Is the Democratic Leadership "above" the military?

There are many questions regarding the feelings and beliefs of the members of the Democratic party’s leadership, but one of these questions seems to be reiterated daily. Do the leaders of the party really have a disdain for all things military? It seems that these “leaders” are constantly making statements that lead one to believe they are above the troops, and in essence, believe they are on a higher moral ground. So, in their minds, it is ok to kill unborn babies to defend the reproductive rights of females, but defending the liberty and freedom that gives them the right to spew their rhetoric is immoral? How can I make such a vicious remark about our elected officials that lean to the left? Leys look at a few statements and actions from the Democratic leadership.

Charlie Rangle - “I want to make it abundantly clear: if there’s anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.”

Strong words from Rangle, but are they accurate? Unfortunately for Mr. Rangle, he is once again way off base. Then again, the truth has rarely stopped a politician from furthering his or her agenda. In reality, the members of the U.S. Armed forces are more educated and affluent than they have ever been.

John Kerry – “You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

So, only the uneducated, lazy, and stupid serve in the military? Sounds like disdain to me. Kerry later stated that he simply botched a joke that was aimed at the Commander and Chief, a part of the military. That makes it much better. To define the term hypocrit, John Kerry defended his remarks as true:

"The White House's attempt to distort my true statement is a remarkable testament to their abject failure in making America safe," the Massachusetts senator said. "It's a stunning statement about their willingness to reduce anything in America to raw politics."

By insulting our troops, then stating that he was actually insulting the Commander in Chief, was John Kerry not reducing the lives of our soldiers to “raw politics”? Who is telling this guy what to say?

Our next quote came before an investigation was conducted, but it furthered the Democratic agenda, so it was stated as a “fact”.

John Murtha - "There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

Let’s review, our soldiers do not want to defend our country, they are poor, they are backward, they come from slums, they are uneducated, they are lazy, and lastly, they kill innocent civilians in cold blood. All of these statements were made from just three leaders in the Democratic party, I wonder what Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi think about the military. Considering that they represent the two most Secular Progressive states in the Union, there is little doubt.
Technorati Profile
Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

Media Bias?

One of the most argued points among those on either side of the culture war is whether or not there is a media bias in the United States. It is abundantly clear that anyone who states there is no media bias, primarily in the print media and on the major networks, either has their head in the sand, or they are being dishonest. Another example of this belief by the media that there is no war on Christmas. It seems that the media believes that if they say something often enough, it will be believed as truth. At the same time, there is currently a case before the Supreme Court, brought about by a group of parents in New York, to strike down a ruling by the 3rd circuit court in New York that makes it legal to display Jewish and Muslim symbols, but illegal to display Christian images. The New York Board of Education decided that it is perfectly OK to display a menorah fro Hanukkah and a crescent and star for Ramadan, but that it is unlawful to display a nativity scene for Christmas. You will not likely find coverage of this law suit in the print media, or on the big networks because it is inconvenient to their cause. Another example of media bias is evident in the most widely circulated newspaper in the state of Georgia, the Atlanta Journal and Constitution. The editorial page and letters to the editor claim to give representation to the population of the state in the articles and letters they choose. Georgia is the most conservative state in the Union currently, as shown by the recent elections and the candidates chosen, so you would assume that the editorials and letters chosen by the paper would represent that fact. As a well known sports icon commonly states, "Not so fast my friend". In fact, one of the two editorials in today's AJC is based on the authors belief that the United States is the least trustworthy country in the world. A quote from the article states that "We (United States) have been betraying friends since our first overseas conflict (late 1700's)". That does not seem like an opinion from a conservative electorate, more like a rallying cry from the "blame America first crowd". If this is true, what does the author make of our protection and liberation of Europe during the World Wars? The letters to the editor, sent in from actual members of the population that is approximately 60% conservative Republicans, is even more lop sided. Do you think that a population that is 2/3 conservative is represented by a Letter to the Editor page that contains five out of six anti-conservative letters? I think the AJC should work on its math. In any event, this is but one example of the bias found in much of the nation's media. So, am I missing it, or is this media bias idea holding water?



Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

Is Russia a threat?

The birth of my first child has slowed my writing, for good reason, but there is a question that has troubled me for sometime. It is true that no one country can threaten the United States militarily, and no terrorist organization alone is a significant long term threat (they can do serious damage, but they can not defeat us), but what would happen if a semi-super power joined forces, and sponsered a terror group? Would the partnership create cataclysmic problems for our country? For some time, the actions of Russia, and the relationship between Putin and Iran has caused a bit of concern, but it seems that the true character of the Russian government is coming to the forfront, and along with it, a troublesome relationship with the extremist regime in Tehran. It appears that for the first time since the coldwar, there was a state sponsered assasination this week orchestrated by the Russian government. The victim, an ex-KGB spy, was poisioned with radiation, and he had some very strong words before dying Thursday. Ex-KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of his murder from beyond the grave on Friday, in a statement read out the morning after he died of an unknown poison in a London hospital. Litvinenko left a statement for the world stating the, "You (Putin) may succeed in silencing one man. But a howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life." Along with this development is the continued arms trade between Russia and Iran, and the pressure from Moscow to keep the UN from sanctioning Iran. Why? More evidence was revealed today when it was reported that
Russia has begun deliveries of the Tor-M1 air defence rocket system to Iran. So, what will happen with Russia? Is there any cause for concern?
Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

How do you spell evil? A.C.L.U.

The American Civil Liberties Union; based on the name, it sounds like a wonderful organization created to protect the rights of all Americans. However, when you read a comment from the organization's founder regarding its purpose, the truth becomes a bit clearer. When asked about his goals for the organization, and its impact on the United States, founder Roger Baldwin had the following comments: "I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.” Communism? It is a bit confusing that the founder equates the protection of Civil Liberties with a final goal of Communism., but to process this information, we should define Communism. Communism is defined by Webster's dictionary as: "a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party." Totalitarian....protection of Civil Liberties? Something does not add up, but can we equate the fact that the organization's name is deceiving to the assumption that it is evil? Probably not, but we can look a little deeper into the actions of the ACLU to determine if it is inherently evil. Just like a man, an organization can be judged by its works. First, let us see what Webster's has to say about the term evil. The term is defined as wicked, morally reprehensible, deceiving, harmful actions arising from bad character, or the absence of good (God), or the allowing of evil actions. Well, with its name alone, the ACLU has already hit one of the characteristics of evil, but let's dig a bit deeper. The first characteristic of evil listed is morally reprehensible actions, so we must determine if the ACLU fits into this category. It does not take long to find that the ACLU is a constant defender of actions that the majority of the population consider morally reprehensible. A look at some of the organization's policies discovered the following facts: the ACLU supports the legalization of prostitution (Policy 211); the defense of all pornography, including CHILD PORN, as "free speech" (Policy 4); the decriminalization and legalization of all drugs (Policy 210); the promotion (not protection) of homosexuality (Policy 264); and the opposition of the rating of music and movies (Policy 18). To stress what I see as the worst of these policies, the ACLU has defended the NAMBLA organization on various occassions. As with the ACLU, much can be learned about NAMBLA by its name alone. The letters stand for: NAtional Man-Boy Love Association, and the organization's main goal is the promotion of sexual relationships between grown men and children, in this case little boys. This definitely fits into the definition of evil, and by supporting such an organization, the ACLU is guilty. If this is not enough evidence to support the idea that the ACLU is evil, let's look a little deeper. Another hallmark of evil is the presence of harmful actions that arise from a lack of character. Returning to the ACLU's stated policies, we find that they also support the opposition of parental consent of minors seeking abortion (Policy 262); the opposition of informed consent preceding abortion procedures (Policy 263); and the opposition of spousal consent preceding abortion (Policy 262). If it is a pro-abortion measure, the ACLU supports it. In fact, the organization is the nation's leading proponent of unfettered abortion at any point of pregnancy. They must be proud. Still not enough evidence, how about this. The ACLU is pro-death. As a matter of fact, the ACLU has fought against the free speech rights of those that oppose both abortion and euthanasia. As long as its pro-death you can count on the ACLU to support it, unless of course it is a convicted criminal; in this case they are against death. This could go on and on, but there is one last bit of evidence I would like to examine. The definition of evil, at it's root, is the absence of good, or the absence of God. As an organization, no one has done more to make the absence of all things Godly a reality in the United States than the ACLU. In short, the ACLU is anti-Christian. The list is endless on this one. Under the guise of “seperation of Church and State”, the ACLU have made a name for themselves by being rabidly anti-Christian. This is one area where they are the most hypocritical. They oppose tax exemptions for all churches, but fight for them for Wiccans. They are against Christianity in school, but oddly remain silent as our children are taught to be Muslims. Whether its baby Jesus, the ten commandments, or tiny crosses on county seals, the ACLU will be there to secularize America, and rewrite our history. In summation, is the ACLU evil? Yes.


Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

What does Nancy really represent?

Nancy Pelosi was chosen by the House Democrats today as the new Speaker of the House. No real surprise, when the party won the majority position in the House, it was just a formality to make Pelosi the Speaker. So, as representative from San Francisco, what does Nancy represent. The answer to this question is simple, for soild proof of her beliefs, look no farther than the district she represents. One thing we know about San Francisco is that there is a great disdain for all things military in the city. In fact, when questioned about the military, one of the city supervisors told Bill O'reilly that there was no need for a standing army, and that the presence of one only agitates the rest of the world. When questioned about what would happen if there were an attack with no standing army, the member calmly stated that the police and firemen could protect the city. What? That is just one example, so surely this hatred of the military is isolated in the city. This brings us to exhibit two. A few months ago, the Federal Government proposed a military museum in San Francisco. The proposal had a retired ship serving as a walk through museum to celebrate the Navy and it's importance to our country. I think the following excerpt clearly illustrates the matter: "Probably the most blatant example of San Francisco's anti-military bias was displayed last month by the city's Board of Supervisors when they voted 3-8 against docking the WWII/Korean War-era USS Iowa as a floating museum at the Port of San Francisco. This was after the local Congressional delegation secured $3 million to move the Iowa from Rhode Island to San Francisco because a study had shown the ship would bring in 500,000 visitors a year." Let's move on to exhibit number three. Earlier this year, the city of San Francisco voted on whether or not Military Recruiters should be allowed into High Schools and Colleges. Can you guess what the results of the vote were? That's right, recruiters were banned by a 60-40 vote. One last bit of evidence just for fun. Earlier this week, the San Francisco Board of Education made the decision to eliminate the Junior ROTC program from its public schools. This decision was handed down even though the program is extremely popular, and it is completely voluntary, or it was completely voluntary. What are these people thinking? So, how does everyone feel about the new Speaker of the House and her district?

Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

The Future of the Courts

From the mouth of a well known Officer in the Secular Progressive Militia, Chuck Schumer, another battle in the Culture War is brought to light. In a recent interview, after stating that the biggest mistake made by the Senate was allowing the appointment of Justice Alito, Schumer had these thoughts, “Judges are the most important, one more justice would have made it a 5-4 conservative, hard-right majority for a long time. That won’t happen.” From now on, all the President’s judicial appointments will need to meet the requirements of Mr. Schumer, and that is just how he likes it. So, what about Alito disturbs Schumer so much? From the quote above, it is clear that Schumer believes that Alito is a conservative, and in the mind of a Secular Progressive like Schumer, this is a character flaw that cannot be forgiven. In a news conference given by Schumer, in response to the nomination of Alito by the Whitehouse, he made it clear that he whole heartedly opposed Alito, and he even used a fear laced message to hammer home his beliefs. This is, of course, a favorite among Secular Progressive techniques. If you scare them, they will come. Speaking on the matter, Schumer compared Alito to the great civil rights warrior, Rosa Parks, in the following manner: "Like Rosa Parks, Judge Alito will be able to change history by virtue of where he sits. The real question today is whether Judge Alito would use his seat on the bench, just as Rosa Parks used her seat on the bus, to change history for the better or whether he would use that seat to reverse much of what Rosa Parks and so many others fought so hard and for so long to put in place. Judge Alito's visit to Rosa Parks this morning was appropriate. His record, as I'm sure Rosa Parks would agree, is much more important." So, what is the senator implying? Will Alito completely repeal the work of the Civil Rights Leaders of the past? Will the Voting Rights Act be struck down by this demonic judge to be? Not so fast. In another Secular Progressive move, Schumer compared an issue that is important to him to minority rights in an effort to scare minorities into a frenzy. What is this issue that is so important to Schumer? A look at the questions he constantly posed to Alito during the confirmation process makes it clear, it is abortion. So, was this the last statement made by Schumer to create fear in the streets? He went on to state that "this is a nominee who could shift the balance of the court, and thus the laws of the nation, for decades to come." To finish off his opinion on the matter, Schumer stated this; "As for Judge Alito, there is still a lot to be learned about him. Many of the opinions that he has written over the last 15 years cast real doubt on whether he can be a fair, mainstream, albeit conservative, judge who strives to protect the rights of all Americans...". Mainstream? My only question for Mr. Schumer would be, is partial birth abortion mainstream? I would guess that if it were voted upon by the public, the outcome would not result in the procedure becoming mainstream, so, is Schumer, who wants this procedure to be legal, mainstream? It is relatively clear by the statements of the Congressman that he is in the Secular Progressive Army, and while Alito, a pro-life judge, was confirmed, it could be a while before another pro-life judge becomes part of the high court. As Schumer stated, "Judges are the most important," because they have the power to legislate from the bench. This allows them to go around public opinion, thus, the majority no longer rules. In the eyes of an out numbered group, such as the Secular Progressives, being able to change the country against the will of the silent majority is, in a word, priceless.


Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

Death to Religion?

Is there a culture war? One aspect of a full fledged culture war pitting Secular Progressives against Traditionalists would be an attack on organized religion. The idea of organized religion, in the United States we can simply insert Christianity, completely assaults the ideals of the Secular Progressive movement. Christianity teaches respect for authority while Secular Progressives despise authority and authority figures. Christianity teaches self control and a strict set of morals while Secular Progressives believe in relativism. Relativism states that no one should be able to call another's actions wrong because they do not fully understand the reasons behind the actions of another. Combine these two tenets of Secular Progressives, and you have anarchy; legalized drugs, rehabilitation instead of punishment, unfettered abortion, income redistribution, social promotion for school children....and so on. These are all prime reasons for the Secular Progressive movement to attack Christianity. Another valid reason for such an attack is that each side of this culture war would be in competition for the hearts and minds of America's children. Why? If you can convince the children to believe a certain way, it is only a matter of time before the country has a new culture. So, is there a war against Christianity in America? One event that points to an answer of yes is the much publicized attack on Christmas last year. Wall-Mart, Lowes, Sears, Best Buy, Target, and many other large retailers decided to forbid their employees from saying Merry Christmas at any time. Another example, removing the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. A third example, forbidding prayer at public events and at school. A fourth example, removing nativity scenes from public places. A fifth example, the battle over the cross on the hill in San Diego. A sixth example, the battle over the three crosses in the city seal of Los Cruxes. A seventh example, the removal of the Ten Commandments from court houses. This could continue for hours. Most of these assaults are predicated on the mythical separation of church and state that does not even appear in the Constitution. In any event, it appears clear that there is an assault on organized religion in America, Christianity in particular. So, is there a culture war?

Quotes from the enlightened:

Elton John
"I think religion has always tried to turn hatred toward gay people. Religion promotes the hatred and spite against gays. But there are so many people I know who are gay and love their religion. From my point of view, I would ban religion completely. Organized religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate."


Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

The Cultural Division

In our country, America, there has arisen a distinct seperation, not between church and state, but between Secular Progressives and Traditionalist. The progressives are dissaisfied with the country as a whole, and wish to change it drastically so that it falls in line more evenly with the quasi-socialist model of Western Europe. In contrast, the traditionalist believes that we are a strong country in our current form, and in essence, the rest of the world should fall in line with us. There is really no middle ground in this debate, only people that refuse to take part in the struggle. Which side are you on? Currently the progressives are vaastly outnumbered, but their "soldiers" are all in participation. On the other hand, the "soldiers" from the other camp are not in unison, in fact, many are not even aware that they are soldiers. That has allowed the active minority to make substantial gains on the silent majority. This is most evident in the news media. Recent studies done by a professor from UCLA have indicated that while around 70% of the country belongs in the camp of the traditionalists, an astounding 85% of the media currently suits up with the progressives. How is this possible? In any event, the real question is whether or not such a struggle exists, or is it just a myth created by one side to round up the troops?