At the conclusion of the Constitutional convention in 1787 Benjamin Franklin was asked what sort of government the framers had drafted. "A republic, if you can keep it," Franklin is said to replied. Now, 221 years later, after more than 50 years of a continuing constitutional coup d' e-tat by the Federal judiciary, Americans have lost the republic. We now live under a judiciary dictatorship, with the trappings of republicanism are preserved, but the substance has been consumed by the judicial appetite for power. After each decision the authority of the representative branches of government is further circumscribed, while the power of unelected and unaccountable judges is increased. Consequently, virtually every area of life now is subject to judicial oversight and control. Any law passed by a legislative body or action taken by an executive is challenged and tied up in court for years, where if it fails to meet with the latest trends or fads circulating among liberal elites, judges nullify the law or the action.

My friends, we the people no longer rule in the United States. Instead we are ruled over by a oligarchy of black robed tyrants. How else can we explain the discovery in the California constitution of a "right" to homosexual marriage? Does anyone seriously believe the drafters of the California constitution intended any part thereof support such a "right?" Yet 4 individuals, who happen to be judges of the California Supreme Court, discovered this "right" and presto, this very day homosexual partners will be wed in California.

For 232 years it was understood that the right to habeas corpus did not extend to persons captured on the battlefield by the armed forces of the United States, who were being held as enemy combatants. Let that sink in for a moment. From George Washington to George Patton, from the American Revolution to the present, habeas corpus HAS NEVER been extended to captured enemies of the nation. Yet, presto, 5 justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have discovered in the U.S. constitution a "right" for these persons to seek release in the Federal courts of the nation. The efforts of the president and the Congress, which resulted in the "most generous" set of procedures to review the propriety of their detention ever afforded captured enemies according to Chief Justice John Roberts, are swept aside as inadequate. Never that this same court only last year invited the president and Congress to write such a statute. History, national security, precedent? We don’t need no stinking precedent according to the majority. And of course they are right. The elected branches of government, the Congress and the presidency, have abdicated the responsibility to act a check on the judicial branch, and as a consequence ceded power to the judges. We are learning every day that the judicial appetite for power is insatiable.

Royalty rules by divine right and in America today judges are royalty. Many of the justices of the Supreme Court view their role not as jurists to interpret the laws and constitution in accordance with the intent of the drafters and traditions of the American people, but as philosopher kings to impose enlightenment on the little people. This impulse has subverted the edifice of republic government. It won’t take much to collapse the entire structure.

 

 

 

   Perhaps I am a contrarian, but I cannot get too fired up about the rants of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Barry Obama's pastor.  Maybe it's because I suspect that similar inflammatory remarks are made every Sunday in the pulpits of many other black churches across the land.   Maybe it's because I would not expect someone to get up and walk out on a sermon just because you disagreed with the message or it made you uncomfortable.   Where I come from, walking out of church in the middle of a sermon is considered rude in the extreme.   If you can't stomach what the pastor preaches, you don't return and you move your membership.  

   I also have some sympathy for Barry.   I don't think it's really fair to imput to Barry the views of Reverend Wright, even if Barry has stayed a member of the good Reverend's church while Brother Wright delivered himself of his Bill of Particulars about the evils of the United States of America.  The Lord knows that all too many folks have been members of churches for longer than Barry and ten minutes after a sermon ended couldn't tell you anything their pastor said!   Barry has said he doesn't share Reverend Wright's views, and I take him at his word.

   But, don't believe for a second that I think that Senator Obama should be elected president of the United States.   If Barry becomes the Democrat Party's nominee, he will be by far the most liberal candidate ever put forth for the office by a major party.   His policy prescriptions, if implemented, would be a disaster for America.    It is His views, more than the rants of his former pastor, that concern me.  

   Make no mistake, I don't agree with any of the particulars of  Reverend Wright's indictment of America society and foreign policy either.   However, America and Americans do have a lot to answer for to God for how we have allowed our government and society to stray from His principles, not to mention the intentions of the founders of the country. 

   I believe Americans have to answer for allowing the Federal Judiciary to impose a judicial dictatorship over their government.   I believe Americans have to answer for the consequences of this black robed tyranny:  the state sanction of the mass murder of infants in their mothers' womb; the legitimatization of homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, both contended to be "liberty" protected by the 14th Amendment; the perversion of mass media by pornography under the guise of "free speech" protected by the First Amendment;  an attack on traditional values and the Christian faith via misapplication of the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment;  the gutting of the constitutional order of federalism, designed to defuse power among many sovereigns as opposed to the one;  limiting the right of the people to engage in political speech, which is the core of the First Amendment,  under the guise of campaign finance "reform."   I could go on but the point has been made.  Americans have allowed their government to morph into a judicial oligarchy, and are paying the price.

   I believe Americans have to answer for tolerating their president committing the American military to war and then refusing to allow our men and women the freedom to fight to win.    For reasons I simply cannot fathom,  it seems that American administrations don't want to obtain decisive victory anymore in the conflicts they send our men and women to fight.    The American people should never again permit or suffer the United States government sending American troops in harm's way unless the objective is total victory.

   I believe Americans have to answer for a foreign policy which confuses wishful thinking with reality.  By now only a screaming idiot of the highest order can believe that Palestinians want to make peace with Israelis on any terms other than the Israelis committing mass suicide.  Yet our glorious secretary of state, Madam Rice, appears to be such an idiot.  Memo to Ms. Rice: people who teach their children to strap bombs to their bodies so as to blow up their perceived enemies are not interested in peace.   Such people are not to be negotiated with, appeased, or otherwise treated as anything other than the evil barbarians they are, who must be stopped by whatever means necessary.   Doing otherwise simply sentences innocent people to death.

   I believe Americans have to answer for permitting their government to demonstrate contempt for the laws of the land which manifest that the United States is in fact a nation and not some spot on the map.  The refusal of the Bush administration to secure the nation's borders and enforce the immigration laws cannot be condemned strongly enough.   If this president has done anything to deserve impeachment, it is his abdication of his duty to protect America from the foreign invasion coming across our border with Mexico.

   I could go on and on: wasteful, profligate spending; confiscatory taxation; the worship of celebrity; the collapse of moral constraints and standards; corruption and debauchery in public officials.  

   So, I agree with the Reverend Wright that American has a lot answer for to God.  However, unlike the Reverend, I love my country.  With all our faults, we are still the best nation on earth, relative to the alternatives.  We are still a land with many good and brave people capable of reversing the tides which carry us to destruction, if only they will stir themselves and reclaim the rights of a free people to govern themselves according to their own traditions, faith and morals.   I must admit though, that sometimes I think that the only reason we have not yet experienced the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah is only because  there still remains "more than ten righteous men" (see Genesis 18:20-33) to be found in our country.  

   Changing topics, was there something in the water of Albany, New York, that affected the minds of Eliot Spitzer and David Patterson, the once and current governors of New York, who shared the inability to remain true to their spouses?    Patterson, not being a millionaire many times over like Spitzer, apparently didn't have to pay his liasons,  though he apparently charged the hotel rooms where he hooked up with his lovers to the New York taxpayer as  "professional expenses."    Spitzer shelled out $ 4,500 PER HOUR(!) for his female company.   Until the blue dress bearing his DNA was uncovered, Bill Clinton professed to be "mentoring" Monica;  such chuzpah and imagination appear beyond Misters Spitzer or Patterson, who as  yet have failed to concoct so prosaic an explanation.  

 

 

   
   

   

 

 

The Barritudes

Barry Obama ventured into theology not long ago and opined that the Sermon on the Mount served as a basis for his support of homosexual and lesbian "rights." I must confess, that after many years of attending Sunday School, church training, and listening to innumerable sermons, I had not noticed anything in Christ’s remarks which I thought supported homosexual conduct. Since Barry’s devoted following considers him to be a sort of second coming, perhaps Barry has drank his own kool-aid and has confused the Beatitudes with the Barritudes.

The Barritudes are the new, secular, Democrat holy writ. Here, for your edification, are some of the Barritudes:

1. Blessed are the wealthy, for the state shall relieve them of the burden of their wealth by taxation.

2. Blessed are the terrorists, for they shall see the American Army withdrawn from Iraq.

3. Blessed are the abortion providers, for they shall be permitted unfettered right to abort a baby.

4. Blessed are the lesbian and homosexual, for they shall be the only subgroup of Americans whose sexual conduct will entitle them to special protection of the laws.

5. Blessed are the parents of children, for the burden of child-rearing shall be removed from them and vested in the state.

6. Blessed are the Iranians, for they shall have a nuclear bomb.

7. Blessed are environmentalists, for they shall attain their fondest wish: the American economy wrecked by regulation to combat a nonexistent threat of global warming.

8. Blessed are the members of the ACLU, for they shall secure the rights of all Americans to be blown to bits and murdered by Islamists.

9. Blessed are the trial lawyers, for they shall grow rich at the expense of wicked American capitalism.

10. Blessed are the poor, for their number shall be multiplied by liberal economic policies.

Barry also dismissed St. Paul’s condemnation of homosexual conduct in his letter to the Romans as an "obscure" passage. I confess my Bible has been augmented by various headings to describe following material. Diligent search has not, however, uncovered the "obscure" passage. I’ll keep looking. Perhaps I’m being hard on Barry, after all, the few liberals who refer to the Bible excise in toto the parts they find objectionable. At least Barry acknowledges the material exists; he just calls it "obscure," implying it should be ignored.

Barry might want to refresh his theology by reading another "obscure" passage found in Matthew, chapter 19, verses 4-6. Therein, Christ said this about the institution of marriage, in response to questioning from the Pharisee: "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning, ‘made them male and female,’ and said ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate."

Let Barry try to spin that passage into support for homosexual marriage!!

 

 

I’ve not blogged for a while so there are many topics to cover.

Barry Obama is complaining that the Clintons are distorting his record and being “factually inaccurate.” Well, duh! Where’s Barry been the last 20 years. Along with death and taxes, the surest bet a person can make is that the Clintons will lie when it suits them, which is pretty much all the time. Nothing bespeaks the ethical freefall which has occurred in American politics more than the continuing acceptance of the Clintons as respectable spokesmen for the Democrat party. Really, what sane electorate would consider for a moment returning these shameless con artists, who give white trash a bad name, to the White House? The Democrat party sold its soul in the 1990’s when it opted to defend Clinton for his indefensible conduct as president. Now the entire nation will most likely have the choice this November of deciding whether we’ll sell ours. I wish I was more sanguine about the probable outcome.

___________________


Hooray! The United States government is apparently going to be mailing me and mine a check to be used to “stimulate” the economy. Gee, my review of my bank and credit card statements indicate I’m doing quite nicely in that regard already. Upset that Republicans have joined the “free money” movement, Congressional Democrats wish to up the ante by increasing handouts for food stamps, home heating (fuel oil) subsidies, and infrastructure improvements (that is, shoveling some money the Unions way). And, of course, to teach the Republicans what Johnny-come-lately they are to the give away racket, Democrats what to make sure that “tax rebates” reach folks WHO DON’T PAY TAXES! The apotheosis of liberal economics! Taking from the rich (you and me) to give the poor (defined as groups who vote for Democrats regardless of facts or logic). Of course, Robin Hood practiced it first.   Most people would define extracting money from one person by coercion and transferring it to another who did not earn it as robbery. When our government does it, it’s called “stimulating the economy.

____________________

Are any Republicans running for president this year? Now, I know that some individuals are seeking the nomination of the Republican party for president; that problem is, none of them seem to be Republicans! Do we really want another president from Hope, Arkansas? Been there, done that! John McCain, war hero, U.S. Senator, straight talker, open borders, campaign finance - Oops! Rudy, American’s mayor, the Log Cabin Republicans’ best friend. Cancel Rudy. Mitt Romney, handsome, rich, well spoken, Morman, flexible views, Mormon, flexible views. MORMON! FLEXIBLE VIEWS! Yee gads! It almost makes one yearn for the days of Bob Dole. Almost.

Until next time, adios amigos!!

 

 

 

Phoney Americans

There are people who were born in this country but who are not Americans. And no, I am not talking about the children of diplomats or even illegal aliens. I refer to people who despise the United States, denigrate the history and accomplishments of our nation, loath our military, hold traditional values in contempt, yearn for American defeat in war, and who share common cause with foreign dictators and alien philosophies working for the destruction of Christian society.
 

Their party of choice is the Democrat party, which is now a nest of traitors, a party with have no concept of patriotism or honor, working assiduously for American retreat and defeat abroad. In every important facet the Democrats are the party of Bill Clinton and the city of San Francisco, a group to whom lying is genetic and perfected, a collection of leftists and oddballs who have never met a perverted practice or socialist policy they couldn’t embrace or excuse. These folks may have been born in this country, but they are phoney Americans, whose beliefs and values are alien to those of the founders of this nation and their progeny.

These phoney Americans bray constantly about diversity and respecting the opinions and beliefs of others. Of course, this is code for marching in lockstep with leftist dogma and suppressing any expression other than that approved by them.  Phoney Americans shed crocodile tears for the American middle class, while advocating and implementing policies that tax the middle class to the poor house and shed middle class values and families.

Phoney Americans back homosexual rights, which is now the agenda of an intolerant, totalitarian minority of perverts attempting to redefine sin, wreck churches, and silence by law any opposition to the homosexual agenda as "hate" speech.

Phoney Americans endorse abortion of demand, speaking the language of "choice" as if a choice which includes the option of the murder of the innocent is one that deserves the protection of the Constitution of the United States.

Phoney Americans seek the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. How bringing home the American Army from the battlefield in Iraq, when we are winning and will be victorious if we only persevere, contributes to the nation’s short or long term security is unimportant to Phoney Americans. All they care about is American defeat, regardless of consequence.

Phoney Americans brag that they champion freedom of speech.  Yet they are the masters of the quote taken out-of-context, the false accusation, and the half-truth, all with the objective of destroying the opposition and silencing their voices.

Who are the faces of Phoney Americans?  Look no further than the immediate past president of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, easily the most accomplished liar ever to hold that office.  Look at Senators Harry Reid and Richard Durbin, Democrats who never met a slime or lie they could not embrace or run with when it was against the American military, a Republican, or conservative.  Look at the probable Democrat nominee for president, Hillary Rodham Clinton, busy running the most dishonest campaign for president in modern times, obscuring her socialist views and goals until she obtains power and it’s too late.

Every generation has had Phoney Americans. However, never before have they captured control of a major American political party, the majority of the media, and the elite universities and foundations. The conservative elite and opinion molders, the folks who write for National Review, the Weekly Standard, etc., shy away from branding these people for who they are. Perhaps elite conservatives are too fond of being invited to Georgetown dinner parties and don’t wish to give offense to there liberal hosts.  Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, on the other hand, understand the true danger posed by the Phoney Americans and how evil they really are. That’s why the Phoney Americans hate Limbaugh and Coulter so much and won’t rest until they can discredit and silence them.

The election in 2008 is going to be one of the most fateful in American history. If the Phoney Americans claim the presidency and the Congress, it will be the last truly free and honest election this country will have.

 

 

Today’s newspaper brings news that the Supreme Court of the United States has accepted for review a case challenging lethal injection as the means to kill convicted murderers. Apparently the argument is that the cocktail mixture of drugs used to ensure the demise of the offender causes the poor fellow sufficient "pain" as to violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

What kind of insanity is this? Convicted murderers feeling a little pain during their execution? Oh, the horror! It absolutely boggles the mind that the Supreme Court would entertain even for a nano-second the argument that convicted murderers are entitled to a painless execution as a matter of constitutional law. It is more than absurd, it is obscene. For a killer to receive the death penalty in this country requires the prosecution to jump through so many hoops that only the most repellant murderer committing the most heinous homicide is usually even eligible for the punishment. After conviction, the nation’s appellate courts, both state and federal, have dedicated themselves to exploiting every loophole to reversing the jury’s verdict and frustrating efforts to execute the murderer.

The U.S. Constitution authorizes capital punishment.  When the Supreme Court in 1972 declared the death penalty unconstitutional (Furman v. Georgia), two justices voted in majority on grounds unrelated to whether the penalty was cruel and unusual. Four years later, and in the face of a public outcry, these two justices joined the former minority and new members to upheld the death penalty (Gregg v. Georgia). Since then, however, determined opponents have worked at the margins to continuous narrow the number of murderers eligible for capital punishment. Now it seems the argument is that capital punishment is constitutional, only that there no means acceptable to the Courts by which the sentence can be carried out!

Perhaps the Supreme Court will reach the correct decision. However, the very fact the question is even before the Court demonstrates how unhinged the jurisprudence of the Court is regarding the cruel and unusual clause. Bluntly put, it is simply none of the Court’s business the means that states or the federal government use to execute convicted killers. A concept such as "cruel and unusual" must perforce draw its content and parameters from the generalized opinion of the public. That opinion will be reflected in the legislature which defines the means of punishment. For judges to substitute their opinion of what is cruel and unusual in place of the legislature is the height of hubris which has no textual basis in the constitution.

In this area, as in so many others, the Supreme Court drifts unanchored to the Constitution, its decisions dictated by the feelings of its changing membership. It is a rogue court, and it must be reigned in.

I continued to be amazed at the adoration and worship which members of the party of surrender and treason - Democrats, as if you had a question - give Bill Clinton. The closest analogy is the devotion that members of cults give to their leader.

Why do Democrats love Bill so? Of course he parrots the liberal line on the issues which concern them the most: abortion, homosexual rights, surrender in Iraq. But there is no shortage of other Democrat Party leaders who are even more dogmatic and doctrinaire on these matters, but who don’t enjoy Clinton’s following. Perhaps its Clinton’s status as the first baby boomer president who personifies the egocentrism and narcism of the liberal wing of that generation. They have an emotional investment in the man which defies reason and are impervious to persuasion.

It is a measure of the degradation of the nation’s moral compass that this man is invited to headline public events and sought out by Democrat candidates in their campaigns. Clinton disgraced the office of the president of the United States by his conduct. He has lied to the American people so often and so many issues that it no longer shocks anyone; we expect whatever he says to elude the truth. I could go on but what’s the point. Everyone knows who and what Bill Clinton is. Both he and Hillary are giant appetites for power in human form, ready to consume and discard any person or principal when advantageous. None of this is news to anyone familiar with him or her.

No politician is a messiah, certainly not Bill Clinton, and neither he nor any other is worthy of a cult following oblivious to his manifest faults. Clinton has long ago demonstrated he has no concept of honor, but if our society has any decency left, he should be shunned and remembered as a prevaricating deviant who unfortunately hoodwinked the American people into electing him twice their president.

What is staggering is that Hillary Clinton is the odds on favorite to become president on January 20, 2009, and, as a consequence, Bill Clinton will be return to the White House. The church of Clinton will celebrate its own version of the second coming. The rest of us will mourn the collapse of a great nation.

The Constitution defines Treason as in "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."  Article III, Section 3.   The Democrat Party's representatives may not be technically guilty of treason in the constitutional sense, but in every meaningful sense Democrats are committing treason against this country.   How else to describe a political party which yearns for the defeat of the American Army in the field?   How else to label the elected representatives of a political party who seek to demoralize our soliders in the field and slander our military commanders?  

Modern American history has not witnessed what we behold today:  one of the nation's two major political parties, in fact the majority congressional party, dedicated to the defeat and humiliation of the nation during wartime.   They share common cause with the Islamofascists; the recent Bin Laden video could have been a Democrat campaign advertisment.   Democrats take offense when their patriotism is questioned, but we are beyond that.   What is going on now is treason, pure and simple treason.   Questioning the patriotism of Democrats?  Absolutely, I question their patriotism.   They are providing aid and comfort to enemies of the United States, in the belief that public dissatisfaction with the Iraq confict will result in short term political gain.  

It is well past time for conservatives to take the gloves off.   It is past time for conservative elites to stop granting their liberal counterparts the benefit of the doubt regarding their motives and loyality.    The Democratic leadership is engaging in treason.   They must be called on it.

 In resurrecting the so-called comprehensive immigration reform bill, President Bush and the Senate’s leadership have extended a giant middle finger to the American people. Bringing the bill back demonstrates - along with the unguarded remarks of Senators Trent Lott and Lindsey Graham- the contempt that the Washington establishment holds for the views of the public and, particularly, the conservation base of the Republican party.

There is nothing good about this immigration bill, unless one’s objective is to bankrupt the nation, award criminality, sacrifice internal security, dilute national cohesion, devalue American citizenship, create a serf class, advance socialism, destabilize the political environment of the American Southwest, and make a mockery of the concept of national sovereignty. Otherwise it’s a great bill.

The Heritage Foundation estimates that the increased cost to the American taxpayer should the immigration bill become law at 2.5 trillion dollars. This is probably a conservative estimate. And who is supposed to pay this incredible sum? Why, you and me of course.

What kind of insanity awards law breaking? The immigration bill will grant amnesty to people who entered this country illegally. People who have committed identity theft. People who have failed to pay taxes. Crimes which would land you or me behind bars. If this bill becomes law, an illegal immigrant can receive a provisional "Z-visa" which can be renewed forever. Presto, the illegal becomes legal, can get a social security card, and entre’ to all government benefits. What a deal!

Our government is the ultimate teacher. If it teaches that its laws can be violated without penalty or the violations will even be rewarded, then it should not expect its citizens to respect the laws or the government. Such a government is on the road to collapse.

The porous border invites terrorists to enter the country as sleepers, awaiting only the signal to murder and maim. I have gone a long way with President Bush, but on the question of securing the nation’s borders he has violated his oath of office by purposely ignored the invasion of masses over the Mexican border. The primary duty of the chief executive is to protect the nation from foreign invasion and if President Bush deserves impeachment on any ground, it is because he has acquiesced in the mass influx of foreign nationals and refused to enforce the immigration laws of the United States to repel them from the nation.

One would think that the political elites who are so intent on ramming this bill down the throats of the American people would at least remember a little history or take note of the problems the importation of an alien population has on the host countries in Europe. The Hispanic populations flowing into the United States are unlike previous immigrations, in that they are not interested in assimilating into the American culture but are solely migrating to find employment. Their hearts remain in their home country. In fact, no small number of them consider the Southwest United States to be their country, and consider U.S. sovereignty over the area to be somehow illegitimate. How can it possibly be wise to allow an alien population which feels it has a historical claim to the land to settle the area en masse? Possession, the old saw goes, is nine-tenths of the law and if the Hispanic population is allowed to progressively increase over the southwest the day will come that the new majority exercises de facto, if not de jure, sovereignty over the area, where the laws of the United States no longer apply.

What of the morality of importing a servant population to perform, as the president never tires of stating, "jobs Americans won’t do?" Besides being inaccurate, the statement implies that this group of human beings is suitable only as drones performing the most menial and thankless of tasks to sustain our advanced society. In other contexts this insult would most certainly bring down the wrath of the multi-culturalists and civil rights advocates on the head of anyone so insensitive as to utter the expression. Yet this declaration is offered in support of the bill, as if it is normal and understood that the United States economy requires a peasant underclass to survive. So much of the American dream of upward mobility! The idea that there are jobs Americans won’t do, or that the American economy needs a permanent underclass, are canards, false arguments at war with our history and the shared aspirations of our society. The economy does not an underclass of serfs in order to prosper. That contention confuses the desire of business for cheap labor with the needs of the economy.

The class of people coming here are accustomed to socialist governments, which intrude heavily into the market place with regulation and taxation. They come from governments whose officals and the judges are more often corrupt, the honest ones often murdered. Obedience to the law is not emphasized and may be fatal. The host population of the country both reflects and inculcates this corruption into its businesses and private institutions. How can we not expect that these attitudes and habits of doing business will not travel with the people who have grown up with them? Particularly when these same people wish to retain their culture and have no desire to assimilate into the Anglo culture of the United States.

Is the United States a nation or merely a land mass? A nation is a distinct, organic entity, with a unique culture and particular set of shared values. It may have many subsets: ethnic, religious, etc., but all are part of the whole. The immigration bill treats the United States as a sort of supra-national business concern, providing legitimacy and international cover for the commercial activities of multinational corporations who happen to have evolved first here, and desire a continuing cheap labor force which can be used up and discarded, just as one discards a paper or plastic cup. The American people, our history, culture, faith, and hopes for the future for ourselves and our progeny, are considered by the political and commercial elites of our nation as obstacles to the internationalization of commerce and the transnational interchange of goods, services, and people. These things are to be cast aside and forgotten in the brave new world envisioned by these elites, where brown skinned grunts collect the trash, mow the lawns, cook the food and nurse the young, while elites jet about the planet as "Masters of the Universe."

The comprehensive immigration reform bill must be defeated not merely to preserve American sovereignty and security. It must be defeated to preserve American dignity; it must be defeated to vindicate the faith that government rests on the consent of the governed and is not the mask of an oligarchy to whom you and I, as well as the illegal immigrant, are mere ciphers to be discarded once our utility is exhausted.

This immigration bill is a betrayal of everything that Americans hold dear. If it passes historians will one day look back on the day it went into effect as the beginning of the end of the American republic.

 

 

Fate and the arrogance of the mullahs of Iran has handed Tony Blair the opportunity to stamp himself as one of Great Britain's great prime ministers.   All he has to do is turn his back on the standard spinelessness of his own LIberal party and the European Union and rediscover the national character which made Great Britain the world's preeminent power for 200 years.    His policy should be expressed in one phrase:  "my sailors and marines returned uharmed now or the mullahs dead and buried."

Iran kidnapped 15 British sailors and marines on a routine patrol in the Persian Gulf.   The British were clearly in Iraqi waters when abducted.   This is an act of war and a deliberate provocation against Britain, America's strongest partner in Iraq.    There should be no negotiation or temporizing with the Iranians:  what is absolutely demanded in this situation is a plain and simple ultimatum to the Iranians to return the British personnel within time certain.   If the deadline should pass without satisfaction then Britain should declare war on Iran and proceed to destroy Iranian military assets wherever they are found.     As a good friend and partner, the United States should certainly render such assistance as requested by Britain in operations against Iran.  (It would be a pleasure.)

Will Blair seize the chance to revive the patriotic ghosts of the past in Britain?   Probably not.   The mullahs have calculated that Blair is a lame duck, and lacks the political statue or will to react aggressive to the kidnapping of the British personnel.   Only today the Iranians taunted Britain with the comment that the British personnel might be released if the British would admit they were in Iranian waters.    The Iranian tactics should be familiar to Americans,  as they are right out of the playbook used during the hostage crisis of Jimmy Carter's last years as president.    The Iranians knew then that Carter was weak sister and wouldn't violently react, and they believe the same of Blair.    Time will validate their appraisal.

None is so sweet an aroma to the bully and the terrorist as the odor of weakness.    If a Churchill or William Pitt were prime minister, this incident would not have happened.  

If Britain caves in and grovels before Iran,  it is only a matter of time before the mullahs move against Americans.   Afterall,  with a defeatist Democrat Congress lying siege to President Bush,  the perception from Tehran will be that the president, much like Mr. Blair,  will lack the political power or will to react punitively against Iran.     Of such perceptions are tragic miscalculations made.

Evil never retreats on its own, it must be forcefully confronted.   Make no mistake, the mullahs of Iran are evil and they will not refrain from doing evil things until made to understand that the price is too high.   This is a lesson of history which for some reason must be relearned from generation to generation.

Never in American history has a Congress voted to surrender to an enemy.   Yet this Democrat-controlled Congress has done precisely that by including timetables for American forces to withdraw from Iraq, with a drop dead date in 2008.   

This constitutes a stab in the back of the American solider in the field, a defeat inflicted by the very elected representatives expected to give the members of our military the wherewithal to defeat the enemy and achieve victory.  So determined are the Democrats to secure defeat in Iraq that they telegraph to our foes that all they need do is hunker down and wait and Americans will flee the battlefield with our tails between our legs.   I'm sure there have been more disgusting votes made by a Congress, but this one ranks high on the list of infamy.  

Lets be blunt:  the Democrats in Congress have made common cause with the terrorists in the Iraq.   Both have the same goal:  that the United States leave Iraq in defeat and disgrace.   Both desire to see Bush and the doctrine of aggressive preemptive attack against terrorists and terrorist states discredited and abandoned.    Congressional Democrats and al-queda may not have actually met and mapped out their strategy,  but each acts in a mutually beneficial manner.

I never believed I would live to see the day that elected American officials actually bragged of seeking their country's humiliation.   What kind of people are these Democrats?  What possible definition of patriotism includes providing aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States?   

One can only hope and pray that the American voter will come to his senses in 2008 and vote this nest of vipers out of Congress.    The survivial of our nation literally depends upon it.

General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has come in for criticism from gay advocacy groups for remarking that he believed homosexuality to be immoral. The general made the comment in the context of defending the military’s "don’t ask -don’t tell" policy regarding homosexuals serving in the military.

It is illustrative of the topsy-turvy world we live in that General Pace’s comments would stir any criticism. There is a vocal segment of American society dedicated it seems to wrecking all conventional morality, particularly as concerns matters of sex. I decided during the Clinton impeachment procedures that a great many Americans believed that not even Almighty God had a right to dictate to them sexual morality, and consequently this group, though overwhelmingly heterosexual, give cover to the argument that homosexuality is simply another "choice" which should be respected and protected.

But of course General Pace is correct. Homosexual conduct is immoral; in fact, it is perversion, and was so considered a disorder by the psychiatry profession before political correctness took hold in that profession. EVERY major world religion considers homosexuality as immoral. History is replete with examples of failed societies whose downfall coincided with the embrace of homosexuality as an accepted lifestyle.

The media, of course, is virtually unanimous in supporting homosexual rights, and in denouncing opponents as bigoted, fundamentalist boobs. Frankly, being labeled as unsophisticated, bigoted boob by the leftist anti-American media doesn’t bother me at all. I prefer to accept statement from the Highest authority, who proclaimed in Leviticus 18:22 that "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." Saint Paul characterized such conduct as unrighteous and ungodly, and that "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their woman exchanged their natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men and woman committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." Roman 1:26, 27. (Biblical quotations are take from the New King James Version published by the American Bible Society, 1982). We should understand that those who have given themselves to homosexuality engage in a sin against God and, by attempting to influence the greater society to accept the practice, are corrupting all of us to acquiesce to an abomination as tolerable and the equal of the relationship between man and woman. This is the road to societal destruction, a road which I fear we have progressed down too far already.

There are Protestant denominations tearing themselves to pieces over the issue of homosexuality. Those within these denominations who advocate accepting the practice as perfectly normal and consistent with message of Christ have blinded themselves to the truth. Would that they had the clarity of moral vision exhibited by General Pace. People need to stop fretting over being labeled a bigot or fundamentalist and start insisting that the traditions, particularly the moral traditions, of our nation be preserved. The alternative is national suicide.

 

Lewis Libby was convicted by a Washington, D.C., federal jury for obstruction of justice and perjury.   Ann Coulter writes that this officially establishes the status of being Republican as a crime.    I don't know if we've reached that point yet,  but it is hard to explain why the investigation and prosecution of LIbby took place other than to attribute to prosecutor Patrick Fritzgerald a political ax to grind against the Bush administration.   How else to understand continuing an investigation which was commissioned to ascertain the identity of the party responsible for outing Valereie Plame at the CIA,  when within weeks after the investigation commenced  Fritzgerald learned that that the guility party was Richard Armitage, at that time Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell.    What Fritzgerald continued was fishing expedition whose purpose was to ensnare as many Bush administration figures he could in "process" offenses such as perjury an obstruction of justice.  It is Lewis LIbby's misfortune that he was less adapt avoiding Fritzgerald's net than Karl Rove and others.

One can only hope President Bush has the courage to rectify this political persecution and pardon Libby.   Conservatives also need to devote some thought to how to address the very real prospect that the Federal criminal justice system can manipulated by liberals to criminalize political and ideological opposition to their agenda.  

* * *

Ann Coulter was recently the center of controversy was alluding to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards as a "faggot."    Establishment conservatives and like-minded conservative bloggers condemned Ms. Coulter.     A funny happened however.    The conservative base rallied to Ann's defense and took the establishment conservatives to task for their critism.   

Most commentary addresses the rage which is found among the fever swamps of the left against all things Bush, Christian and conservative.    What is being ignored is the building anger among conservatives, who are sick and tired of Republican officer holders and conservative commentators not replying in kind to the vitriol coming from the Democrats and liberals.    Turning the other cheek is a command for personal conduct which promotes civility and avoids aggravating conflict, but in the context of contemporary American politics it only invites more abuse and more conflict.   Ann Coulter is a polemist who understands this; the more establishment conservatives should learn from her.

* * *

The Democrat party unvealed its latest defeat in Iraq plan today.     One has to go all the way back to the Federalists during the War of 1812 to find a political party seemingly so dedicated to the defeat of  American arms on the battlefield.   Of course, the Federalists vanished after the War of 1812; would that the same happen to the Democrats!  

I must admit being mystified by the Democrats.   I can't seem to come to grips with the fact that so many elected members of the United States Congress are so desperate for the United States to lose in Iraq.   If this is "Bush Derangment Syndrome,"  then the whole bunch is certifiable.     If it's simply partisan politics, it seems to me to be sedition.

Underlying the entire Democrat approach on Iraq is the belief that the outcome there is ultimately unimportant to the security of the United States.    The fact that this belief runs contrary to the opinions of virtually all serious strategists and students of the Middle East seems not to have made a dent in the collective Democrat position.    Leaving aside the disasterous consequences for the population of Iraq and the potential effects on our other allies and friends in the region,   the simple fact that quitting Iraq without victory will prove beyond doubt to the jihadists and those sitting on the fence that the people of the United States lack the will to win.   No nation was ever attacked because its enemies perceived it as too strong.     Conversely,  any nation perceived as lacking the stamina or willpower invites attack.   

Why is that so hard for the Democrats to see?

 

James Cameron, the director of the Terminator and Titanic, claims to have unearthed a tomb in Jerusalem containing the remains of Jesus Christ, Jesus’ wife, Mary Magdalene, and their child. My response to Mr. Cameron is brief: Bunk!

Mr. Cameron, whatever remains you may possess are not those of Jesus Christ, because there are no remains to be found. Jesus Christ was crucified by the Romans and laid in tomb, where He remained for three days. However, unlike the make believe of Hollywood, something happened then in real life which some poor souls seem unable to grasp: Christ rose from the dead! You see, Mr. Cameron, Jesus Christ is the Son of God, conceived by the Holy Spirit of God in a virgin, Mary. And notice Mr. Cameron, I did not write that Jesus "was" the Son of God, because sir, Jesus Christ is not dead. No, Mr. Cameron, after Jesus Christ arose from the dead He appeared to His disciples, and to many other witnesses. Some initially doubted - you may have heard about Thomas - but all saw and all believed.

You may have heard about the disciples Mr. Cameron. They are the guys who were tortured and murdered because they proclaimed something known as the Gospel, i.e, the Truth. You see Sir, the Romans really wanted to produce the body of the man Jesus, whom they had crucified, to put an end to His movement which so annoyed them. But the Romans could never produce a body! Christ’s disciples know why. You see, they were eyewitnesses to something not seen before or since. The man Jesus, He had been crucified, but He was alive! He was dead, but He had arisen! The disciples, not noted for being a particularly courageous group before, went to their death proclaiming Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the holy sacrifice who borne all of the sins of the world. Many thousands have followed them, counting it a blessing to die for their faith.

I hate to disappoint you Mr. Cameron, but what you have may be remains, but not of Jesus Christ. He is not to be found among the remains of the dead in caverns beneath Jerusalem. No, Mr. Cameron, Jesus Christ is found in the hearts of men and women around the world. You know, the people who feed the hungry, tend to the sick and elderly, and care for poor. The ones who won’t try to have you killed because you attack their faith.

No, Mr. Cameron, what disciples of Jesus Christ we would like for you to know what we know, have what we have. We know the risen Savior, we know the joy and peace serving a loving and forgiving God who sacrificed His Son for our sins, and we possess the assurance of eternal life. We’d love to have you with us Mr. Cameron. More importantly, your creator wants you with Him. That’s why Jesus came, suffered, died, and arose.   

Oh, by the way, Jesus Christ also sits at the right hand of God.

Conservatives have long known that the "driveby media" and Hollywood are biased to the extreme left.   The result has been the growth of talk radio, FoxNews and blogs to offer some alternative to the daily propagandizing of the New York Times, Washington Post, the big three networks, CNN, Time, Newsweek, and on and on.   In times of peace this one-sided debate would be frustrating but in time of war the liberal leftist strangle hold on the largest media outlets and the entertainment industry is extremely damaging to the nation.    Even in these latter days the majority of Americans get most of their information from left to left-leaning media.    Understanding this, how can not expect their views on Iraq and the war on terror to be negatively impacted?   Frankly it's remarkable the president and the war effort have as much support at each does.


During the Civll War President Lincoln didn't hesitate to shut down newspapers he deemed inimical to the Union War effort.    He reasoned, quite correctly in my view, that freedom of the press meant little if the nation which guaranteed that freedom disappeared.    When the New York Times and Washington Post publish details of secret programs implemented by the United States government to track and impede the communications and activities of terrorists and their allies, these newspapers impede the nation's war effort and provide assistance ot the enemies of the United States.   The First Amendment is not a shield to prosecution and punishment for sedition.    These newspapers, the responsible editors and reporters, and any other media should be held accountable, not just in the court of public opinion, but  by criminal and civil penalties.    Finally, if the media persists in the practice that its right to report supersedes the national interest, I would encourage this or a future president to emulate President LIncoln, and physically shut down the offender. 

Freedom of the press or any other liberty guaranteed by the Constitution is for naught if the nation does not survive.  

I do not expect the current administration to take this action.   It has demonstrated a notable lack of backbone in comfronting the domestic fifth column and there is no reason to believe this will change.   However, the time is long overdue for conservatives to call for a meaningful accounting and punitive measures against irresponsible media outlets.     If it is necessary for Americans in uniform to sacrifice their lives for defense of the nation, then members of the media are not exempt from limitations on their freedom of action.