Limbaugh: Christian Persecution

David, brother of Rush, writes on the new persecution from the left. (warning: Drudge has no permalinks).

I haven't read it, but it seems interesting--perhaps worth a read. The review by Publisher's Weekly (found at a link to Amazon here) summarizes:

Limbaugh has a point: there are anti-Christian tendencies-rigid school bureaucrats, militant atheists and an often profane and irreligious popular culture-in American society. But there are plenty of pro-Christian tendencies too, such that Limbaugh's persecution complex seems overblown.

Any thoughts?

"Falsely bleak reports reduce our chances of success in Iraq"

Democratic senator, Jim Marshall (D-GA) records his impressions on Iraq and the media's complicity in the undercurrent of cynicism from the left.

The honor guard at the Tomb of the Unknowns continued to stand watch even when a hurricane threatened.

A Brief Respite

Looking back, I realize that my blogging has been too heavily oriented in one sphere: politics. I think I will start exploring the blogs of faith, starting point: blogs4god. Sounds promising, eh?

Funny Men

Cox and Forkum. Political funnies with a twist of blog, check it out.

Bias Alert

Newsweek runs this opinion piece on what $87 billion will buy, but neglects to tell us what spending $87 billion could cost us.

It's Official

Now we know what the world would be like if Clark were sitting in the Oval Office in 2001 because he would not have voted (and presumably as president, asked) for the congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq.

If so, the world would be a much different place if the Dems were in the White House: Osama would be mocking the impotence of the Americans from his cushy Kabul home, I'd cringe at the sound of every aircraft flying overhead, you'd wake up in the night wondering if that distant thunder was, instead, a power plant blowing up and our French allies would be saying "we told you so".

OK, so maybe there would be at least one similarity.

I have to believe that the recent campaigns in the war on terror have made our homeland less prone to attack. While the focus is on the soil of the enemy, America enjoys rest.

It's hard to believe that Clark would have preferred to leave Saddam in power, continuing to imprison children and allowing the Iraqi Olympic committee led by Uday to continue its bloody ways.

Prime Choice Grade-A Cut for Today

Bingo. Awesome piece. Read Victor Davis Hanson on the current state of affairs.

We are fighting with tremendous skill, at a minimum loss of lives — and in the middle of an economic slump and a raucous [election] campaign. But the paradox remains that the very rapidity of our victories abroad and the absence of another 9/11 at home have lulled far too many into thinking that Islamic fascism and Middle East totalitarianism can be eradicated in a few months, or that a complex society like postbellum Iraq should resemble a New England township five months after a war.

Clark is a Commie

History lesson. Check it out Rachel Lucas has the nasty stuff on Wesley. It appears that our Dem du jour's quote that America "was founded on a principle of progressive taxation" is in the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. Yes, THAT Karl Marx.

With Allies Like This Who Need Enemies

Essay at the New York Times on the French desire to see America fail. Quoth Thomas L. Friedman:

France wants America to sink in a quagmire there in the crazy hope that a weakened U.S. will pave the way for France to assume its "rightful" place as America's equal, if not superior, in shaping world affairs

Yes, even the New York Times sometimes sees the obvious.

Could President Wesley Clark Have Liberated Iraq?

Sullivan has his reservations based on an essay by the ex-general. If Clark was president, Iraq probably would not have happened and Afghanistan probably not as well. Sullivan's take is that Clark sees everything though "the prism of NATO's Kosovo campaign".

Clark opines:

We've got a problem here: Because the Bush administration has thus far refused to engage our allies through NATO, we are fighting the war on terrorism with one hand tied behind our back.

I disagree. We engaged our allies to build consensus on Iraq but the Europeans dragged their feet, interfered with our efforts and provided aid and comfort to the enemy. Clark attempts to compare Iraq with Kosovo, but neglects to realize that although the atrocities that caused NATO to act in Kosovo also existed in Iraq, such parallels resulted in little desire by world bodies to move against Saddam.

What was the difference? Was it be that Saddam was further away, outside of the Continent? (isolationist card) Was it be that Saddam's military was bigger and capable of bloodying a liberating force? (sissy card) Was it be that the Iraqi's were not European? (race card)

I don't disagree with Clark that things would have been easier (and will be easier) if the French, et al, had our back, but they aren't there. We have to go it with the few allies we have because the consequences of inaction would result in a disaster down the road. The strategy is clear, we must keep the terror networks on the run because the best defense to the wipe out their offense. That we are freeing people from death makes the cause even more just.

Clark on the war on terrorism:

The Kosovo campaign suggests alternatives in waging and winning the struggle against terrorism: greater reliance on diplomacy and law and relatively less on the military alone.

It is agreed that the response needs to be multi-faceted, but the response cannot be held hostage to the whims of nations competing to regain former glory and politcal importance. We're talking lives here, not trade agreements.

I fear that with Clark as president, our foreign policy will be one of appeasement and as Sullivan describes, "abdication".

Good News from Iraq

Funny, it doesn't come from the media outlets. Apparently, Iraqis are returning to Iraq and finding good things happening. Visit Sullivan to read.

Telling Statistic Out of Context and Without any Apparent Basis: only 13% of Iraqis wants the coalition out.

Site of the Moment

Oh, this one is rich! Go visit, Allah Is In The House (warning: strong language, mature themes). Be careful, you have to overlook the fact that this guy is bordering (or crossed over) on the insensitive towards the Muslim faith and realize that he is, instead, paroding the Muslim radical fundamentalism--sort of like making fun of Jimmy Swaggert or Jim Baaker.

Ya gotta check out his reporting on the great clash between the Yankees and Red Sox, "two sides joined in perpetual conflict."

Maybe We Should Have Just Sent Saddam to His Room

James Lileks wrote a decent bleat for today, decent in that it becomes interesting as he compares statecraft with parenthood. . .in fact, it evolves into a pretty long ranting about the Democratic carping over Iraq. In any event, Lileks compares today's situation with the situation in 1998, where Clinton bombed Iraq in Operation Desert Fox. As he draws his comparisons, the columnist defines hypocrisy for us:

I’ve read enough editorials from various papers from this period to reinforce something I’ve long suspected: the reason many editorialists hate this war is because they don’t feel it’s theirs.

If Clinton had risen to the occasion, wiped out al-Qaeda, sent Marines to kick down the statues and put bullets in those filthy sons’ brainpans, this would be the most noble effort of our time. We would hear clear echoes of JFK’s call to bear any burden. FDR, Truman, Marshall Plan, forbearance, patience - the editorial pages of the land would absolutely brim with encouragement and optimism every damn day, because the good fight was being waged, and the right people were waging it.

True. Politics in America is turned from the rational discourse of nation governing to a mutated and petty struggle for power where one party will oppose another at any cost, even to the detriment of a nation. I would agree to say that both parties are guilty of such practice, but right now, the Dems lead the way--not simply because they're doing it now, but because they are screwing around with the survival of this nation. It's not money or some pork barrel program, but lives that will be lost one day when Osama and his boys sail a nuclear cabable cargo container into the San Francisco harbor. I leave you with this:

The same people who accuse America of coddling dictators are sputtering with bilious fury because we actually deposed one.

<sarcasm>How DARE we.</sarcasm>

The (Living) Body Count

Glenn Reynold's over at instapundit" suggests that there should be a count of lives saved because of the Iraqi war. Why doesn't the media talk about the lives that are not being taken because Saddam is gone? Because it serves their purposes to paint the war as a disaster.

The Left Gets It

Sullivan gets an email response from a self proclaimed leftist.

Money quote:

But my comrades are blind to the fact that George Bush has liberated more people than the EU, the UN, and ANSWER put together. How depressing.

This is why the Dems and the left media are proclaiming Iraq a disaster, because it really isn't.

"Allies" Alert

"With friends like this, who the heck needs enemies?" The French block the charter of an aircraft that was to fly troops to Basra as the British reinforce Iraq.

(With thanks to the Dissident Frogman via Merde in France)

By the way, the Dissident Frogman has an excellent site, worth checking out. . .just don't push the red button.

Flypaper, Schmypaper

My friend, Scott, has caught on to Andrew Sullivan's flypaper theory.

I haven't bought into the notion that America is specifically in Afghanistan and Iraq to bait foreign nations into a trap, it just seems to be beyond the capability of a government to articulate, formulate and execute such a strategy. Especially the government of a democratic, open society. It's just too much like a Hollywood movie.

What I have thought is that Sullivan's theory articulates the strategy that we have taken the fight to the enemy, on their turf, in their land. It is more desirable to fight a war on somebody else's homeland, rather than ours.

If there had been more attacks after 9/11 on U.S. soil, does anybody believe that Americans would be worried about the California recall? Or the rhetoric coming from the Democratic presidential candidates? Or the stock market? Or Bennifer?

It believe that it is safe to say that our strategy, in either case, is working.

The Giant Goes Back to Sleep

This has put to words some of the dread that has risen within me after 9/11.

My dread is born in the resilience of America--our ability to overcome obstacles and push forward. It is a trait that means that America has overcome its past to move to the future. But do overcome because we have become more determined? Or do we overcome because we have forgotten?

Until the next atrocity like the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon is committed, I fear that our tendency is to lapse into complacency. Preferring, instead, to concern ourselves with the latest box office flop, our reality shows or (my particular weakness) our sports teams.

I do not think that there is anything wrong with such things in moderation. Indeed, they are fine diversions from the business of everyday living. The question that arises: Are our diversions the drugs that stupefy us against the pain that is everyday living? Reality TV does not show the reality of our perilous times. There is no Survivor: Iraq and we do not see island participants pitted against Islamic fundamentalists or suicide bombers.

Paranoia is not a mark of a great nation, but neither is ignorance.

Clarity Fatigue

Andrew Sullivan writes on how the "moral clarity" that America experienced post 9/11 scares the Democratic party. In Sullivan's estimation:

By and large, the Democratic party is now opposed to continuing this war, as currently envisaged, and want to wind it down as fast as possible, seeking diplomacy over force, denying the nexus of terror in the Middle East, eager to undo the new mechanisms law enforcement has to prevent future terrorist attacks, while engaging in Dowd-like attempts to embarrass and infantillize the men and women with the dreadful responsibility for our security. . .The moral clarity after 9/11 terrified them. They wanted it to go away so badly so they could switch the conversation back to the faults and evils of America.

Sullivan refers to a Lawrence Kaplan piece on "September 10" Americans--Americans who wish to return to a pre-9/11 culture. In my estimation, such desires is simply foolishness:

When September 11 Americans look back at the attacks, they see an event that requires an overhaul of national priorities. When September 10 Americans look back at the attacks, they see an event whose significance is emotional, even spiritual, but most of all historical. What they do not see is the opening salvo of a years-long struggle, much less its implications for politics and policy.

And also:

That most of us have resumed living by September 10 rules would hardly matter but for the inconvenient fact that America's foes still play by September 11 rules.

Florida Flagpole Flap

After yesterday's comments about freedom ringing in this land, we find that Marine verteran, George Andres, is going to lose his house because his homeowner's association fought the installation of a 12 foot flagpole on his property. He has been defiant to the end. Andres knows what the symbol of our freedom means, just as Mike Dalka's grandfather does. Dalka recalls a story from his teenage years:

My Grandfather was a glider infantryman in WWII, an advisor in Korea, and lost one of his sons, my uncle Gary Edwards, in Vietnam. . .One day while I was sweeping the oil dry out of the [garage] bays it began to sprinkle rain. He told me to go get the flag and I said "gimme a second." He said, "It is raining, go get the flag NOW." Well I popped off my mouth about how he should cool it. . .

. . .he turned deep crimson. . .tears welled up in his eyes and he squeaked out "You don't understand what this family has paid for the right to fly that flag." Then he turned his back on me and went out and got the flag.

Patriot Day

The President's proclamation of Patriot Day:

As we remember September 11, 2001, we reaffirm the vows made in the earliest hours of our grief and anger. As liberty's home and defender, America will not tire, will not falter, and will not fail in fighting for the safety and security of the American people and a world free from terrorism. We will continue to bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to them.

Flag courtesy Oklahoma Law Center

From Voices, Forrest Logan writes:

I remember hearing someone say how, when he went to baseball games, there was always one old man that would fuss at them and make them take their hats off when the National Anthem was played. After 9-11, he became that old man. I know what he means.

Frog Alert

And just when you thought it was safe to eat French bread again, Merde in France posts a translation of French pundit, Mathieu Lindon, on American deaths in Iraq. The article even comments on the over 10000 summer deaths due to the recent heat wave in Europe (Don't get us started on the "benefits" of socialized medicine).

(Thanks to Scott for the pointer! BTW, check out the penguin on his blog.)

Cartoon Fun from Al Jazeera

Hit Aljazeera.Net - Cartoons and see what this cartoonist's thinks the anniversary of 9/11 means to America. See? <sarcasm>The WTC is just a convenient excuse for Americans to get oil--3000 lives is a cheap price for cheap gas!</sarcasm>

Up From Zero DVD

The US Labor Dept has a free DVD about 9/11

from the web site
“Up From Zero” is a documentary film that pays tribute to the brave men and women of the New York City building trades who put themselves on the line on September 11, 2001 – and for nine months afterward – to reclaim Ground Zero.

if you are interested in receiving a free copy of the dvd, go here.

Tomorrow will be two years since the world changed. How will you commemerate it?

PC Attacks Your Privacy

Wendy McElroy, the editor of ifeminists.com, writes for FoxNews.com on the issue of privacy rights and takes on the mantra, "Personal is Political". This is the 60's born notion that one's personal thoughts and attitudes have "political significance and impact society". Thus, it is in the best interest of society to mandate and enforce "proper actions and attitudes".

Political correctness always rubbed me the wrong way, precisely because it demands me to not only act, but think AND accept the politically correct party line--even when that line is contrary to what I hold to be truth. McElroy hits the nail on the head as she argues that the "Personal is Political" is an attack on our most basic privacy to "to assess reality and come to your own conclusions about what is right or wrong"

In the case of homosexuality:

There is one sense, and one sense only, in which the demand to accept the sexuality of others is absolutely justified. It is this: Every individual should have same rights, regardless of his or her sexual bent. Same freedom of speech, same right to security of person and property, same due process.

But more often than not, the "acceptance" demanded is for respect or acknowledgement that a form of sexuality is "valid." Those who disapprove or just don't care are accused of oppression, discrimination or hatred. This is when problems arise -- when accepting an activity or an attitude doesn't mean legally tolerating it but becomes a demand for approval or respect.

Bingo. I accept homosexuality in the sense that it occurs. I accept homosexuals as fellow human beings. I accept that they are as valuable to God and worthy of love as heterosexuals. Such acceptance is not approval of homosexuality, anymore than they are mandated to approve of my lifestyle.

Living in the Past

As I've read Lileks over the last six months, every so often he recounts the surfacing of strong emotions over the September 11th attacks. Read today's Bleat if you want to see why the feelings still run strongly. In today's blog, Lileks responds to a doof who holds that 9/11 has NOT changed America and another doof who thinks that we are just wallowing in self pity and the best thing for you stupid Americans to do is put a sock in it and move on.

Well, they're wrong. 9/11 changed everything. Period. Simple as that.

There is no doubt in my mind that given even the opportunity and void the already thin veil of protection we have, there exists a group of people whose sole mission is to destroy my home, my church and my workplace. They one desire is to kill my friends, my coworkers, my son, my daughter, my wife, our soon to be born child.

I want things to be different. It has to be different.

On September 10th, there was ignorance and stupor. September 11th, shock, fear and anger (today's theme). September 12th. . .

What would you have to be different, if anything? And how does the mission of the church work itself out in this environment?

Man Killed on Disneyland Roller Coaster

A man is killed by a roller coaster at the happiest place on earth. In this order: Shock, sadness, anger, concern.

Shock: How could this happen on what is probably one of the tamer roller coasters in the U.S.?

Sadness: A day of fun inverted, a life destroyed, a family crushed.

Anger: Was maintenance given short shrift? Disney has been in a cost cutting mode for years now. Profit, what toll do you exact from our souls?

Concern: My extended family is having a reunion this weekend at Disneyland. What assures us of our safety?