Have We Forgotten?

With the elections of November 2006, the overall victorious party, the Democrats, claimed they’d been given a “mandate” regarding many issues, particularly the War on Terror. They claim the American people have spoken and that the only allowable course now is withdrawal and defeat. Though they speak specifically of the Iraqi War, their master policy is reflective of their general disenchantment with the whole war against terror. This belief in a “mandate”, the word du jour for giving credence to the questionably credible, does seem to be born out by the recent polls, as reported on CNN and the BBC, showing 2/3 of Americans don’t see a good plan for winning the War in Iraq.

While it is only barely debatable that the Iraq War is not going the way we’d hoped, not even complete failure is a viable reason for ever giving up, especially in this war where it is our homes, families, businesses, our way of life, and our lives themselves which are at stake. After all, this war began, at least this current phase, with the enemy attaching us, on our turf, killing our husbands and wives, sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, sisters, brothers, innocents all. Even many jihadists agree that non-combatants, civilians, and innocents are off-limits to any kind of attack. But attacked we were, and though it has now been several years since that attack we vowed we’d never forget, it was neither the first nor will it be the last, the danger is little abated. Is there then reason for throwing up our hands collectively, defeated?

Liberals would say emphatically “Yes!”

The current strategy, according to liberals, is not working, and therefore we must tuck tail and run. Defeatism leading to disengagement, with the ultimate goal of isolationism. An island we will be, literally and figuratively. And we having cried “uncle,” the rabid dogs hounding us around the world will allow us a gracious defeat and will let us be, alone. A final Vietnam this will be, America will no longer find the will to project itself and then indeed others will take the reins of power in the world. Except for several things, but first: Where in our governing documents and illustrious history do we the people determine the minutiae of war policy?

We expressly give the President power to direct and wage war as necessary and as he sees fit to protect our interests. This is, in part, why it is so very important that there be people of Character in high office leading this great nation. There cannot be a part-time person of character, for if at the first change of wind that person reassesses and changes their position, they are not truly a person of character. President Bush, for all anybodies disagreements with him personally and politically, has not changed course. He has stated his goal simply: to defeat terrorism whenever and wherever it is found, and has not changed. Whether agreeing with him or not, one can know what President Bush will continue to do. And the job is not finished. Far from it. The very fact of our experiencing difficulties in Iraq should be cause for us to redouble our efforts, reaffirming the need for such a battle now, before it is too late. And resolving to continue the fight we did not start in order to destroy the enemy who would destroy us.

For that is their goal whether we leave or not. The militant, radical, extremist Muslims, or Islamo-Nazis or Islamo-Facists, who began this war have a very public goal which they are not loath to tell, yet which we seem to have forgotten, it would seem. That goal is shouted by radical Imams (preachers or prayer leaders) and written officially as Fatwahs (edicts) and published to their adherents around the globe. America is the Great Satan and it and other nations which do not submit to their extreme Islamic theology, philosophy, and government must be destroyed, period. For them there is no discussion, no arguing the points and possibilities of peaceful coexistance. If we give up in Iraq and the other fronts of the War on Terror we are signing our own, our childrens’, and out entire futures’ death warrants. They will be utterly defeated or they will rule the world, there is no third option for them, and therefore there isn’t for us either.

So then, the only choice for us must be to continue to face them in classic American projectionism. To battle evil is the calling and constant duty of the good. Evil at different times and places takes different faces. Consider the World Wars of the last century. What if we’d given up because too many were dying? What if we’d accepted defeat at the hands of the Nazis? It is likely all of Europe would be enslaved to this day by them or another despotic regime along with most or all of Africa and the East. Prior to our engagement in that war it was the Republican Party arguing for isolationism against engagement, just to show how times and ideas change.

Just as in the World Wars, others are depending, both admittedly and unadmittedly, on our success. The United Kingdom continues to be our staunchest ally, showing classic British, Scottish, Irish and Welsh pluck and courage and an indomitable spirit. Mr. Blair has perhaps been more eloquent in his defence of the War and has used his bully pulpit more often explaining the rationale for our continued involvement in this fight than President Bush. Spain has given up after suffering great pain and loss of its own on its own shores. Instead of steeling its resolve as the London Train Bombings did for the United Kingdom, Spains’ Madrid Train Bombings broke the resolve of Castilla. Regardless of the allies individual or collective spines, though, if we fail, Spain will once again become a Moorish conquest, and this will not be an Islamic Kingdom such as that of the Moors of old who valued art and learning and to whom we owe a great debt for their careful preservation and translation of many priceless works of knowledge and beauty.

So if America were indeed to falter and fail, and retreat within its borders, who would then take the lead in the world? Who has the strength and ability, and more importantly the moral fiber and the national will?

There are few countries indeed who do not have the desire to lead the world the way America has led. The relevant question really is not would they, but could they and should they. The UK has perhaps the nearest moral fiber (nationally) to America. Willing to take unpopular stands around the world in what they see as preservation of good. However, by size they are physically unable to produce enough to lead economically. A leading nation must be able to produce enough to be nearly self-sufficient if necessary. They must be an economic powerhouse challenging all others to give it weight enough for it’s word to mean something. The European Union has shown it does not have the moral fiber to stand against evil at crucial times. Like the UN, when it comes to actual meaningful action, the EU is hampered by it’s own universality, someone is always involved with the enemy and therefore no one can do what must be done. Further, being based on “old-world” economies, it does not produce or consume enough, even collectively, to give it’s word weight beyond it’s member n ations.

In Asia, both China and India have the size, and economic and political/military might and/or potential. However, China is hampered by an immoral, communist quasi-dictatorship, and even if democracy or some less greedily repressive and philosophically backward form of government than comunism were to take over immediately, the people would not soon be ready for world domination and protection. India perhaps has the best chance of becoming a or the world dominant nation, post America, but even they suffer under a socially restrictive religion, social order, and government.

African and South American nations suffer almost universally under corrupt, despotic governments and appear too busy enriching their own upper crusts illegitimately to worry too much about their being the trailing end of the nations of the world. Russia seems unable to throw off cronyism and corruption in business or the siren song of a communist government.

Those nations among our allies in the Middle East have their hands much too full trying to set their houses in order without offending any of their geographical or theological brethren, and many of them officially support ideologies as destructive and evil as any of their more violent neighbors who we’re now in struggle against

So that leaves America. Oh, and not to offend anybody, but who’s heard anything out of our northern neighbor Canada recently? I’m told it’s a beautiful place and the people there are special and nice and kind, but they appear to be content, in a global perspective, being frosting, a whole lot of white stuff, on top of the United States. That and trying to win the title “More Socialist Than France While Still Drinking Beer (Wine Is For Sissies).” So here we are, the lone strongman holdout against the encroaching darkness, to whom all others cling. Some more grudgingly than others. But this is what we are fighting for, the whole world. This is the responsibility that comes with being the nice big kid on the block: We have to face every bully. And if we don’t win, this particularly bully is a rapist.

Why Us?

A friend asked me a question last night which caught me by surprise. I had honestly never considered this question and am still digesting it’s implications.

Rather than give an answer right away, let me pose the question to you:

Why did such wide forms of progress (societal, scientific, medical, moral, religious, economic, governmental) occur in Europe (during times such as the reformation or the renaissance) and not in Africa?

This question is of especial importance for several historically cultural and certain current events. The legendary Dr. Watson (not of Holmsian fame but of DNA) has recently raised news and hackles with his claim that Africans have lower intelligence. (If you want an opinion of this event showing the ugliness of the evolutionary philosophy and relativist philosophy while making several very valid points, read here). And radical Islam, in it’s eons-old battle against light and right, spread rapidly across North Africa, preventing much exploration based on over-land expeditions.

Is this just an ethno-centrist or xenophobe who doesn’t appreciate the fear which prevented most Europeans from learning more about the dark continent or the difficulty of mounting a meaningful expedition to enlighten the interior? I think not. While there was general human progress, the tribal structure enjoys a mutually supportive relationship with human evil, allowing jealousy, avarice, and greed to rule. There were medicinal benefits, but none along the lines of antibacterial discoveries and exploration of the human body such as Europe enjoyed. It would seem that scientific and cultural progress happened in spite of, instead of because of, any passing of time in these two vast cultures.

And what of Asia? How does Asia affect this question? Was Asia a superior culture to Europe or not? Why?

I don’t have answers to all these, but as I continue to ponder the nature of this beast I hope to write a few bits here and there.

We Don’t Want To Hear

Listening today to the Michael Medved show, just before the 1pm (PST) break a caller describing himself as having used to be pro-war and conservative says that he now does not support the war. Citing declining numbers supporting the way and the unpopularity of President Bush, he claimed he just does not want to hear about soldiers dying anymore.

First of all, for a man, he is a poor specimen. Character is the measure of your ability, desire, and record of doing what you ought especially when it is difficult, the way is long, and there is much opposition. The difference between pigheaded stubbornness and character is found in the morality and ethics of your method and goal. Manliness, often caricatured in the idea of refusing to ask for directions, is an especial talent at or willingness to proceed with what is perceived to be the correct course of action to reach a particular goal, without regard for the opinion or denigration of others. This is their strength and their weakness, but it is a weak man who wilts in the face of opposition, especially opposition that does not face them but faces their country, the family, the life, their standards and their beliefs. If anything, a true man is stronger when others are being harmed than when he himself is the only one at risk.

This weak man goes even beyond the self-inflicted ignominy of bowing to the canard of “everyone else is doing it” in saying he doesn’t want to hear about soldiers dying. Granted, he wants that to be accomplished by removing the troops from “danger” by bringing them home and ending the conflict (at least the part of the conflict that involves our response to the naked aggression and lust for our death which is espoused and championed by our mortal enemies, the Islamofacists). But his wording, he doesn’t want to “hear” about their deaths is appalling. What kind of weak-spined excuse for a man (most women I know have more courage and honor than this sorry person) is it who can’t stand hearing about death? It’s the kind of man who would rather hide his head in the sand while a poison which creates zombies whose only desire is for the death of all that is good and right on the earth takes over the Europe and then eats the heart out of America.

How dense must one be to ignore the hatred in the screams of Imams around the world and here in America calling for the destruction of all Jews and those who do not subscribe to their hatred?

I’m saddened and appalled by this. I would like to meet that man in a dark alley and… well, no it’s not right. I would protect and defend him as I would any other.

Evil Still Exists & Forgiveness: Islam Versus Christianity

The International Herald Tribune, Europe edition, writes a story on the case of 10 doctors and nurses who worked in a hospital in Libya and were arrested 10 years ago on charges they’d knowingly and maliciously infected several hundred children with HIV. This was the Libya of Qaddafi, brazen and belligerent supporter of terrorism and tin-hat despot. Qaddafi has since renounced all ties with terrorism and has by all accounts become quite the nice guy on the African continent, but apparently his underlings and the mobs which rule the provinces and cities are still small evil men.

You can read all the details of this terrible story, but consider this: evil comes in all shapes and sizes, labels and categories, but the religion of peace once again shows while it may consider itself peaceful, it’s god and therefore it’s very identity is unforgiving.

Adherents of Islam, Muslims, hope that their righteous acts will outweigh any marks against them and that their god, Allah, will be merciful to them when they reach his judgment. God, worshiped by Christians, is also a just God. When His commands are violated, the price must be paid. God is also a merciful God, not that He does not hold sin against a person, but He desires that person to be free from sin and its eternal punishment. To bridge this obvious divide He sent Jesus to live a perfect, sinless life, and to die a horrid death. Crucifixion is an incredibly torturous death, the Romans even invented a whole new term for pain “ex crucio”, literally from the or of the cross, to describe the pain suffered by those being crucified. We have taken the term, transliterating it into “excruciating”. Harry Potter experiences the pain in the Cruciatus Curse, where the spell caster speaks the word “Crucio”, a deep and bloody history for a word of terrible import. But it was through this excruciating pain and terrible death that Gods justice was satisfied. The punishment was taken away from us. This is salvation: God is Holy, He allows no sin into His Glory. God wants us to be near Him, to enjoy His Glory. We are sinful and unable to enter His Holiness. God sent Jesus, Holiness and perfection embodied, to live among us and teach us His way. Jesus did not sin, and therefore, but accepting death at out hands He took out punishment on Himself. This allows God to forgive us, His justice is satisfied and His mercy is set free to us. We must accept the forgiveness, admit our own inability to become holy on our own strength, and accept His covering and cleansing for our sins. There is no chance, there is no worry. Once we have accepted Christs’ payment we are free to do as we ought, secure in the knowledge that before God we will be clean and pure, and the only judgment will be over our work bring glory to Him.

That is true forgiveness, that is what separates Islam from Christianity. There are good people and bad people who claim both faiths. But at the heart, the Christian has true forgiveness given them, and is able therefore to show true forgiveness, while the Muslim has not received forgiveness and therefore finds it difficult to give forgiveness.

Compare also the thoughts on retribution: The Muslim must do things and accomplish works to bring before Allah to present in hopes of exceeding his sin balance. The Muslims described in the article above are expecting remuneration to the tune of 10 Million Euros per child infected, this in excess of the approximately 10 million per child already invested in Libya by various members of the EU with the specific intent of getting these ten people freed.

A Great Cloud Of Witnesses

Christians are again the most persecuted people group on earth.

There are now more than 300 million Christians who are either threatened with violence or legally discriminated against simply because of their faith - more than any other religion. Christians are no longer, as far as I am aware, thrown to the lions. But from China, North Korea and Malaysia, through India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, they are subjected to legalised discrimination, violence, imprisonment, relocation and forced conversion. Even in supposedly Christian Europe, Christianity has become the most mocked religion, its followers treated with public suspicion and derision.

Anthony Brown, Europe Correspondent for the Times, calls himself a Liberal Democrat Atheist and claims that fighting persecution against Christians will lessen the rise of what he calls “Christian Fundamentalism”. This is an intriguing claim considering that it is during times and in areas of severe persecution that the Christian church thrives most heartily. God is apparently using this persecution to bring about an awakening. I say bring on the persecution, I hate pain and loss and persecution as much as the next person, but if that is what it takes for Christians to reclaim their identity not as some club to attend on Sunday, but as the chosen of God tasked with being representatives of His Glory here on earth, then bring it on.

Today’s Interesting Stuff

Sarkozy wins, and in France, hope for a future springs again.

France has been struggling under socialist governance and mounting racial tension for some time now. Sarkozy won on a platform that, among other things, promised an end of the 35 hour work week. Sarkozys plan is to allow French workers to “work more in order to earn more.”

The problem with many socialist programs is that in their pursuit of the perfect paradise they relieve burdens which are actually beneficial. Work is a spiritual exercise. A worker accomplishes things and has valid reasons to be proud. We teach our children to have self-esteem and don’t require them to accomplish anything worth being proud of. Pride without reason is evil. It destroys the unwary and eats the unsuspecting.

Dry, Boring, And Worthwhile Reading

In the list of things to do when you have a few years to digest an incredible amount of information which has been pivotal to our current capitalist system, Adam Smiths Wealth Of Nations, stands as the primary tome of our economic system. Marx was arguing against Smith when he wrote Das Kapital. Smith was the original supply-sider and free-market economist.

Note, I haven’t read this yet either, but I want to.

A Second Bill Of Rights?

In his Annual Message to Congress, delivered on January 11, 1944, FDR proposed a second bill of rights. He acknowledged the roll the first Bill of Rights played in the founding of the nation and bringing it successfully to that day:

“This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.”

But he also believed “these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.” Therefore, in his mind, a second bill of rights was necessary.

Why did FDR believe the first Bill of Rights were inadequate? Simply because it permitted people to fail.

FDR, and the rest of the world witnessed how failure in Germany through the 20’s and 30’s, a byproduct of European leaders desire to make Germany pay for WWI (reparations), gave rise to Hitler and his fascism.

To FDR, “People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.” Therefore, to avoid WWIII, he believed that the U.S. should fight against poverty, and nothing could fight it better than create a second Bill of Rights guaranteeing jobs, food, a home, medical care, education. In FDR’s words, “All of these rights spell security.”

But can a nation’s constitution guarantee a “right to success” in the same breath as it guarantees a “right to free speech”? Should a nation guarantee a “right to security” in the same line as it guarantees a “right to equal protection”?

No. To do so is impractical (there are as many definitions of “success” and “security” as there are people because we are all unique individuals) and strikes at the heart of the sovereignty of God and the inherent choice God has given man to determine his own destiny.

Today’s Interesting Stuff

It may be common knowledge, but in relationships and communication, we can never be reminded enough of the differences in communication that generally exist between the males and females of the species Homo Sapien.

A married couple was in a car when the wife turned to her husband and asked, “Would you like to stop for a coffee?”

“No, thanks,” he answered truthfully. So they didn’t stop.

The result? The wife, who had indeed wanted to stop, became annoyed because she felt her preference had not been considered. The husband, seeing his wife was angry, became frustrated. Why didn’t she just say what she wanted?

Unfortunately, he failed to see that his wife was asking the question not to get an instant decision, but to begin a negotiation. And the woman didn’t realize that when her husband said no, he was just expressing his preference, not making a ruling. When a man and woman interpret the same interchange in such conflicting ways, it’s no wonder they can find themselves leveling angry charges of selfishness and obstinacy at each other.

Enjoy your differences, and don’t forget them.

France Poised To Elect Conservative

In a development which surprises even me, France appears set to elect a conservative Prime Minister. The two opponents racing for the PM seat in France are as diametrically opposite as possible, and the communist-sympathizing far-left socialist is running a solid second. France is a liberals dream: guaranteed everything for everybody, and therefore nobody has anything. Maybe the French people, who have historically been strong on ideas and short on courage or persistence, are going to turn a new leaf, testing the more practical forms of personal responsibility.

Free Political Speech Gets Its Day In Court

The McCain-Feingold amendment is being reviewed by the Supreme Court, and it stands a major chance of sustaining significant changes. While its stated aim was to limit so called ’soft money’ influencing elections, the amendment has had a more practical effect of causing regular law-abiding citizens to glance over their shoulders when speaking on political subjects too close to the elections. I do not believe McCain is presidential material, he has morals, but not ethics. He believes in many things strongly, but his stands are often far from right.

Rosie Is A <insert favorite epithet here>

Regardless of the official line from whoever gives out official lines at ABC, Rosie’s got to go. From the ‘Queen of nice’ to political-correctness-protected ’shock-jock queen’, Rosie’s descent into debauchery of the mind and mouth has finally caught up with her, at least for now. Spouting things which would have gotten any male, regardless of race, sacked long ago with prejudice, Rosie disdained alternate views on the aptly singular “The View”. The modern liberal, sans compunction or any sense of personal shame or others inherent worth, her only purpose lay in denigrating ad hominem attacks and barbed and hateful name-calling. It’s about time she’s gone, and I hope, for all our sake, that no network will be crass enough to take her crass self on.

Concise Yet Cogent, And Still Wrong

So a friend and I were looking through the video store isles seeking some randomness to fill an otherwise uneventful evening (no it really wasn’t that bad) and we see several films with the little laurel branches with listings of awards this and that film have won, primarily in Europe, such as Cannes and so forth. We notice most of these films are rated R, and usually for sex, graphic sex, among other things. So we mull this fact over in our minds and together come to a truism. Europe, as a society, has ceased to create, has ceased to lead, has ceased to grow. We see Europe specializing in artifacts (things done by ancient Europeans, back when they actually led), and art (which, because they are incapable of leading and creating is just barely-better-than-playboy porn). You see Europe has always had more expressive languages, generally speaking, than this dry tongue we speak, the American form of English. As such, they can use fewer, smaller words which have much richer meaning.

We Americans take four letters and call it “porn”, but the Europeans, with their expressive language, can say it in only three: “art”.