was a knock-down-drag-out dirty situation. The Democrats tried every underhanded trick in the book to falsely keep the presidency. I see the possibilities for treachery in the upcoming election as endless. John Kerry is a power-hungry narcissist who sees himself as one born to be president. Unless he loses by a wide margin, he'll not concede gracefully or easily. I expect we'll have to pry his teeth from Bush's ankles before putting him down.


So those are my predictions, for the time being. I hope I'm dead wrong on the attack and the court battle. Only time will tell.

Can I Get a Witness?

"One single object...[will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." --Thomas Jefferson

Right now, I propose a new piece of legislation: May this quote be tattooed on the forehead of every black-robed tyrant across America, whether in the state supreme courts, or the federal. Does anyone second my motion?

Clingin' on For Life

Lyn Nofziger's take on the Republican Party:

"[M]y big complaint about the Republican Party, of which I am a reluctant member, is that I think Republican office holders in general have become too much like Democrats. Like them, we are a party of big government, of too many rules, regulations and laws that intrude deeply and unnecessarily into our lives. We rely on government instead of on ourselves. We've come to believe that government has an obligation to look after us and take care of us, and lay down rules for living our personal lives. Like the Dems, we are big spenders; in fact, we are becoming even bigger spenders than they are. In truth there is hardly a dime's worth of difference between the two parties and, in equal truth, a lot of people like it that way, especially as it pertains to the Congress. They have this nonsensical idea that if a majority in both parties agree on a law it automatically is a good law. I give you Prohibition as an example."

This is a pretty accurate description of contemporary Republican realities. My question is: If you actually believe all of the above, why remain a member of the party? Its devolution into a pale image of its former self certainly inspires no loyalty. The Democrats are gonzo, and the Republicans are what the Dems used to be. During the Protestant Reformation, many decried the negative effects of "mechanical Christianity." They saw this as going through the motions and choosing the lesser of two evils, the greater being paganism. Likewise, mechanical Republicanism--that is, voting GOP for pragmatic reasons--needs a serious reality check. I mean no offense, but ask yourselves these questions: If both major parties are failing us and shirking their duties, even blatantly defying their own stated principles, why not vote third party? Even if your candidate loses, haven't you sent a relevant message? I know some believe this is a wasted vote; and to a degree, I understand their concern. But if no one ever votes third party--hovering always within the safe confines of bifactionalism--how do we ever make a change for the better?

Fundamentalism in Christianity

If you read newspapers, magazines, watch mainstream news shows on t.v., or listen to certain radio programs, you've probably heard the term "fundamentalist" bandied about. And usually, this word is associated with the most rabid, fanatical, extreme elements of a nonexistent entity--the "religious right." Often, you'll notice the comparison between fundamentalist Christians and Muslims of the same stripe. I'm sick and tired of such mischaracterizations and distortions. I'm fed up with the outright lies. So I'll slice through all the garbage and define the term accurately:

Christian fundamentalism is an outlook that believes the Bible is the inspired Word of God, inerrant in its message and intent, and literally true. In other words, it is God's love letter to the human race; his book of expectations and instructions for living a fulfilling life; his offering of the free gift of salvation, through Christ. It's message of redemption and the hope of eternity with God is genuine. And when I say literally true, here's what I mean: when Genesis speaks of the creation, Adam and Eve's walk with God, their fall and subsequent expulsion from Eden, it relates these events as they actually happened. When the Bible tells us that humanity was destroyed in a universal flood, with only Noah and his family spared, it elaborates upon an historical event. Other true stories include that of Moses, Elijah, Daniel, and the apostles' evangelism. Most importantly, it speaks truth in sharing the story of Christ's unique birth, his ministry, his death, burial, and resurrection, and his ascension back into Heaven to be with the Father. All of these stories give us literal truth in their particulars.

That is Christian fundamentalism. In short, taking the Bible seriously. I know this because I, myself, am a Christian fundamentalist. I was raised in such a household, in such a family, and have frequented Christian fundamentalist churches all my life. I realize variations exist amongst this sub-category of Protestantism; but I can assure you that I've never known anyone who acts or thinks the way fundamentalists are portrayed as acting and thinking in the media.

As for a correlation between Christian fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism, there's only one area in which they seem alike--in accepting their given texts at face-value. That's it. Christian fundamentalists tend toward evangelization of their brethren and instituting Biblical tenets in their personal lives. Islamic fundamentalists tend toward murder and abuse in the name of their God, with a simple offer to the world--convert, be subjugated, or die.

When was the last time you heard or read about a Christian fundamentalist blowing up a school bus full of children in the name of God, I wonder?

Fruit of the Spirit

This being Sunday, I thought I'd share a great passage of scripture:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such their is no law.

Galatians 5:22-23

No Provocation Needed

In rebuttal of the columnist, Charley Reese, Jeffrey Rubin of the Conservative Book Club writes:

What he is discounting, among other things, is Islam, whose appeal to man's baser instincts--especially pride, anger, and lust--is capable of turning every perceived injustice or humiliation into a motive for indiscriminate slaughter. Historically, Islam has been peaceful only when it has been powerless (My emphasis). Now, thanks largely to oil wealth, mass immigration, and the demographic suicide of the West, it is capable of lashing out again--and it will continue to, whenever and wherever it can, regardless of Israeli or American policy.

In 1938, when Islam was weaker than ever before, the Catholic writer Hillaire Belloc predicted it would rise again to threaten the West. At the time, the state of Israel did not exist. What Belloc understood, and what Reese evidently does not, is that Muslims need no provocation to wage jihad against non-Muslims. Injustice may add fuel to the fire, but the flame was lit by Muhammed and his Koran.

I thought this was a timely assessment, and one with which I very much agree.

Founding Quotes of Note XII

"It should be your care, therefore, and mine, to elevate the minds of our children and exalt their courage; to accelerate and animate their industry and activity; to excite in them an habitual contempt of meanness, abhorrence of injustice and inhumanity, and an ambition to excel in every capacity, faculty, and virtue. If we suffer their minds to grovel and creep in infancy, they will grovel all their lives." --John Adams

The Final Presidential Debate

I just finished watching the face-off. I thought I'd share my thoughts on the night's show, for those of you who didn't have the time (or the inclination) for viewing the festivities.

Keep in mind while reading my analysis that I'm not a supporter of either candidate (Bill, reholster your sidearm).

I'll focus on their demeanors, first. The President had an upbeat, chipper attitude, with a pervasive and pleasant smile on his face. By contrast, Kerry seemed very sour--in expression and tone. He smiled little, rather choosing the "constipated Frankenstein's monster" look. He seemed far less pleased at being present in this debate than he did the first one.

Kerry chose repetition as his primary tactic, rehashing all the catch-phrases and criticisms of the first debate. Bush came off as markedly different, though, with an aggressive--yet positive--outlook and a solid command of facts and information.

Both men had their witty moments, but the President commanded more levity than Kerry. Kerry once compared Bush to Tony Soprano, and Bush said Kerry is on the far left bank of the mainstream, in America.

Bush came across as more honest and sincere in his beliefs than Kerry. He also made a rather impressive statement, early on, saying that he will not take a flu shot, due to the medicine's scarcity.

Kerry hammered home the point that he would provide all Americans with health care, though he never laid out his plan for funding such a venture.

Kerry harbored a very negative persona, finding reason for blaming Bush for just about every conceivable problem in our country. I realize negativity is partly the nature of challenging a sitting president; but he went to ridiculous extremes in this regard. For example, he claimed that the health care problem amongst the populace exclusively is Bush's fault.

Bush said he wanted health care decisions in the hands of patients and their doctors, not the government. Kerry is a socialist, in my view. He bluntly assured the camera that he would not privatize social security. His assurances to the contrary aside, his medical coverage "plan" is one that probably made Hillary Clinton leap out of her coffin and cheer.

Bush stated that he's against amnesty for illegals, but then he went on to talk about "worker cards" for aliens. So in truth, they would no longer be illegal aliens, because he'd make them legal. Without strong crackdowns on the border, and strong deportation policies, I'd reject such a program. This was one of his weakest points.

Kerry lied through his teeth on the "assault weapons ban." He equated the ban with keeping automatic machine guns out of criminal hands, yet it did no such thing. The weapons labeled "assault weapons" in the ban merely were semi-automatic weapons. This was a terror tactic that he used, for scaring people about gun crimes. Forgive my momentary digression, but this ban died a much-deserved death. Now someone just drive a stake into its heart, and I'll be happy.

Kerry made a good crack at the end about how he "married up"--funny, and oh so true, at least monetarily speaking. But he spent the rest of his time spitting out one negative comment after another. Bush remained positive throughout the debate, talking about the future and the good days ahead. Of course, I think both of them are wrong. One thing's for sure: Bush is much more likeable than Kerry.

Bush's worst moments came in the debate's middle, when he was asked point-blank by Bob Schieffer: "Will you try to overturn Roe v. Wade?" Bush became evasive, assuring the audience that he'd require no litmus test for judges, but that he'd promote ways of supporting a pro-life agenda. He never directly answered the question.

I missed the second presidential debate, so I can't comment on its details or Bush's performance. But all in all, this one was vastly more interesting than the first. If it's not readily obvious from the commentary above, I'll say it now:

Bush won. Won? Heck, he mopped the floor with Kerry.

Zero Tolerance, Zero Common Sense

Isn't political correctness beautiful?

LONDONDERRY, N.H. -- The school board has voted to ban a photo of a student from the senior section of his high school yearbook because he is posed with a shotgun.

School officials said they'd reconsider including the photo, if the boy would only allow them to digitally remove the gun from his hands and replace it with a giant sucker like those carried by The Lollipop Guild in The Wizard of Oz (I'm kidding, guys).

Seriously, they were willing to post another photo, but only if no gun appeared.

Last month the yearbook staff, adviser, principal and superintendent chose to bar the photo from the yearbook, saying the firearm was inappropriate.

Inappropriate for whom? A linguine-spined liberal who cries when a fly alights on his arm? People who believe guns harbor demonic spirits that transform happy-go-lucky children into Columbine-like assassins? People who believe boys should be feminized at an early age, by playing with Barbies (ok, maybe a Ken doll)?

Put bluntly, it's only "inappropriate" if you're a simpering wimp.

Dean (the boy's mother) cited a statement on student publications in the board's policy manual: "We encourage the use of school sponsored publications to express students' points of view. They shall be free from all policy restrictions outside the normal rules for responsible journalism."

As a result of liberalism, the school finds no conflict in contradicting its own policies, printed in black and white for all to read.

Another example of the same mindset:

Phelps used the costume when taking part of the re-enactment of the Battle of Chancellorville which was staged by the 124th New York State Volunteers. The re-enactors say they are models of the unit that came from Orange County and fought in the Civil war. High School students were recruited to take part in the re-enactors club. Phelps' mother questions why give the students fake guns and then arrest them.

The article isn't 100% clear, but it seems as if the gun wasn't real.

Is it a requirement that those applying for school administrative positions possess intelligence quotients lower than the school's dumbest student? Even if your school has a daunting curriculum and an amazing track-record of success, contending with such idiots supplies reason enough for homeschooling.

"In Fourteen-Hundred Ninety-Two, Columbus Sailed the Ocean Blue"

Here's a great article on Columbus Day, giving the other side of the story--the one we've heard far too few times, what with all the character assassinations and outright lies about this man. If you derive your information from liberals, modern history texts, or many movies, you might think Columbus was a racist, fascist, homophobic, murderous monster. And you'd be dead wrong, too.

Guns For Cash in Iraq

This seems a useless show-tactic:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Followers of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr trickled in to police stations in Baghdad's Sadr City district to hand in weapons Monday under a deal seen as a key step toward ending weeks of fighting with U.S. and Iraqi forces in the Shiite militant stronghold.

Fighters are supposed to be compensated for the weapons they turn in, but Salman said those responsible for the payments hadn't turned up yet. So, receipts were issued instead.

The rates ranged from $5 for a hand grenade to $1,000 for a heavy-caliber machine gun, police said.

I have a couple of questions about this policy. First, what stops these folks from stealing weapons--from law-abiding citizens and elsewhere--and bringing them in for cash? Second, after being paid for these assorted weapons, what keeps them from going out and buying more? Ditto for such programs in the U.S. This is a feel-good show of "getting things done," with little chance of making inroads toward success.

No Coming Draft

I receive a weekly e-newsletter from my local Congressman, John J. Duncan, Jr. I found today's edition very interesting, so I thought I'd share it with you:

The possibility of reinstating the military draft has received tremendous attention in recent days. Because many conflicting statements about this issue have been reported, I feel it is important to clarify the status of this issue.

President Bush has repeatedly denounced any plan for reinstating the draft. In fact, the Republican Party platform adopted in New York only weeks ago states that the G.O.P. “created the all-volunteer force and opposes reinstitution of the draft, whether directly or through compulsory national service.”

Secretary of State Colin Powell, a decorated veteran and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has joined the President in dismissing any claim the current administration is eyeing a return to conscripted service.

The most powerful denunciation of the draft, however, has been levied by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee September 23, Secretary Rumsfeld stated: “I’m not supposed to get into politics, but it is absolutely false that anyone in this administration is considering reinstating the draft. That is nonsense.”

He later continued: “We are not having trouble maintaining a force of volunteers. Every single person’s a volunteer. We do not need to use compulsion to get people to come in the armed services. We’ve got an ample number of talented, skillful, courageous, dedicated young men and women willing to serve.”

The call for instituting a draft is being led by some of the most liberal members of the entire Congress. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 163, the Universal National Service Act, January 7, 2003 – the first day of the 108th Congress.

Rep. Rangel’s bill would have required every citizen between the ages of 18 and 26 to fulfill two years of service to either the military or a civilian agency promoting national defense.

Not one Republican House leader ever endorsed the idea. In fact, only 14 of the House’s 435 members elected to cosponsor the act. All are among most the most liberal thinkers in Congress.

Last week the House voted on Rep. Rangel’s proposal. In the end, H.R. 163 garnered only two supporters, neither of whom is Republican, with 402 members opposed. Even Rep. Rangel failed to vote for his own bill.

Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.) introduced identical legislation in the Senate. Not one other senator has signaled support for the proposal by serving as a cosponsor.

The Senate Republican leadership scheduled no hearings for the measure, and no Republican leader from the body has shown any support for establishing a draft. Sen. Hollings’ bill will die without being considered when the 108th Congress adjourns in a few weeks.

An e-mail circulating throughout the country and apparently targeting college campuses has insinuated that the Selective Service recently received $28 million “to prepare for a military draft.” Nothing could be more misleading.

Congress provided $26.3 million for this year’s entire Selective Service budget. The agency’s primary responsibility for the last quarter century has been overseeing the mandatory registration of young men between the ages of 18 and 25, a benign process that in no way increases the likelihood of a draft but still requires funding.

As is nearly always true, I support President Bush’s position on this matter. I have always opposed the draft because I do not believe the federal government should ever forcibly employ any citizen unless no reasonable alternative can be found, even for national defense. Ours is a nation founded on the principle of liberty, and we cannot surrender our individual freedom to the government without great risk.

President Bush and Congress have made great strides in recent years to increase military pay and provide additional benefits to our troops. Military service is one of the most honorable ways to serve our country, but we can successfully instill national pride in young people without mandating a stint in the armed services.

I sincerely hope no candidate will seize on fear to boost his electoral hopes in November. This is an important election that should be decided by the honest debate of serious issues. It is the very least all Americans deserve.

I've said before that I'm staunchly against the draft, for reasons of freedom. So we should chuck the Selective Service. Now I'm as skeptical of government as all of you, but reviving the draft would be hard for the Bush Administration (My apologies to the conspiratorialists). The President is on record bluntly decrying the draft, as are several officials who work for him. Plus, the movement clearly has no serious support in the House or the Senate, except among the lunatic fringe. Isn't it interesting that Kerry accuses Bush of plans for its reinstitution, yet its only supporters are Democrats?

Aliens Among Us

"I can do a better job of protecting America's security because the [global] test that I was talking about was a test of legitimacy, not just in the globe, but elsewhere." --John Kerry on the "global test."

It's official, folks. John Kerry is an advance scout for a race of extraterrestrial beings bent on manipulating U.S. elections.

Barred from Debate

Don't you love "democracy"-in-action?

Two third-party presidential candidates were arrested at the presidential debate in St. Louis when they tried to serve the debate commission with a show cause order.

Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party and David Cobb of the Green Party were protesting their exclusion from the debate between President Bush and Democratic Party nominee John Kerry.

Cobb said his purpose was "to expose the undemocratic nature of these debates, this election and our government. These are not debates, these are infomercials."

I absolutely agree with this assessment. If the voters derserve the freedom of voting, don't they also deserve a fair hearing from all the race's candidates? A debate of the issues from all the contenders? I think the Green Party is cobbled together from the lunatic fringe; but for these men to be forcibly kept from challenging the anointed bifactionals is a disgrace and counter to liberty. Apparently, Bush and Kerry have much to fear from their opponents.

On the Cusp of Abortion Ban?

According to a pro-abortion group, thirty states are prepared for a ban on abortion, if Bush appoints the required pro-life judges in a second term.

The pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights said some states have old laws on the books that would be triggered by the overturning of the landmark Roe v. Wade (search) decision. Others have language in their state constitutions or strongly anti-abortion legislatures that would act quickly if the federal protection for abortion was ended and the issue reverted to the states.

I would like nothing better than a total outlawing of abortion, except under extreme circumstances in which the mother's life is jeopardized. But I suspect the above information--even if true--is an attempt at creating hysteria among pro-abortionists, during these pre-election days. And there are many "Ifs" that would need to come to pass for such an event. "If" Bush gets reelected; "if" he appoints pro-life judges (I'm skeptical); "if" Roe Vs. Wade is overturned; and "if" the aforementioned states choose pursuit of such bans--all of these "ifs" must become sureties, first.

The part holding interest for me is the apparently strong anti-abortion sentiment lingering still in the hearts of our citizens--even after more than thirty years of pro-abortion propaganda and hogwash fed to us like swill. It just makes me feel a little better, knowing that many, many people still think it's wrong to kill unborn babies, for stupid and selfish reasons. Would that the powers that be felt the same.

Founding Quotes of Note XI

"A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader." --Samuel Adams

The Vice-Presidential Debate

I watched the debate, tonight, in its entirety. I must admit that both candidates comported themselves well, laying out their respective cases eloquently and effectively. Edwards is a better, more dynamic speaker than Kerry; and it goes without saying that Cheney runs rings around Bush in the public speaking arena.

I believe Cheney won overall. He did an excellent job describing Kerry's inconsistencies, his lousy voting record, and his poor judgment. Edwards also brought up some legitimate points about the Bush Administration's prosecuting of the Iraq war; but Cheney's concise rebuttals of facts about improvements that have taken place in Iraq trumped Edwards' valid points, in my opinion.

Some observations: I found Gwen Ifill's performance interesting. Though she deserves credit for challenging both candidates on various issues, and for coming across as more even-handed than Jim Lehrer in the last debate (but that's not saying much), she made one egregious lapse, revealing her bias. During one segment, she asked Cheney a loaded question, then immediately tossed Edwards a softball. I don't remember the specifics of her question for Cheney, but her inquiry of Edwards went something like this:"When the present administration mentions that Kerry has a trial lawyer on his ticket, do you feel like that is a personal attack?" Ooh, deep, probing stuff, huh? I don't remember any such opportunity given to Cheney for portraying himself as a victim. Additionally, she introduced Cheney's personal family life in a way that Edwards never had to contend with.

So all in all, a diverting debate, though I doubt it changed any minds. We can't all be John "Flapjack" Kerry.

What's Under Kerry's Turban?

During the first presidential debate, Kerry made this remark, with regards to Iran:

"I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes," Kerry said in a critique of the Bush administration's handling of Tehran's nuclear program, which the Iranians claim is only for civilian purposes.

Isn't fantasy fun? This is a major problem with leftists. They think that people basically are good, and with a little Yankee logic and reason, they'll see the light. Problem is, that's complete bunko. Even a cursory examination of ancient or recent history belies this gibberish.

The London Financial Times reports that, according to "unnamed diplomats and a Kerry adviser," top EU officials from Germany and the Netherlands are lobbying the Bush Administration to adopt John Kerry's position on Iran and its nuclear program. High-level meetings were held with both the White House and the Kerry campaign last week.

Since the EU is a hotbed of socialism, isn't this reason enough for a rejection of Kerry's position?

More on Iran:

Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has urged his country's weapons developers to step up work on making a nuclear bomb, a U.S. official said, according to Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service.

According to the official, an authoritative source in the Iranian exile community has stated that Khamenei met recently with senior government and military leaders on the nuclear weapons program.

Khamenei told the gathering, "We must have two bombs ready to go in January or you are not Muslims," the official said.

Strange. All this time, I thought they just wanted the nuclear program for civilian purposes. Now I'm confused.

Private Spaceflights

SpaceShipOne, a privately built spacecraft, made its first successful flight into space on September 30. This was the first part of a three-pronged effort to win a $1o million prize. This is history in action, folks. I love it, because it showcases what individuals can do without government intervention, and it somewhat removes the power of space travel from government exclusivity.

In a related story, the UK's Virgin Spaceflights has plans for providing space tours to those with enough cash for a ticket (almost $199,000 a head).

Gosh, I hope they have a discount day, or something. Maybe only charge $190,000, or thereabouts. That's a bargain, but $199,000 is too rich for my blood!

Equilibrium

Made in 2002, and starring Christian Bale and Sean Bean (Boromir, from The Lord of the Rings), this is one heckuva good movie.

Brief summary: In the future, a revolution has taken tight hold of the government's reigns. With the goal of eradicating war and chaos on a massive scale, the new powers that be devise a drug that suppresses human emotions--thus removing all tempting factors that lead to war. No more love, no fear. . .and no hate. In fact, no feelings of any sort. But what if some people refused their "medicine" and fought back against the tyranny?

Intrigued? So was I. This film was good on many levels: good science fiction, good drama, good social commentary, and a good action film, to boot. The acting was excellent, the special effects competently done, and the dialogue and storyline intelligent. Though there were some well-choreographed fight scenes, one high point of the movie was its reliance on character and suspense--rather than a colossal fx budget--to move the story along at a fast pace. The movie reminded me of 1984, Brave New World, and other dystopias. But not quite so grim, in the long run.

Its only flaw (if flaw you'd call it) was its brevity. I wanted it to go on and on. It's one of the best science fiction movies I've seen in a while. Highly recommended.

Canadian Monument to Draft-Dodgers

This is bizarre and silly.

A private Canadian group has plans for constructing a monument to draft-dodgers of the Vietnam era, in British Columbia.

It's been estimated some 125,000 Americans fled to Canada during the Vietnam War to avoid the U.S. draft. About half returned to the U.S. when President Jimmy Carter granted them amnesty in 1977.

American soldiers--whether drafted or not--who went overseas and served in combat deserve our honor and respect. But what about those who evaded the draft?

Let me make one point clear: I am against any and all drafts. They violate the Constitution, and are unnecessary. That said, why do draft-dodgers deserve a monument in their honor? What actions did they take, what sacrifices did they make, to earn such a distinction? Regardless of one's view of the Vietnam War or the draft in general, I see no need for a monument in their names. It makes no sense, when one considers the typical criteria for the erection of monuments, or the placing of plaques. I could make a better case for honoring those who refused to serve in the military and chose prison, instead. At least they had the courage of their convictions to face the consequences of their rejection of the war and the draft.

Founding Quotes of Note X

"But if we are to be told by a foreign Power...what we shall do, and what we shall not do, we have Independence yet to seek, and have contended hitherto for very little." --George Washington

Hm, it seems our illustrious first president shares my dim view of the U.N., and other foreign entanglements that necessitate sacrificing American sovereignty.

Oliver Loves Fidel

Have you ever wondered, out of purely morbid curiosity, what manner of thoughts lie festering in the mind of an insane asylum inmate? Sort of like a scientist examining a bug under a microscope?

Well, ta-da! Here's your chance to peek behind the veil, as it were!

Director Oliver Stone ripped President Bush while praising Cuban dictator Fidel Castro before the premiere of his movie "Looking for Fidel," at the 52nd San Sebastian Film Festival in Spain.

Stone charged that Bush stole the election with the help of anti-Castro Cuban-Americans in Florida, according to a report in Cuba's Granma newspaper.

On the other hand, Stone had nothing but praise for Castro, who has clung to authoritarian power with no elections in Cuba for half a century.

This is only a glimpse of his pro-Castro fawning. I suggest that we institutionalize this troubled man, now, before it's too late. He is a walking embodiment of the cliched notion that great artists are invariably unhinged. Except for the "great" part.

The Curtain Rods

Here's a story my mother emailed me. I thought it was pretty humorous, so I decided I'd share it:

THE CURTAIN RODS

She spent the first day packing her belongings into boxes, crates and suitcases. On the second day, she had the movers come and collect her things. On the third day, she sat down for the last time at their beautiful dining room table by candlelight, put on some soft background music, and feasted on a pound of shrimp, a jar of caviar, and a bottle of Chardonnay. When she had finished, she went into each and every room and deposited a few half-eaten shrimp shells dipped in caviar, into the hollows of the curtain rods. She then cleaned up the kitchen and left.

When the husband returned with his new girlfriend, all was bliss for the first few days. Then slowly, the house began to smell. They tried everything, cleaning, mopping, and airing the place out. Vents were checked for dead rodents, and carpets were steam cleaned. Air fresheners were hung everywhere.

Exterminators were brought in to set off gas canisters, during which they had to move out for a few days, and in the end they even paid to replace the expensive wool carpeting.

Nothing worked. People stopped coming over to visit. Repairmen refused to work in the house. The maid quit. Finally, they could not take the stench any longer and decided to move. A month later, even though they had cut their price in half, they could not find a buyer for their stinky house. Word got out, and eventually, even the local realtors refused to return their calls. Finally, they had to borrow a huge sum of money from the bank to purchase a new place. The ex-wife called the man, and asked how things were going.

He told her the saga of the rotting house. She listened politely, and said that she missed her old home terribly, and would be willing to reduce her divorce settlement in exchange for getting the house back. Knowing his ex-wife had no idea how bad the smell was, he agreed on price that was about 1/10th of what the house had been worth, but only if she were to sign the papers that very day. She agreed, and within the hour his lawyers delivered the paperwork.

A week later the man and his girlfriend stood smiling as they watched the moving company pack everything to take to their new home, including the curtain rods.

Home-Schooled Terrorists

This story makes my blood boil:

In a federally funded exercise to prepare emergency responders for a terrorist attack, a Michigan county concocted a scenario in which public-school children were threatened by a fictitious radical group that believes everyone should be homeschooled.

The made-up group was called Wackos Against Schools and Education.

The exercise in Muskegon, Mich., yesterday simulated a situation in which a bomb on board a bus full of children knocks the vehicle on its side and fills the passenger compartment with smoke.

Can you believe this? What outrageous trash. Our government is so PC, it makes me nauseous. Never, in the history of the United States, has a homeschool organization ever perpetrated such an act. Most of these organizations are founded and run by Christians. But we have Islamic terrorist groups galore--groups that pose a real and legitimate threat to innocent civilians--but God forbid that our government would ever mention such a thing! The truth is an annoying trip-hazard for those who tout this consciously-deceitful anti-homeschooling agenda. Do you see where all this is going? How long before the government, in all its benevolence and wisdom, decides it's time for a ban on homeschooling. After all, it's "for the children," and the elitists know what's best for our kids, don't they?

Dan Stout, director of Muskegon County Emergency Services, told WorldNetDaily the choice of the fictitious group certainly was not meant to offend homeschoolers.

"I don't think there was any particular objective other than to just have a name," he said.

"If somebody is offended, I feel bad about that and sorry about that," he said. "There wasn't any offense meant to anybody who homeschools."

Mr. Stout, with all due respect, you're a filthy liar. Of all the extant terrorist groups one could choose for this exercise, you settled on an invented piece of rubbish--obviously offensive-- with no more basis in reality than Santa or the Easter Bunny. Next time, since we're taking wild flights of fancy through Never-neverland, why don't you beaureacrats make it Geriatrics for Jesus, in an attempt to topple the Empire State Building, since such a monument to man's ingenuity is so reminiscent of the Tower of Babel. How's that for realism?

Cold Mountain

The local movie rental place was having a "rent two get one free" deal, so I took 'em up on it and got this one, free of charge. I had heard so many bad and good things about this movie, I was very suspicious, going in. Interestingly, after watching it, I've decided it's neither as good--nor as bad--as many folks have said.

The Good: Great cinematography, realistic battle scenes, interesting characters, good special effects, and excellent acting--particularly on the part of Renee Zellweger, who I believe won the special "Redneck Girl" award given out by the Sons of Confederate Veterans. An' she deserved it. Also, the screenplay did a fantastic job of showing how the Civil War tore apart families, devastated the countryside, turned brother against brother, and generally created havoc and mayhem on a scale never experienced before or since, in the continental U.S.

The Bad: The main character embarks upon an odyssey across the rural landscape, but only after leaving his troop division, abandoning his compatriots, and becoming a fugitive deserter from the Confederate Army. His reasons for doing so--other than the obvious desire to be reunited with his woman--were vague, and mainly consisted of "It's not my war." Finding sympathy for his attitude was difficult for me, since the man volunteered to go fight the Yankees.

Our hero meets a preacher en route, and though the man is semi-likeable, he is a roguish individual who knocked up his black slave and fled from the local townsfolk, who want to string him up in the town square. Worse, it later turns out that he's as promiscuous as a hutch full of rabbits. It takes lots of courage to portray a supposed man of God as a lecherous lout in Hollywood, eh? And we see this soooo rarely, too, right? The movie's end seems like piling on. I won't say more on that. Just watch it, and see for yourself.

The Ugly: The worst aspect of this film was its treatment of the South and Southerners. Throughout the movie, we see The Confederate Home Guard--militias, if you will--portrayed as mere gangs of murdering cutthroats, who will kill anyone that they deem a possible deserter, with no trial and no mercy. I know that such things did happen, but these events were the exception, not the rule. The Yankees raped and pillaged the South, robbing people blind, killing on whims, having their way with the womenfolk, and laying whole regions waste, yet the movie barely touches on this in only one scene. Three Yankee soldiers come to a woman's farm to help themselves to her food supplies--and more. This is the only point in the movie in which Yankees are portrayed in a negative light, and it's a short scene. The rest of the film focuses on the Southerners preying on each other. But in reality, the Northern Aggressors caused far more death and destruction amongst the civilian populace of the South than Southerners did. So I thought this was a bizarre portrayal, to say the least. Additionally, every Southerner in the movie, without exception, was shown as naive, stupid, or evil. This is fiction in its purest form, without a trace of truth in it.

In conclusion, the film could have been far worse; but it also could've been far better. The gushing reviews were unjustified and exaggerated. Of course, with all the criticism I've heard about this movie, I expected to see Confederates acting like Nazis on horseback, lynching black children for the sheer joy of racism-in-action. But there was none of this. In fact, there were no major black characters in it. But tread easy when you watch this one. If you know your history well, everything will be all right, and you'll get a good glimpse of how awful and hellish the war was. If you're unclear about the history of the time, though, skip Cold Mountain and rent Gods and Generals or Ride With the Devil, instead.

Gangs of New York

I saw this film recently, and it definitely had its moments. First, the good:

The cinematography, musical score, and basic storyline were all good. The actors performed competently, especially Daniel Day-Lewis, in the role of the main villain. He made the movie, as far as I'm concerned, and his acting was a sight to behold. The sets were pretty incredible, as well--and extensive.

In many ways, this was a politically incorrect movie. The director (Scorsese) didn't try to sugar-coat the Civil War setting. Nor did he glorify the Yankee soldiers, which I liked. Rather, he portrayed it as a grim, horrible affair that corrupted and ruined everything it touched. One sequence showed the famous Draft Riots in all their butchery and chaos. It was pretty clear to me that the film looked down upon the draft, which I think is the appropriate response. Finally, the wanton and evil abuse suffered by the Irish as they stepped off the boats was shown accurately. This is a side of racism and bigotry most people know little about. It was not unusual for the Irish to labor for slave wages--earning less than many other immigrants.

The movie had some problems, though: I realize it takes place in a bloody, violent time, without a doubt. But some elements were exaggerated, in my opinion. If New York City had been as violent and corrupt as the movie shows, it's hard to imagine the city surviving into the 20th Century. So what I'm saying is that real events were dramatized, but made larger-than-life, in some areas. For example, in an opening scene, two gangs do battle in the streets. We know from newspaper clippings that people died in these turf wars, but not in vast numbers, all at once. Yet the scene I referred to was like an epic battle scene lifted from Braveheart, with blood, brain matter, and other assorted bits of anatomy spewing and flying everywhere. Again, an embellishment on known facts.

Another problem was the main character--the protagonist, if you will. Played by DeCaprio, he was not a very likeable character. He frequently did stupid, foolish things, and his face was etched in a permanent scowl throughout the movie. DeCaprio did his best with the character, but he was just not very empathetic.

The worst problem I found was the anti-Christian bent in the film. DeCaprio spends a good deal of his childhood in a Catholic-run reformatory, and I know these places were tough on kids. But he acts as if he likes the priest who runs the place, hugging him goodbye and thanking him, when he strikes out on his own. The man gives him a Bible as a gift, which he immediately chucks into the Hudson River upon departing. Later in the movie, a preacher treats him kindly and invites him to Sunday services. He impolitely tells the man to go to Hell. However, the film does show him revering and practically praying to a medal with St. Michael the Archangel on it, as his father had done. So for some reason, the director shunned Christianity and opted for paganistic elements for his focus. This disturbed me more than anything else in the movie, because it seemed senseless and unjustified. Of course, what should I expect from the man who made The Last Temptation of Christ--a piece of sickening heresy and blasphemy that never should have seen the light of day?

Two Jokes

1. Four jackrabbits go strolling on the prairie. Suddenly, a gang of coyotes begins chasing them. Terrified, the four rabbits run under a huge cactus for refuge.

The hungry beasts surround them. One rabbit says to the others, "Ok, should we make a run for it, or wait till we outnumber them?"

2. New arrivals at the Pearly Gates compare tales of how they died.

First Woman: "I froze to death."

Second Woman: "I had a heart attack. I suspected my husband was cheating on me, so I came home early to catch him. He was alone, but I was suspicious that another woman was there, somewhere. I ran all over the house looking, from attic to basement, in every closet and under every bed. Then, I keeled over dead."

First Woman: "Too bad you didn't look in the freezer--we'd both still be alive."

***

I found these jokes in Reader's Digest.

Over 1,000 Served

Well, it's official. As of today, I've had 1,016 visits to my blog. To those of you who are my regulars (you know who you are!), and to those who just drop by on the occasional whim, for a dip in the literary morass--Thank you very much for your interest! I'm learning as I go, gaining more knowledge every day. I very much enjoy the insights of those who comment, as well.

I've noticed a trend lately, though. My blog traffic keeps increasing, and yet the number of people making comments decreases proportionally. Is that bizarre, or what? (Twilight Zone theme music plays in the background).

So all you Folks of the Fringe--SPEAK UP, and let your voices be counted! You don't have to worry about being swatted by an intellectual giant, or being verbally roughed up and tossed out on your keister. I may be a bit ragged around the edges, at times--and I may even have a little fun at someone's expense, on occasion--but it's all with a smile and a friendly slap on the back. No harm intended.

And in conclusion, Lord willin' an' the creek don't rise, I'll be around for a while, yet, wise-crackin' an' tryin' ta make a few valid points fer y'uns ta mull over.

Have a great weekend, everybody!

Disarming Freedom

As promised, here's a somewhat different list of quotations, taken from "leaders"and prominent liberals of the 20th and 21st Centuries, on the subject of gun control:

Adolf Hitler: "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead." (Chancelor's Speech, 1935)

Charles Shumer: (US Congress, has sworn an oath to defend the US Constitution) "All we ask for is registration, just like we do for cars." (Press conference, 1993,)

Adof Hitler: "The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subject peoples to possess arms. So let's not have any talk about native militias." (Hitler's Secret Conversations, 1941-44, Farrar, Strauss and Young, 1953)

Mao Tse Tung: "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." (Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938, published in "Selected Works of Mao Zedong," 1965)

Diane Feinstein: "US Senator, If I could have banned them all- 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' -I would have!" (Statement on TV program 60 Minutes, Feb 5 1995)

Bill Clinton: (US President, has sworn an oath to defend the US Constitution) "When we got organized as a country, [and] wrote a fairly radical Constitution, with a radical Bill of Rights, giving radical amounts of freedom to Americans, it was assumed that Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly...When personal freedom is being abused, you have to move to limit it." (April 19 1994, on MTV)

These folks are not on the side of our Founders (obviously)--or on the side of freedom. Period.

Guns and the Founders

Here's a list of quotes taken from our Founding Fathers, on the subject of gun control and militias. I think you'll find it quite illuminating with regards to their intentions, and the whole phony argument of the present that the militia is merely the National Guard. Tomorrow, I'll post some quotes taken from totalitarians and liberals on the same subject.

Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T. Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)

George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent Chronicle.)

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)

George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

James Madison: "A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789, emphasis added.

Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)

Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." (Federalist Paper #29)

Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." (Convention of the Commonwealth of Mass., 86-87,

Deport Asa Hutchinson

Isn't this fellow a prince among men?

Mr. Hutchinson believes that Americans "lack the will" to rid ourselves of illegal aliens, that the task is "unrealistic." Of course, his job description includes securing the border, and he is, in fact, the top border-security official in the country, though you wouldn't know it from his words and actions.

"We don't set goals like that (referring to deportations). Our goal is to enforce the law as we see violations of the law. ..."

That's just good old-fashioned gibberish. Last time I checked, entering the U.S. illegally is a violation of the law. How silly of me to point that out. Just to translate his nonsense, he's saying that violating the law by entering the country outside legal parameters is not sufficient reason for prosecution or deportation. Only additional crimes will draw his attention.

"I don't think America has the will. I think they have too much compassion to tell our law-enforcement people to go out there and uproot those 8 million here -- some of whom might have been here eight or 12 years, who got kids here that are American citizens -- and to send them out of the country."

Folks this is just conscious deceit. The man's a complete phony, a fraud. Back in early June of this year, the U.S, Border Patrol conducted very popular illegal-alien roundups in California, and the twelve-man team located and captured 450 aliens. Showing his gratitude, Hutchinson iced the program and publicly criticized the efforts. So let's consider the situation carefully:

1. The Border Patrol voluntarily rounded up illegals in a highly successful sweep in California.

2. The state's citizens backed them every step of the way.

3. After shutting down the efforts, Hutchinson received so many outraged emails from Californians and others that he was forced to terminate his email address.

Conclusion: America has the will. Hutchinson and his underlings don't.

And just touching on the issue of illegal aliens who have been in-country for 8 to 12 years: should criminals get off scot-free because they evaded the law for years? That's irrational. In the present case, these people are committing a crime daily, just by being here. I don't see how a statute of limitations comes into play. Furthermore, if such a limit was legally viable, I'm sure Hutchinson would've trotted it out as an excuse from the beginning. But he hasn't. Instead, he whines about how we should all just get along, hold hands, and sing "I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony. . ." He ignores the colossal drain on our medical field, welfare system, and what about employment opportunities? How many American citizens can't find jobs because of the 8 to 12 million illegal aliens in our country? The list of problems goes on, and no one knows for sure just how many illegals reside in the U.S.

In August, the National Border Patrol announced that almost two-thirds of their workforce is demoralized, and that half have considered leaving their jobs in the past two years.

The council noted: "Almost three years after the terrorist attacks of 9-11, despite the expenditure of billions of dollars and endless rhetoric from the top about how anti-terrorism is our foremost priority, only about half of these officers believe that our nation is any safer from terrorist threats."

Isn't that disgraceful? Yet Hutchinson assures us that Americans "might be afraid" to learn how much it would cost to succeed in such an endeavor. But how much do we pay for doing nothing? Ah, those are costs Mr. Hutchinson deems unworthy of counting.

I'll leave you with the words of L.A. talk-show host, John Kobylt:

"I don't care if [Hutchinson's] a nice guy or not. I don't care if he gives mouth-to-mouth to dying dogs. It doesn't matter to me. Is he going to do the job on something that is extremely important that three-quarters of the state wants enforced?"

Excellent question. It seems we already have our answer.

Founding Quotes of Note IX

"An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation." --John Marshall

Taxation was one of the factors that led us in our revolt against the British. I hope those in elected office ponder such facts, from time to time, and take them into account.

Remember "No taxation without representation!"?

Great Literature

In honor of the new public school year that recently began--and as a supplement for my post of September 10, I'm offering this poem, written a while back. I typed it in the comments section of Vox's blog, a couple of months ago; but for those of you who missed it, here it is:


Skewl Daze


Skewl daze, skewl daze
Shun the Golden Rule-daze.
Readin', 'ritin', an' 'rithmatic--
Tryin' ta spell 'em makes me sick.
Read me some Seuss like The Cat in the Hat.
Someday I'll say: "Ma'am, want fries with that?"
See Dick run and see Jane run
Behind the bleachers for some fun.
Hey, wait! I think she has a gun!
Dem ol' skewl daze.

Skewl daze, skewl daze
Spent in a drug-induced haze.
Roll a joint using my homework.
2 + 2 drives me quite berserk.
Quote me some Shakespeare; it's all Greek ta me.
Won't have no trouble catchin' VD.
Nothin' at all 'tween my ears.
Stayed in the ninth grade years and years.
Politics makes a great career.
Dem ol' skewl daze.


The End

September 11, 2001 Remembered

Hard to believe it's been three years since that dreaded day. Just thinking about the loss and grief pains me.

May those who died find comfort and rest in our Father's arms.

May those who lost loved ones find peace and the will to struggle on.

May those who gloated over the events of this day--or helped perpetrate them--be pounded into dust.

Amen.

Education Ain't Whut She Used To Be

From The Federalist:


"A most intriguing school test appears in the current issue of Education Reporter, describing what eighth-graders in the United States were expected to know in 1910. Among 10 grammar questions: 'In what must a pronoun agree with its antecedent? Illustrate.' Under orthography, spell: 'laudanum, beneficent, declension.' A few from the U.S. and civic history category: 'State the qualifications of a U.S. senator ... What has made the names of each of the following historical: Alexander Hamilton, U.S. Grant, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Cyrus W. Field, Clara Barton? ... Give an account of the framing and adoption of the Declaration of Independence.' After students got through rather tough questions in geography, arithmetic and physiology, there was this easy (for students of yesteryear, at least) question: 'Quote two stanzas of "America".'" --John McCaslin

Whew! And you thought eighth grade was hard!

Of course, to be fair, there's no time these days for such minutiae. Kids have more important subjects to delve into, such as: learning that our Founders were all racist pigs; gaining dexterity in putting a condom on a cucumber; understanding the insight that our Constitution is a living, breathing document (just take its pulse, if you doubt me); and taking political correctness 101, certainly not an elective in today's public school system.

Longwindedness Explained

A woman can talk with less effort than a man because her vocal cords are shorter than those of the male. Not only does this cause her voice to be higher pitched, it also requires less air to agitate the cords, making it possible for her to talk more, yet expend less energy.

I obtained this informative tidbit from a book in my possession, entitled A Fun-Filled Collection of 1800 Tantalizing Facts, by E.C. McKenzie.

Explains quite a lot, doesn't it? Now, where's my bullet-proof vest?

Immigrant Influx in Tennessee

I live in the eastern portion of the state, in a medium-sized town, and I've noticed some changes in the past two or three years.

Every day, more and more, I'm seeing people who look like their nationality is Mexico, or at least south of the Rio Grande. Such folks always have been around, but I've noticed a marked increase in their numbers, recently.

Some examples of this trend:

When I go anywhere--whether it's the mall, Wal-Mart, the grocery store, a restaurant, etc., I see them--and sometimes in large numbers.

One of the local Taco Bells now is populated almost exclusively by Mexican employees.

Signs are going up here and there, written in Spanish, where once no such signs existed.

My wife worked at Cracker Barrel, a few years ago, and almost every individual who worked in the dishroom was a Mexican. Only one of them spoke English, and not very well. The rest verbally could neither communicate with, nor understand, their coworkers.

Now let me make something clear. I am not against legal immigration, if said immigrants want to assimilate with our culture and become loyal to our country and way of life. Neither am I against Mexicans. Not at all.

But based on my own experience in observing the immigration situation in my neck of the woods, I've drawn some conclusions:

1. The sheer number of these people, coupled with the time-frame involved, indicates a high likelihood that many are here illegally.

2. Rather than protesting such changes or showing the merest concern, local businesses embrace the immigrants, asking few if any questions, and catering to their deficiencies.

3. The majority of them that I run across speak either broken English, or zero English. This indicates a disinterest in assimilating with the greater population. (Anecdote: My wife currently works with a woman who immigrated from Mexico. She speaks almost no English, and has exhibited no interest in improving her skill in speaking the language. They have been coworkers for over a year.)

I know there are exceptions, and I've limited my remarks to the region in which I live, but this makes good food for thought about the direction our country is headed.

Founding Quotes of Note VIII

"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." --George Washington

I think this is a very timely quote, especially in the context of our current political cycle. John Kerry, Michael Moore, the Left, and most of the Democrat Party--take note.

Miracles

Here's an amazing story, about a possible miracle.

It seemed at first that Alice Mowatt didn't have a prayer of a chance of surviving being struck by a car on a busy Hollywood street.

Authorities listed her as a probable fatality when the teenage British tourist was rushed to the hospital with severe head injuries.

But an hour later there was one prayer. And soon after that there were thousands.

As doctors struggled to save Mowatt, the Los Angeles police sergeant assigned to investigate the crash was so moved that he stepped out of the emergency room and launched an international prayer circle on her behalf.

I believe in miracles, personally. I believe in those that the Bible describes, and I believe that they still occur, today, albeit with more subtlety.

What do you think about miracles? If you've ever experienced one--or know someone who has --I'd enjoy hearing about it.

Nuns on the Run

A group of nuns have donated money to a well-known pro-abortion group, Emily's List.

The donation to Emily's List, says the nuns' vice president, was simply meant to help women in the political process.

My initial response to this was: Huh?

"We weren't making a political statement in terms" of abortion, Sister Mary Katherine Hamilton told the Detroit Free Press.

Say what?

Let me get this straight. You donate money to an organization dedicated to aiding and abetting pro-abortion women in gaining elected office, and you weren't making a political statement regarding abortion? What muddled garbage.

The Roman Catholic Church vehemently opposes abortion. So at best these people are guilty of rank incompetence in choosing a group to send their money. At worst, well, it says something about their dedication to Catholic--and Christian--principles, doesn't it?

Founding Quotes of Note VII

"[A] wise and frugal government...shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."--Thomas Jefferson

Back in Action

I'm back, with a nice, crispy sunburn. If you've ever seen a lobster after it comes out of the boiler, you know how I look, right now. Even my scalp is sunburned, under my hair. Yowch.

I had fun--sleeping in a tent, no electricity, no tv, no radio. My wife and siblings, and their children, and my mother and stepfather all went. We played horseshoes, shuffleboard, miniature golf, went swimming in the lake, and just generally had a good time goofing off. We picked a lovely camping spot, under some trees with low-hanging branches. Sitting in a chair under those trees early in the morning was heavenly, with the breeze blowing through the leaves and making a soft sighing sound. I find contentment in the little things.

Last, but not least, we had the sunburn grill-a-thon, which I won hands down, as I'm sure you've guessed. But a coupla others came close in the running, I assure you. The contest prize was lots of pain, peeling skin, and a week's supply of aloe.

Life is good. I hope all of you had a great weekend.

Happy Camper

Folks, I'll be gone camping for a few days, with my wife and other family members. So you won't hear from me for a brief time. Buck up, and dry your tears; it'll be okay. I expect to be back Monday, blogging away as usual.

In the meantime, now's a great opportunity to exercise your rights and read my archives, if you already have not taken that wise step. There you will have enlightenment seared--seared--into your minds.

God bless all of you. Be happy and well, until we talk again.

I shall return.

Cuckoos Escape the Clock

This person managed a corruption of the language and brazen stupidity in a single statement--a feat worthy of at least a passing mention:

A featured performer at a National Organization for Women rally accused President Bush of having "savagely raped " women "over and over" by allegedly stealing the 2000 presidential election.

Poet Molly Birnbaum read aloud to a crowd of feminists gathered in New York's Central Park on Wednesday night, as part of a NOW event dubbed "Code Red: Stop the Bush Agenda Rally."

"Imagine a way to erase that night four years ago when you (President Bush) savagely raped every pandemic woman over and over with each vote you got, a thrust with each state you stole," Birnbaum said from the podium. (If something is pandemic, it affects many people or a number of countries.)"

A smack with each bill you passed, a tear with each right you took until you left me disenfranchised with hands shackled and voice restrained. Thanks for that night, Mr. President, I can barely remember my tomorrows," Birnbaum said to applause.

Interestingly, Ms. Birnbaum made no mention of the Idiocy Pandemic, sweeping the globe, its contagion emanating from leftist circles.

In the same article, this gave me a good laugh:

Birnbaum's reading was followed by a performance by Gina Young, described as a singer of "feminist folk punk."

Young's song included the following verse about Bush:"I got better grades than you, you stupid boy W. Your dad was a killer, too, and you know that nobody voted for you," Young sang as the crowd erupted in applause."I object not just to this war, but to all of the things that you stand for, like dropping bombs to lower the price of gas. I guess the Constitution is just some piece of scrap paper you use to wipe you're a**, you bastard," Young sang to more applause.

I knew schoolyard bullies who harbored more poetic with than this imbecile. Can you believe people actually applauded such a moron? These NOW creatures live in a world of emotional overload, where facts and logic, reason and common sense are spat upon, and passion in The Cause is deified--whether it makes sense or not.

Zell Miller's Dilemma

Zell Miller said a few choice words at the Republican National Convention:


No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.

But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.

They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

It is not their patriotism -- it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace.

They were wrong.

They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war.

They were wrong.


Zell Miller is an admirable man, in many ways. He's courageous, having broken ranks with his party's herd mentality. And he's an unabashed patriot. My only question is: Mr. Miller, when will you dump the Democrat Party, and choose a group of people more worthy of your association?

The Passion of the Christ

Mel Gibson's film went on-sale, yesterday. By midday, more than 2.4 million copies had been sold.

Isn't that amazing? I realize this movie was imperfect, but what a powerful testimony to the sacrifice Jesus made for all of us, to lift and cleanse us from the filthy pit of our sins. If you haven't seen it already, I highly recommend it. A warning, though. It's tough on the emotions, but worth every moment.