PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS OF LIBERALS. No, not all of them, just this one. The guy who won the lawsuit over the pledge today demonstrated it on CNN. Men like him want to eliminate God from all public, that is, government-sponsored, activity. If one dollar of federal or state tax revenue is taken by an organization, said organization is, according to them, forbidden from mentioning in any way any religious word or symbol. You know, schools offering a religion class, courts displaying the Ten Commandments, kids giving their own valedictory speech in high school. These are the supreme evil of our time for these liberals.

But a problem arises when you play this philosophy out to its logical conclusion.

They claim to be defenders of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, most especially the First Amendment. Fine. But the Constitution has its philosophical and moral foundation in the Declaration of Independence. The Preamble says that "We, the People...do ordain and establish this Constitution..." Therefore, this Constitution, that is the supreme law of the land, is the grant of power to the government by the consent of the governed. In it, we enumerate the specific powers of the federal government and limit its ability to oppress us.

Where do we get the rights upon which the government cannot, according to the Bill of Rights, infringe? According to the Declaration of Independence, the document that established this nation liberals claim to love so much, "...all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..." God gives every man these rights. The state does not. That "happens" in totalitarian states. Being part of the Animal Kingdom does not. Who grants these rights to us, if not God? The Constitution is the culmination of this truth, and thus the liberal cannot support the Constitution.

The Declaration also is contingent upon God's grace. Jefferson began by stating the obvious, that we all are granted by God freedom, then goes on to describe how King George III had violated that freedom. Thus we separated from the crown. If there is no God, then we have no inborn rights, and the English king did no wrong. There is no moral basis for Jefferson's judgments. The liberal thus cannot support the Declaration of Independence, nor its ideals.

This may sound harsh and silly at first glance, but the plain thoughtful truth is that America would not exist had the Founders not realized God's existence and grace and then framed our government upon it. If these people would honestly examine the question of God and His role in America, they could make an informed decision. Either acknowledge God and thus support America and its principles, or deny His existence and role in our history and government and be belligerent toward America. But you cannot be both.
A DARK DAY FOR AMERICA. Why must every vestige of truth and history in this land be ripped from its garden and incinerated? Today, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional in public schools. It breaks my heart. You can read the opinion if you want.

The Declaration of Independence, the founding document of this one-of-a-kind nation, reads, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The only reason that we enjoy the freedoms that we do is because our Founders saw that it is God, not the state, that grants liberty to men. Men, all men, have these rights by birth, by being made in God's image.

It is only when men ignore this fact that they have the arrogance to take away these rights from other men, as if the liberty that we enjoy flow directly from them. Senator Sessions from Alabama was right today when he said that this is the culmination of over 10 years of liberal judicial activism. It is time for conservatives and more liberal folks who don't hate God to stand up for themselves and their freedom.

Atheists and leftists of many stripes have, since the late Sixties, sought to destroy the piece of American history that is tied to the Lord. The Founders weren't Christians, they were Enlightenment intellectuals. The slaves weren't freed as a result of Christian abolitionists, it was the wisdom of a secular President and Northern intellectuals. Rewriting history, reinterpreting the Constitution as "a living, changing document." It is the worst kind of relativism that does not see facts for what they are and interprets them to fit an ideology. It leads to lawlessness, and ultimately to the utter stupefication of those who follow its dogmas. How do you expect a human to exist and be a part of his world when all of his bearings and guideposts and rules and foundations have been annihilated? Our children will grow to find that in a clash of civilizations, such as we are in now, they have no idea which side is right and which is wrong. That is cruel and unusual punishment, the moral equivalent of a frontal lobodomy.

Tonight, read the Declaration of Independence and then read the books of Isaiah and Romans. See in all of them the freedom from man's ways that God gives us, and the consequences of a people denying God and His grace. But make sure to sing to yourself the Battle Hymn of the Republic, that great American song written by a white, Christian woman in order to free black americans from chains because she knew that they, too, are children of God:

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored,
He has loosed the fateful lightening of His terrible swift sword
His truth is marching on.

Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.

I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps
l can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps
His day is marching on.

Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.

I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnish`d rows of steel,
"As ye deal with my contemners, So with you my grace shall deal;"
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel
Since God is marching on.

Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on.

Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.

Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.


PRIDE AND PREJUDICE. Did some interesting reading on the plane Sunday. Got through the first short section of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Christ the Center. The translation is a bit hard to follow, especially with me having not read a bit of philosophy since 1997 or so. The screaming 3 month olds (twins) in front of me did not aid the absorption of the material.

He writes that the human mind asks, basically, two unique scientific questions of things: 1) What is the cause of X? and 2) What is the meaning of X? And these are fine when inquiring about the nature of the world we live in. But, these are also the limits of the man-centered, humanist philosophy and thought. It is the ultimate presupposition of the "human logos," the worldview of man, that all things can and must be classified; it is "comprehended by the exact sciences when its causal relationship to other objects is understood. [It] is comprehended by the appropriate arts when its significance in relation to other objects is understood."

But what happens to this view of the universe when confronted with Christ? What will it do when a Logos comes to supercede all of its old traditional ideas? When it comes to put the old human logos to death? "What happens if a counter-logos appears which denies the classification?"

What happens is the same thing that occurs when an unbeliever is confronted with Jesus: the human logos in us all wants to classify Him and ask 'How?' How can there be a God? How can there be suffering in the world? How could this man be crucified and rise again so as to absolve us from our punishment? How can I be a sinner; I'm a good person. Every man must make his decision: to either accept the death of his old logos, to "die to yourself," and accept this humanly-inexplicable Man and His Logos, or to let pride rule and cling to his old tired ideas/ways/sins. By 2 Corinthians 5:17, "any man who is in Christ is a new creation, the new has come and the old has passed away." Do you have the fortitude and the faith to put away the old question that has been destroyed by Christ, namely the 'How?', and ask the new question of Him? To ask 'Who are you?' to the One only of whom it is possible to ask? By this you will put away the human desire to explain things on your own terms and allow God to reveal the answer to you.

And that is the sticking point for modern unbelievers. Pride. Intellectuals believe that only simpletons and hillbillies and folks incapable of rational thought have faith in Christ. They cannot imagine a situation, much less a person, of which their god, themselves, cannot answer the two basic human questions. Christ is truly a stumbling block to them.

This is also the great hypocrisy of modernists: that Christians are close-minded neandertals while they are the free-thinking, open-minded gifts to humanity. If they were truly so they would not immediately dismiss any discussion of God and His very existence, and they would honestly examine and consider the grace of God. But honesty is the first virtue to be flushed down the toilet when pride conquers your mind and soul.

Do yourself a favor and think honestly about these things. Am I open to possibilities beyond my understanding? Do I limit reality to that which fits inside the little boxes inside my little mind? Is Christ a stumbling block to me? Most importantly, why? If you can answer with candor these questions, you are more courageous and intelligent than so many of the world's "great thinkers." The ultimate question, which all men will answer, either on earth or after death, is "Do I reject Christ and His salvation in order to cling to my limited, failing, destroyed human philosophy?" That is one large gift to reject only because of hubris.
STABILITY IS FOR SISSIES. Once again, you have to read today's Screed by James Lileks: he rips Nicholas Kristoff, the New York Times' useful idiot, in regard to his silly objections to toppling Saddam. I talked about it a few weeks ago in somewhat the same light, asking the same essential question that Lileks does: why is stability to be maintained at all costs, especially in the Middle East? When someone says that "this might destabilize the entire region," I think of my mother telling me that if I spin around on that stool any faster, I'm going to get sick. My response was always, "So what?"

It seems to me that instability, i.e. the increasing insecurity of America-hating, terrorist-sponsoring, citizen-torturing governments (Iran, Syria, IRAQ), is exactly what we need there. It is essentially a big china shop--the regimes should be knocked off the shelves and shattered. They are the only ones who stand to lose. The citizenry can only gain. They already live in 20th-century dictatorships in 16th-century conditions. Not having their children's eyes gouged out by Iraqi police should give some folks there some peace. Yes, there will be a period of scarcity, turmoil, and instability inside these states, but the same thing happened in the ex-Soviet Union. Only 11 years after the fall of communism Russians are doing just fine, aside from some massive mob activity, and their economy is looking up. It's not going to be all roses, but stability is the refuge of cowards.
HOW WILL THEY CHOOSE? Bush's speech yesterday made me think: will the Palestinian people choose democracy and prosperity, or rather choose to continue the destruction of the Jews. It seems like a simple question to answer to you and I since we live in a civilized country, but what of these poor folks?

Some of them, sure, will want to give the concepts of freedom and representative government a whirl, but many, as evidenced by a poll taken in Palestine last month, have as their top priority the annihilation of Israel as a state and the Jews as a nation. Will Bush's speech and new American policy change their minds which have been so conditioned to blame the Jew and the American for their present bleak situation? They seem to want, more than their own state, no more Jews, period. I can't imagine so many of them to now want peace above all that they would cast away Arafat and their hatred in an instant. I know it's pessimistic, but sometimes realism just looks like pessimism. Again, "I have set before you life and death; therefore, choose life."
ANOTHER BALKAN MESS. Debka File intelligence reports that al-Qaeda is regrouping in the most wonderful of places. The Balkan peninsula, more specifically Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo, the birthplace of World War I, is now home to the enemy. Read this frightening piece before it goes away (usually about 5 days or so). I hope that the administration pays attention to this. We could cut these #$@%*&!s off from their supply and squeeze them (they're between two bodies of water) and be done with a lot of them. It's just like Afghanistan--we can't possibly make it a worse place to live, so let's get to it. Don't forget how many times the Debka File has been right in the past 3 years or so. Uncanny.


READ THE SCREED. Please read this column by James Lileks from today. His site is full of stuff, both hilarious and incredibly insightful, including the Book of Regrettable Foods. Lileks.com will soon have a link on the side of this page since it is so much better than this is.
IT'S ABOUT TIME. President Bush finally made the call for new leadership inside the Palestinian people. Translation: Arafat shouldn't let the door hit him in the butt on his way out. I like everything about it, with the exception of a few minor points, and those are mostly word choice issues.

The establishment of a Palestinian "state" is now the two things it needed to be most: 1) conditional upon the will and performance of the Palestinians as a whole, and 2) provisional, meaning it can be monitored and controlled by the "international community," and, hopefully, even retracted. Bush has done what he, and his predecessors, have needed to do for years: make "Palestinian" statehood and thus power contingent upon the desire of the governed to govern themselves.

I like the underlying message of it all as well. It is a very Christian perspective on civil life and how it parallels salvation. Bush even quotes the Scriptures for the last sentence of the speech: "I have set before you life and death; therefore, choose life." Every man has an opportunity in his life to accept the free gift of Christ, or to choose the wages of sin. Will you put your old self behind you and be born again into a new, but unknown, being? Will you trust the One offering you abundant life so as to walk into the unknown future with him, or are you too attached and enslaved by your former evil ways that you can't let go? Like Dostoevsky knew, men are fearful of liberty and feel secure in their own sin. Admitting sin is the first huge step in salvation, one that so many cannot make.

It will be interesting to see if the Palestinians can turn from their past and embrace freedom and a future, or if they will cling to their ways and only wish to make "martyrs" of themselves. So many folks in this world, including some in our Congress, would rather hold tight to an issue than lay down that card and solve the problem that they complain about so often. Stay tuned...
posted by Matt at

REAGAN WAS RIGHT. Russia is now a model of a free market economy. No, seriously. The Duma has just passed a bill that allows ordinary Russians to buy and sell farmland for, for all I know, the first time in that nation's long history. Some of the deputies in the Duma were even angered that foreigners were limited only to 49-year leases, not outright ownership. These folks know a good thing when they see it. They have seen Vlad Putin's flat tax cause their GDP to soar in the last 3 years. What a fantastic way to become prosperous and free, this market thing. Ronaldus Maximus' words from 1983 and his famous "Evil Empire" speech come to mind, "I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages even now are being written." The Democrats in Congress should take a long hard look at Russia when considering tax hikes and regulation and subsidies. And for that matter, so should President Bush.
SOMEWHERE OUT IN MIDDLE AMERICA. I'm back from a short vacation. Took the dad on his Father's Day trip. Omaha, Nebraska was the destination for one of America's greatest events: the College World Series. Sadly, the Texas Longhorns are now national champs, but the hot dogs and the lemonade and the peanuts and the baseball were well worth enduring the obnoxious Texas fans and all the Nebraskans, for that matter. We did have a great time, almost as good as the first trip we took together when I was 6. To Kansas City to watch the Royals play the Detroit Tigers, and to start my love affair with this most American of games. Nothing better in the world.


SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF THAT BEFORE. Apparently European citizens and some good men in government in Germany, Britain, France, Ireland and Poland are having second thoughts about the massive amalgamation of power in the hands of Brussels bureaucrats. So, when we conservatives yelled to you that you were offering up your liberty and self-governance to a superstate that cares zilch about you as an Englishman or a Dane in order to try hopelessly with a socialist economy to compete with the most vibrant, dynamic economy in the history of mankind, we were right? Didn't you tell us to take our fascism and stick it where the sun doesn't shine? That's right.

The whole thing, Europe that is, is a farce. It is simply a shell game by which aristocrats in Belgium fool various European governments, who then coerse their citizens into having faith in it, and take more and more power and liberty away from them. Just read the comical EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Preamble alone suggests that these men think that freedom and rights flow from the lap of the state, not from God. The atheism inherent in the document and in the philosophy of the EU necessetates that freedoms will be restricted. Notice that the list of rights is written in a positive voice; it lists what each citizen is entitled to. Our Bill of Rights is written in the negative voice and directed at the government. It specifically limits the power of the state to restrict our God-given freedom and rights. The Charter, conversely, grants people rights, and as the state is the grantor of those rights, it has the ability to take them away. If you don't believe in God, who is there, then the state is the ultimate power in the universe and you will obey its commandments.

When you read it, the Charter feels good. All its numerous rights listed are warm, fuzzy thoughts. But some are morally hollow and thus will have very negative consequences in the future (Article 2, clause 2: "No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed." Capital punishment is not murder, it is punishment as well as a deterrent. Couple this one with Europe's gun laws, and you have the recipe for some very nasty crime rates--see U.K. on that one), and some have already been infringed upon by the state (Article 2, clause 1: "Everyone has the right to life." B.S. Children in the womb of their mothers sure don't. And old folks aren't included in "everyone" either). The hubris of the thing is incredible: Aritcle 6 grants the "right to liberty and security to every person." Article 9 gives folks the right to marry. Last time I checked, democracy is about self-governance, and that implies that none of your neighbors, since you are all on an equal footing, has the power to tell you if you can or can't get married, if you are or are not free. It's neither his business or his place to do so.

I could go on and on, into realms of how postmodern atheistic humanism ends in slavery and gridlock, and how the Christian model and virtues imbued in the governmental ideas of the founding of the United States are the pinnacle of human organizational and moral thought, but I am tired. More later, but now sleep.


DOES THIS SOUND LIKE 1938 OR WHAT? Our European 'friends' have decided to engage in formal trade negotiations with those great guys in Iran. I love the fact that Chris Patten and his EU cronies continuously lecture us about our cowboy president and unilateral and simple-minded foreign policy. Bush names Iran as the chief sponsor of international terrorism, and these idiots strike up trade talks on the same day. I hope W. was listening to the statement that Europe just made to us: Do not count on us as allies against either Hussein or Iran.

All of this makes me again wonder no one has thought of this idea I had at the first of June: the minute we attack Iraq, Iran's craptocracy will be torn down from within. Especially if we provide a little help to the rebels inside. It's just a theory, but I hope it has been looked into by the good folks at the Pentagon. God knows the State Department hasn't.
ANGLOPHILES UNITE! Michael Davies, an Englishman writing a journal for ESPN at the World Cup, has a great entry about America, its soccer future, and the typical anti-American sentiment of soocer fans and commentators from around the globe. Excerpts: "I'm a proud Briton, I cannot understand anyone who could ever underestimate the ability, professionalism and sheer toughness of U.S. athletes...Americans are simply superb at sports...The United States loves heroes and underdogs, hates foreigners who trash the USA -- it is really fun watching these underdogs, these heroes, beat those bastards." As American as I am, I sort of enjoy the fact that our best friends in the world, the British, are the same folks we gave the finger to and whose butt we ran off this continent. I hope they enjoy it too.
GREAT BOOK. Haven't read it yet, but Martin Kramer's Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failures of Middle Eastern Studies in America looks like a great one to go along side your copies of Bernard Lewis' stuff. It even has its own website for excerpts, comments, etc. Anything that hammers Edward Said in any capacity is worth the $25.00.
GLORY GLORY HALLELUJAH! America has beaten archrival Mexico 2-0 to move to the final 8 in the World Cup! This is the greatest day in U.S. soccer history. I hope that George Bush takes the time to call Vicente Fox and tell him that "We rule; you drool. Oh yeah, and we're putting the military on the border."

The Mexicans aren't taking this very well though. It must feel awful that in the one competition in the world in which our southern 'neighbors' could say they were better, they now have been defeated by us in it. The whole world has ridiculed us for years because of our indifference to the game, but now we have taken their advice and have beaten 2 of the world's powerhouses. We are on the way to dominance in this sport too. Get used to it.

Now, it would really be great if our boys' victory over Mexico could be used as a prompt to end immigration from down south, and maybe, just maybe, instead of amnesty, Bush would offer the illegals in this country each a bus ticket to Guadalajara. They could cry over their defeat to the Gringos there.


HA HA HA! STOP IT! YOU'RE KILLING ME! This one really gets you rolling. Again from ArabNews.com, this is supposed to be a primer on the Israeli - Palestinian conflict for us hillbilly Americans. The only problem is that from its first sentence, and especially its first sentece, every single last word of it is a lie. It reads, "Let's start from the premise that we all want peace." You want me to base your entire argument on that? HA! All the evidence, and especially most statements and polls, are to the contrary. Please don't insult my intelligence again. The Arabs want to live peacefully next to the Israelis just as much as I want a barium enema: not at all.
OH! ISLAM REALLY DOES MEAN PEACE! I'm glad the ArabNews reported on this farce of a conference that was "a thought-provoking discussion on Islam's message of peace." I'm always in the mood for good humor in these troubled times. The funniest line was that "[Dr. Abdul Jarrar] Rahman said that Islam rejected fanaticism and always called for peace. He stressed the importance of spreading the real message of Islam." Apparently Dr. Rahman and the other Saudis and Dubai-ians (?) in attendence haven't read their Koran -- "seize them [the unbelievers] and kill them wherever you find them." By the way, next month in Peoria, the Illinois Nazis will hold a symposium declaring the true values of National Socialism and the Reich of love, peace, and harmony among different societies, especially the Jews.
I'M GLAD AMERICANS DON'T TAKE SOCCER SO SERIOUSLY. I think--now, this is just my opinion--that this is a bit extreme. But, hopefully it teaches wives not to mess with the remote anymore.
FAILURE OF THE REPUBLIC. The preamble to the Constitution begins, as you all know, with "We, the people of the United States,..." This important clause demonstrated to King George and to the rest of the world thereafter that we free Americans will govern ourselves and leave behind monarchy and ruling classes, thank you. However, politicians have now conditioned most of us to believe that only "qualified, intelligent, experienced, moderate" folks should hold offices in government. No one realizes that everybody, being an American, has a duty to govern themselves and not leave everything up to the same old guys all the time. We are being ruled by a political class.

This is most abundantly evident at present in the halls of Congress and in the White House and most other major halls of the federal government. More attacks are threatened, the stock market tumbles, the Catholic Church is in upheaval, public confidence is plummeting, yet all they do is have meetings. There is an obsession today with hearings and investigations and committees unseen in wartime in American history. And I think that sentence holds a precient observation: most in Congress and in the media do not realize that we are at war. When America is at war, there are sacrifices, volunteering, honesty, moral clarity, courage, and perseverance by us and our leaders. None of these virtues are being practiced by our leaders right now. We citizens are clamouring for all of this, but most of all for victory--this is why President Bush still has 77% approval ratings--and for our leaders of whichever party to lead us there. This plodding and ineffectual non-action by the administration and by Congress is driving all of us to fear and trepidation and malaise.

Not only in the war setting, but in other scandals and failures, the federal government is failing to protect and lead us precisely because there are career politicians using all of these unsettling events to attempt to hammer the opposition. Enron and the accounting firm problems that have emerged are not being dealt with, they are being sucked dry for political points. The Catholic Church refuses to deal with its internal problems, and the archbishops and bishops of this major institution of American life are going down with a very saveable ship. Congress and the White House are volleying the CIA and FBI failures of September 11th back and forth rather than solving the problem. We as a nation do not want rhetoric at this time in history, as this poll and article demonstrate.

We want, and desperately need, heads to roll and attitudes to change. FBI and CIA officers who neglected intel, for whatever reason (mostly brought on by past Congresses and administrations), should be fired and someone who will do the job should be brought in NOW. Enron, and other coporate, officers who deceived shareholders and Wall Street should go to jail NOW. Priests who molest kids should go to jail and be excommunicated from the church NOW. Bishops and archbishops who have passed on dealing with the problem should get the same, NOW. Accounting firms who don't do an ethical and legal job of auditing the firms that drive our economy should be punished and fat Harvey Pitt and the SEC should drop the hammer NOW.

In Gladiator, Russell Crowe's general Maximus has to say to the senator, "The time for talk and half measures is over." We must say the same to our senators. Action, real problem-solving action, in all of these areas will banish the specter of fear and complacency and malaise from the American public. Peggy Noonan says it in her column that, "This is what we need to do: Reveal everything now and fire those who failed us. Take a long hard day and do it. Swift bureaucratic brutality is what we need, not a time-consuming drone."

The destruction of the Taliban in Afghanistan was a good start. The Bush Doctrine was fabulous, inasmuch as we would apply it to everybody including the Palestinians and the Saudis. The new doctrine of preemption is just as good, if not better, for us in the long run. But that is merely talk. Hussein should be whacked, and I mean yesterday. Have we deteriorated into Colin Powell enough to believe that our military can only defeat a nation with zero infrastructure, leadership, and military skill? Iraq is nothing. Nor is Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, or the Phillipines.

America, her borders, economy, politics, and civil life, need victory. And we need it now.


GOOD TO KNOW. Vlad Putin is on record as not supporting the reestablishment of the Soviet Union. I would like the world to know, too, that I am pessimistic about the prospect of reuniting the Roman Empire, somewhat skiddish regarding the possible re-secession of the Confederate States of America, and that I do not believe it to be in the best economic or political interests of me for the Ptolemy dynasty to reform. Idiot.
GO BACK TO CANADA. Apparently, Peter Jennings, host of the ABC July 4th Spectacular (why, I ask), has booted Toby Keith from the act after hearing the song he was to perform, Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue. This is Keith's fastest rising hit ever, and one of the most requested songs on the radio, but I guess it is just to offensive to Jennings, who is probably of French origin, seeing his desire to not offend the terrorists. Toby should tell Peter, in German, that he "vould be vise to surrvender to vus," and Jennings would gleefully allow Keith back on the show, showering him with flowers and croissants.
GOD BLESS SOUTH KOREA. Thanks to the wonderful folks who bring us plastic goods and dry cleaning, the U.S. soccer team hobbles backwards into the knockout round of 16 in the World Cup. We were embarrassed by lowly Poland this morning, but the South Koreans beat, miraculously, Portugal 1-0. I guess we'll call it even after we kept the communists out of there in the 1950's--the South Koreans actually have food to eat and the freedom to play soccer, unlike their cousins in the North. We now play Mexico Monday in a NAFTA battle royal. Pray that we show up for that one.


IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT. Or pick another REM song to sing while you sit and gawk at this week's issue of The Nation. They're all about the same. Again, the left is hysterical about the threat of nuclear war in the world. In particular, they fear the United States' stockpile and our obvious desire to evaporate large cities of random nations. George Bush is a cowboy, you know.

I'm sorry, but this is insane. What these people want is a world that is void of conflict and dominance, hatred and the will to power. They honestly believe that if we coax our enemies (Iraq, Pakistan, Red China) to disarm by unilaterally doing so ourselves, the world, as Lennon (John) said, "could live as one." For those who don't know, this is the basic moral problem of leftist ideology (any of them): they believe, as a basic pillar, that mankind is good. If we all just agree to sign this treaty, promise not to invade Poland, etc., we can all get along and sing Beatles tunes and read Maya Angelou while smoking our legal mary jane.

But the brutal truth of this world is, as Christians know to be the truth, that mankind is inherently sinful at birth. Some folks repent and attempt to "go and sin no more," and some folks don't. And a very select few even murder 6 million Jews or 18 million Russians. Peace cannot be "made" with such men. They are so engulfed in their own power, their own greatness (and isn't this the basic sin of man--trying to be God on earth?), that reason and kindness have no impact on their thoughts or deeds. The only recourse that we civilized people have against men like Osama Bin Laden, Adolph Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and Kim Jong Il, is to destroy them and their ability to wreak havoc on ordinary folks.

Now, this may require the use of nuclear weapons. Fine. As a last resort to crush a persistent evil, they are great. Notice that. Crush evil. They are obviously a potential threat to peace and liberty when in the hands of men whom we discussed above. Therefore, I agree with John Derbyshire when he says that "If Saddam Hussein has an atom bomb, we should have a hundred. If China has a hundred, we should have ten thousand. If Russia has ten thousand, we should have a million." Why? So we can turn any of these nations into a parking lot in a flash? NO! So we look like the scariest bunch of cowboys anyone could imagine. It's called deterrance, and in America's hands, it works.

Yes, this sounds arrogant. It's not. The plain truth is that there has been no greater national force for good in the history of man than the United States of America. We, along with the British, are the only nation on earth that could conceivably be trusted with such power. So please get past your "I have met the enemy and he is us" philosophy and get in the real world. As Reagan insisted, "PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH."
ONE MORE THING... This hubbub about Ashcroft and this terrorist's arrest illustrates exactly what would have occurred last August and early September had Bush and the DOJ actually been able to arrest some of the 19 hijackers. Today, Ashcroft can't win: he arrests this al Muhajir guy before he attacks us, and Ashcroft is labelled as Big Brother, J. Edgar Hoover, and a right-wing reactionary. If he had let the guy remain, he would have been lambasted, as he and Bush and Mueller are now, by the liberal press and Congressmen for being incompetant and lazy, or even for letting it all happen on purpose for personal gain.

Imagine if the FBI had arrested Mohammed Atta and the other murderers in August 2001. Cries of racism and intolerance would have assailed the President immediately. Karl Rove would never have let that happen. I just want the media and Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle to pick which way they want to attack the administration. Don't have it both ways.
BABY BOOMERS STRIKE AGAIN. The minute AG John Ashcroft announced that the DOJ had arrested a would-be terrorist and declared that he is an "enemy combatant," half of that generation jumps up screaming that he is being denied his Constitutional rights. Long-haired hippie lawyer (what else could he be?) Stanley Cohen whined for a half hour last night that this man, Abdullah al Muhajir, a.k.a. Jose Padilla, a hispanic Muslim from Chicago, shouldn't be tried in a military court and held indefinitely. Why? Because he's a U.S. citizen. Stanley conveniently overlooks the facts that this slime has spent years in Afghanistan and Pakistan training with Al-Queda (the enemy), and was travelling back from Switzerland to the U.S. to detonate a radiological 'dirty' bomb when he was arrested.

Hello? Traitor? Fighting against us? One of the bad guys? Get it? It really isn't that hard to understand that he forfeited his American citizenship when he took up arms against his country. This again illustrates the major problem with the Boomer generation: they so despise and suspect the U.S. government that anything the FBI or military does has to be corrupt, illegitimate, unconstitutional, racist, or worse, intolerant. This guy wants to see you either be blown to bits by his explosion or your children inhale radioactive dust and wither away before the age of 10. He almost did it. Our government detains him for questioning and hopefully a trial, and people cry oppression?

These folks need to understand that Vietnam could have and should have been won by us (the good guys), that Nixon is dead, and that logical thought is what should guide your opinions and values, rather than emotion. Furthermore, they need to understand that George W. Bush, John Ashcroft, and Don Rumsfeld are trying to keep them from being wiped from the face of the earth, as Al-Queda wishes to do. If you encounter one of these people, do your best to explain the truth to them, but if you hear the words "racist, Noam Chomsky, civil rights, or Bush wasn't elected" come out of their mouths, just pat them on the head, smile sympathetically, and climb out of the little black box they are living in.


BEST WORLD CUP EVER. The lousy French (defending world champions and 4-1 favorite to repeat) didn't get past the first round . Our 'friends' the Saudis simply got annihilated in each match they played, losing by a total of 12 to 0. Maybe if they let their women play the team would fair better. The only way this 2002 version of the World Cup could get any better is if the U.S. won the whole stinkin' thing.
SWEDEN AGAIN. This brings up another point. Socialism sucks. I have had numerous acquaintances and even family members (*gasp!*) tell me that socialism is good and it has worked in places, like, oh, Sweden for instance. Bollocks. Swede Johan Norberg puts that idea in a headlock and drags it across the mat for a large carpet burn. Socialism doesn't just suck in general, it seems to suck the will to live out of the folks who participate in the 'worker's paradise.' See. Somebody tell Tony Blair before he totally destroys the home of my favorite soccer league.
SWEDEN: LAND OF ABBA, SAAB, AND STALINISM. At least we now know where the Swedes actually stand: outside that group of nations that we call the Free World. Their "Parliament" is close to outlawing criticism of homosexuality. Yes, even in Christian churches. Forget, for a moment, the fact that this involves Christians teaching from the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. This is simply beyond the pale. A "Western democracy" actually making it illegal to speak some thoughts?

Look. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is one of the greatest statements in the history of man. It affirms that God has given all of us liberty, and it restricts the governments ability to take that away from us. It is the basis for innumerable arguments for freedom in the world. It is also abused so badly that I have to tolerate artists putting a Cross in a toilet full of urine. Louis Farrakhan has the right to say that "The Jews have been so bad at politics they lost half their population in the Holocaust. They thought they could trust in Hitler, and they helped him get the Third Reich on the road." It is not illegal. It is incredibly stupid, offensive, hateful, and a giant lie, but it is not illegal for Lou to say this. He has the right to say this, in part, so that we know what kind of raving lunatic he is. No guessing.

Which brings me to another story. Some poor guy in Idaho got thrown in jail for calling a black guy who assaulted his wife a *Ni--er*. Of course calling someone this name is morally wrong. But being convicted of a hate crime for blurting out a slur at a guy while defending your wife is Stalinism. Chris Rock can say it and get paid millions. He can even say that "I loooove black people. But I haaate ni--ers." But this sap in Idaho can't scream at a man acosting his wife? What will the government decide is an acceptable curse word to use? Is as---le OK? What about sh-thead? Oooo. What if the colors were reversed and the black man whose wife was being assaulted called the white criminal a *cracker* or a *honkey* or *white devil*? No problem there.

This is why we all have the right to say whatever we please, however stupid. If you can limit speech, then someone else decides what is legal and what is not, and invariably somebody will be hung out to dry. Such as Christians in Sweden. Or white guys in Idaho (bye the way, the black assailant did not get charged with anything). This is not a problem of whites against blacks. This is a problem of tyranny. And these instances and groups will only be the first to go. If no one stands up, you're next.


GLOBAL WARMING IS B.S. A great article at TechCentralStation's new European site about the myth of global warming. Al Gore is probably sweating like a pig (again) over this one.
BEEN BUSY. No time at home to read and post, much less think, which is pretty much the norm anyway. I *promise* to do better soon...


EARLY CHRISTMAS GIFT. Something, you know, for the effort. These trading cards (yes, I'm a kid still) are great for me and whoever I can pass them on to. Just a suggestion.
FOOTBALL GLORY! No not that football. Soccer! To my great joy, our American boys have pulled off one of the greatest upsets in world football history by shocking FIFA World #4 squad Portugal 3-2. The Lusitanians were many folks' favorite to win the whole thing. Everyone should be flying Old Glory today and singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic. South Korea, the host nation, is next. His Truth is marching on...!
LEARN SOMETHING. Go visit the updated links to the left of some way more intelligent and entertaining folks. My brain is very limited.


RATHER RUDE THAN DEAD. While Norm Mineta has the high-caliber individuals at airport security frisking your 3 year old and your arthritic Lutheran grandmother, Mark Steyn and John Derbyshire call for racial profiling at airports. Young Arab men want to kill us, right? It's not Mr. and Mrs. Seinfeld from Naples who are making such statements. Use some common sense.


BONO, MARX, AND THE AFRICANS. A lot of talk about U2 leadman Bono and his trip to the Dark Continent with SECTRES Paul O'Neill. The Odd Couple has traveled there to discuss Bono's well-intentioned Third-World-debt-forgiveness-and-more-aid package. Sounds nice and kind, right?

Wrong. What this means is that we would say to Zimbabwe, "Remember that $50 billion we loaned you over the last 20 years? Yes that. The money Mugabe used to rig his 'elections' and then buy machetes and Kalashnikovs that slaughtered almost half a million of your brothers and sisters. That's the money. Don't worry about it. We'll call it even. And now we'll give him even more cash. Yes, yes, I know. I am an intelligent Westerner, but I am also compassionate."

Why, in the name of St. Peter's shoes, would we GIVE THEM MORE MONEY?? The governments to whom we give your tax dollars are so corrupt that they, like Nelson Mandela's wife Winnie, would arrest anyone who voices opposition to their power (because they have no guns with which to defend themselves) and hang a car tire around your neck, fill the inside with gasoline, tie your hands behind your back, and light the sucker. Or the would do the same as Robert Mugabe in Zimababwe and Mandela again in South Africa: confiscate the land and property of white farmers and opposition blacks.

All of this to say that feeding the monster that rules over slaves only creates a worse environment for the slaves. Colonialism and Western indifference are not the sources of Africa's problems; lack of liberty and property rights are. Mugabe, Mandela, Mbeki, even Idi Amin, and the warlords in Rwanda, are all Communists. Africans have no concept of property rights, and, as such, are unable to participate in a market economy, which is the only way to development and prosperity.

I look to Ronald Reagan for help here, since he was the greatest leader in the world since Churchill. Did he throw money at the Soviets and the Eastern Bloc nations? No! We flooded the airwaves and media with American speeches about freedom and wealth, we infiltrated the black markets with American goods and dollars. We saved those countries, or helped them save themselves, from Communism with Levi's and McDonalds, not billions of dollars in aid. Do the same thing in Africa. They are starting from farther behind than did Bulgaria and Latvia, but big deal. They are eager to show the world that they are not animals. The new president of Uganda said that, "Debt relief has saved us some money, but the real money will come from trade. Give us the opportunities, and we will compete." How refreshing is that. We musn't let the feeling of doing good by sending cash get the best of us. Teach these men to fish, give them dignity and liberty and the right to call something their own and they will surprise us all. Just like we Americans did 300 years ago.
INSOMNIA. Couldn't sleep last night so I ate Do-Si-Do's and watched C-SPAN (I know, I know, I'm a loser). But they aired a BBC interview by Jeremy Paxman of British PM Tony "I love my orthodontist" Blair. It was riveting. Paxman sure knows how to make people squirm. Blair looked like a trapped lizard. The interview was particularly illuminating for me since our American press always presents Blair and "new Labour" as good guys, pretty much American-style leaders. Not so.

British politics fascinates me because it is supposed to have given birth to the American system--the greatest in mankind's long history. The sense of wonder, I guess, comes from seeing how utterly desolate and morally bankrupt the British system is.

Paxman threw Blair an obvious curve ball by asking him about his Christian beliefs. Blair responds: "Look, I am a Christian, I believe in it, but I don't think it is very sensible to start trying to view every decision you take as if it were a religious, rather than a political decision." Really? Then what is that fully-functional philosophical and moral apparatus, called the Gospel of Christ, for? I could go on for pages quotes Scripture that tells us to put God first in our lives, and let the Holy Spirit inform us, and be not conformed to the world, and pray unceasingly, and so on ad infinitum. Also, Blair was visibly flustered by the line of inquiry, and did his best to shift the topic as quickly as possible. Is it that forbidden to be a Christian in England?

The other very puzzling (for me) content came just before the religion topic. Namely, Blair's first speech as PM to the Commons in which he said, "I am a socialist. It stands for equality not because it wants people to be the same, but because only through equality in our economic circumstances can our individuality develop properly. British democracy rests ultimately on the shared perception by all the people that they participate in the benefits of the common wheel." Now, I am pretty sure that socialism is incompatible with a Christian world view, in that God gave each man free will, to embrace or reject His Love, and thus his eternal life is on no one's shoulders but his own. Likewise, God gave us freedom in life, to live as we please, to take risks (isn't that essentially what that decision to be saved is?) and thus possibly reap rewards. To me "equality in our economic circumstances" means that no matter how hard I work, or how big of a risk I take, I only "deserve" the same reward as the immigrant on welfare or the factory worker who never risks anything. No dice Tony. Amazingly, folks in the UK eat this stuff up. No wonder it is always gray and rainy there...No hope of a new day.
REAL SACRIFICE. Arizona Cardinals defensive back Pat Tillman is giving up a $3.6 million contract for something better. He's going to fight in our war. Tillman has told the management of the Cardinals that he will not play football for them this season since he is heading to boot camp and training for the elite Army Rangers squad. He will make $18,000 a year and his newly-wedded wife will live in Arizona awaiting his return proudly. Men like this are the reason that America is the wonderful place that it is. Dan Rather won't report it, but there are some truly great men still living here. Thanks, Pat.
WHY WON'T BUSH PUSH THE FIRST DOMINO? A new report out of Iran quotes Muslim clerics as saying "the society is on the brink of explosion" as a result of public discontent with the Ayatollah's regime. Why don't we do our best to push this member of the 'Axis of Evil' over the precipice? An invasion of Iraq and toppling Hussein would accomplish two things and prevent one bad thing: 1) It would remove a crazed America-hating Stalinist who has WMD programs from power (good), 2) it would show the Iranian people that they need freedom more than the Ayatollah and thus knock down that repressive government, and 3) we would prevent Hussein from taking over Iran in the inevitable power vacuum that would exist after the people get rid of Khamenei. Iranians love America and its freedom--we ought to show them how much we appreciate them.
PUBLIC SCHOOL STUPIDITY. The New York State Board of Regents gives an English exam to high school kids every year. They have to read excerpts from literature and analyze them and answer the questions. Not difficult. But it seems that the State government has been altering (link to NY Times requires free registration) the direct quotes from books with NO notification or ellipses. They have edited the texts in order to not offend anybody. They have also changed the motto for the Public School System to: "Public Schools: Keeping your kids stupid, but feeling really good about themselves."