Impending Threat?

The attack on 911 served as a wake up call for many Americans. What was the message being delivered by a group of Muslims hijacking 4 planes, crashing two into the World Trade Centers, one into the Pentagon, and one into a Pennsylvanian field? Simple, we were at war. It mattered not, and matters not, if we wish to participate in this war actively, we are at war. Many say that this is an archaic idea, but their opinion matters not to the enemy. Whether or not Americans acknowledge they are at war with radical Muslims; radical Muslims are at war with America. The politically correct parade that consumes so much of our society will contend that not all Muslims are out to destroy America, and they are right, but during the second World War, were all Germans against the free world? Today's world is no less dangerous than Europe in the 40's, in fact, in many ways it is more dangerous. Today's enemy does not care about living themselves, and that makes it even more difficult to defeat. Also, the world moves at a much faster pace today, and things can happen in an instant that will change the world forever. Why is this happening? What has America done to these people to anger them so? Simple, America has refused to conform to their way of life, their religion, and their culture, and in the world of radical Islam, that is all that is required to earn a death sentence. Many do not take the threat seriously, and constantly say that anyone that does is over reacting. I am sure that the same opinion was popular in Constantinople before it fell. This extreme degree of passiveness and complacency only fuels the fire of our enemy. The real question is not if this "war" will continue and escalate, the only question is when. Will we be prepared, will we be strong and united as a country, or will be be divided, and weak? These questions will be answered, and it could be soon.

Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

Have we gone too far in our war against Terror?

To answer this question we must first understand the term terrorism. Otherwise, how are we to determine if we have gone "too far" with anti-terroristic measures. Terrorism, as defined by Webster, is:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
This definition brings many questions to the debate at hand. For one, is the success of terrorism predicated on the destruction of property? From the definition, it is actually dependent on intimidation created by the threat of violence and destruction. Therefore, by intimidating our country, have the terrorists already achieved their goal? It is a very interesting question, and I believe I have a very interesting answer. To say that terrorist pose no threat to our country, since there have been no serious attacks since 9-11, is simply false. There are "attacks" on a daily basis. Threats are a form of terrorism, and in many cases, the damage they do is similar to the damage done by a physical attack. For this reason, I say the threat is very real, and the danger posed is equally real. The question of going to far to stop terroristic activities is actually laughable. Our society has become so entrenched, and so based upon personal gratification, the idea of sacrificing for the good of the country has become almost extinct. The cries of "you are violating my rights", and "free speech", and even "you can not racially profile to ensure security" have become a large part of our societal debate on terrorism. Imagine if the prevalent attitude of today would have been around in the 1940's to the same degree that it currently exists, what would have happened in Europe during WWII? I don't dislike the German language, but I am certainly glad that our forefathers sacrificed their liberties to defeat the evil that existed during their time. In my opinion, you can never do "too much", or go "too far" to defeat evil. The only reason we have our freedoms is the fact that those befor us have sacrificed to help us keep them. Do you want your children, and their children, to be free, or do you want them to grow up in a world where terrorists rule with intimidation? We can never go too far when terror is concerned, in fact, do not feel that we have gone far enough. "Ask not what your country can do for you....".

Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

The Political Playground

Liberal Wacko, Wingnut, Commie, Troll, Traitor, Dictator, Nazi, Fascist, and so on, and so on....Sound familiar? If you have looked on any number of blogs, or listened to the radio in the past few years, you most certainly have heard or read these terms fired from one side of the aisle to the other. The problem is that you have heard very little else, and very rarely do you hear or read anything logical or with substance. What has happened to our once civilized political process? In short, the adults have began acting like children at recess, so what do you think the next generation, the one's now being raised by these adults, will be like? Without strong communication, little can be accomplished in our world, especially in the realm of politics, and at the rate we are going, it will not be long until absolutely nothing will happen unless one party has a strong majority in both houses, and controls the presidency and the courts, and that is not what the founding fathers intended. In fact, this is the scenario George Washington feared when he suggested that there be no political parties, just candidates, and by George..pardon the pun..I think he got it. Of course, it is not just politics, look at the culture and you will see a picture of the nation, and unfortunately it is becoming more abstract by the day. One good example is seen in the feud between Donald Trump and Rosie O'Donnell. Nothing of substance has actually been stated by either party, and yet it is has been front page news for almost a month. This is a symptom of the bigger problem our society is facing, a lack of civility, manners, and honest discourse, and it could bring our nation to a standstill. The problem with that is that much like business, you either move forward or you die, and yes, it is possible. Can you even imagine politicians of the past behaving in the corrupt way that the majority now behaves? Actions have consequences, and I for one still have hope that we as a nation can come together and survive the consequences that are coming.

Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

Enough with the fascism talk

After browsing the many blogs and websites on the internet dedicated to politics and news, I have come to multiple conclusions. For one, there is a very high degree of hate and venom on both sides of the political spectrum, and the idea of a moderate is becoming extinct. That said, one of my conclusions really bothered me concerning the political climate of today, and it stems from the use of hate speech. In fact, I was appalled by the racial slurs that riddled almost every sight, primarily the liberal leaning sites. Considering these facts, I probably should not be surprised by the rampant over use, and misuse, of a term that I came across on approximately 99 percent of the left leaning sites when the Bush administration came up. This term is fascism, and I was astounded by the number of people that use the word with no apparent knowledge of its meaning. The term fascist, as defined by Webster is one that partakes in the system known as fascism. So, I looked up the word fascism, and it was defined as follows:

a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Did I miss an announcement regarding the government? Are we really controlled by a dictator now, or do the majority of those using the term have absolutely no idea what it means? Looking even deeper into the definition, we see that a fascist is one on that forcibly suppresses opposition and criticism. If that were the case in the United States, then how are all of these people openly criticizing the current administration? Furthermore, how do these people explain the fact that the opposition party has control of the House and Senate? Once again, the far left has decided that facts are not important when an attempt to further one’s agenda is taking place. Finally, emphasizing aggressive nationalism and racism is listed. If this were the case in the United States, would millions of illegal immigrants still be living hear? All that I ask is that people think before they speak, what do you think?

Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

No room for Moderates in '08

Although the next presidential election is still two years away, the subject already monopolizes many political conversations. With Barak Obama gaining steam, Hillary steaming, and a battle shaping up between Rudy and McCain, it appears that the next two years will be, if nothing else, interesting. With these four wannabe moderates leading the way, one might assume that the theme of the 2008 election season will be moderation, but I for one see it differently. Much could happen to change my mind between now and November of ’08, but as of today, I believe that there will be no room for moderates in the race to the Whitehouse. In fact, the two men I think will represent their respective parties have not even announced they are running. On the side of the Democrats, I see a man that is far from moderate gathering steam and support. This man is a familiar face, and he is the anti-Bush, which will appeal strongly to the Democratic Party which has a leadership that seems to be sliding farther left by the minute. In my opinion, Al Gore will represent the Democrats in November of 2008. I know, I know, Obama mania has taken root in the Northeast, the Midwest, and even the far out West coast, but when the time comes to put their money where their mouth is, the Democrats will choose Gore. Why? Other than his experience, which Obama lacks, Gore has begun leading the crusade on all things environmental. He has also cheered loudly for the cut and run crowd, and his sound bites are priceless. Remember this one…”He betrayed his country, he played on our fears…”? This Goreism brings up the major reason I believe Gore will be the Democratic candidate come ’08, he is the anti-Bush. As the left becomes even more and more opposed to everything the current administration does, Gore will become a stronger and stronger candidate. On the other side of the aisle, I see a true dark-horse emerging from the conservative right. When it comes down to it, the majority of the mainstream Republican Party votes conservative, especially on social issues. This is the main reason I do not see McCain, or the socially liberal Giuliani getting the nod. The man I truly believe will win the Republican nomination is Rick Santorum. Right now this prediction seems far fetched, but give it some time. While McCain and Rudy split each other’s vote in half, the ultra-conservative Santorum will find his niche among the conservative base. This will leave a general election with polar opposites gunning for the presidency. Who will win? That will be determined primarily by turnout. It will truly be a Conservative vs. Liberal election, and we will see once and for all where our country really lies.

Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

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