I'm Calling It Now: Fred Thompson Will Be President in '08
Mood:  energetic
Now Playing: Life Is A Highway - Rascal Flatts
Topic: Politics
Okay, I'm calling it right now. In 2008 the American people will elect Fred Dalton Thompson President of the United States.

Fred hasn't officially declared his intention to run yet, but I believe he's already running for President. He's just doing it in an unconventional way.

Check out Fred's blog and articles at here.
The Draft Fred Thompson site can be found here.
For information on Fred and the issues, check out this site.

I'll write later on why I like Fred.

Are We Worthy To Inherit Our Fathers' Nation?
Mood:  sad
Now Playing: Jars of Clay - Love Song For A Savior
Topic: Politics
Thoughts About the Election:

The time has finally come. We all knew the Republican reign couldn't last forever. Nothing does.

But if it had to happen, it couldn't have come at a better time. As a whole, Republicans have been getting lazy and corrupt. They've strayed from the Conservative base that elected them and instead chose to be the Party of Spending and Scandal. They've lost both the backbone and the character needed to govern this country. Fortunately, this wake-up call the American people have sent comes at a midterm election and not the Presidential election in '08.

On the flip-side, the Democrats have finally come to power, and the entire country can now judge with certainty what kind of leaders the Democrats make. The country now gets two years of Pelosi, Murtha and Kennedy leading the Nation down a "new" but as of yet unspecified road. I am optimistic that this can only work to the Republicans' advantage come the election in '08.

My optimism stems from the belief that this election did not signal the country straying from Conservative principles, but rather Republicans straying from the Conservative base that put them in power. During these next two years, the Republicans need to learn that the American people do not want two liberal parties. Likewise the Conservative base needs to learn that no matter how bad Republicans get, there are always the Democrats.

To Those Frustrated Conservatives and Republicans:

The ultimate consequences this election has on the Story of America will not likely be known for many years to come. But those consequences depend greatly on how we react right now, in the wake of November 7th. In the decade leading up to WWII, Winston Churchill and a number of other public servants in England spent their time warning the free world of the looming danger. They were widely regarded as war-mongers and outcasts. For those who knew of the threat posed by Germany, the obliviousness of the British Parliament was a source of such frustration and hopelessness that one member of the Foreign Office, Ralph Wigram, actually committed suicide. Wigram was a close ally of Churchill's, and Churchill felt betrayed by his untimely death.

But despite all the setbacks, despite the hopeless frustration of a man watching his country destroy itself while he himself is unable to stop it, Churchill did not follow his friend into depression and ultimate surrender. He stayed and fought, alone at times, but always diligently believing that Right would carry the day, and his greatest moments came always in the face of greatest opposition.

We Republicans claim this country is lacking the very resolve that allowed us to win WWII. But do we have this resolve? Do we have the dedication to doggedly face overwhelming opposition from our own countrymen day after day, setback after setback? We applaud our grandfathers' persistence in the fight against a tangible enemy with tanks and guns and bombs. But we forget the persistence it took in those dark hours before the war when a few good men decided against overwhelming odds and circumstances that they would not be daunted by the media, by their fellow citizens, by their government or even by Herr Hitler and the entire might of the German war machine.

Do we have this resolve, to continue the fight even when we are out of power? Even when our media and our fellow Americans seem to betray us? Do we believe in an ultimate Good more than an immediate Win? If so, then we are worthy to inherit our Fathers' Nation, and will be remembered as Churchills. If not, then we deserve this government we have elected, and history will forget us as it has forgotten Ralph Wigram.

Letter In Response to Townhall Article
Mood:  a-ok
Now Playing: Shinedown- Crying Out
Topic: Religion

Well, I'm back. It's been a while but I've been so busy with work and soccer I haven't had much time to devote to research and writing. But hopefully I'll have more time now that things have calmed down.

This is a letter I wrote in response to an article that can be found at Townhall.com. I really like the author and agree with him on almost every issue. But in this article I took issue with his chastisement of Evangelical Christians for promoting Intelligent Design because of religious motivation. I also took issue with how he calls on Christians to reconcile the Theory of Evolution with Christianity.


Mr. Blake,

Let me first say how much I enjoy most of your articles. They are beautifully written and well-thought out. I've been reading back over previous weeks and came across your articles on the I.D./evolution debate. On this issue I am afraid I completely 100% disagree with you. In your article, you first argue for the validity of evolution (macro), and then you chastise the motivation of I.D. proponents.

Despite your belief in evolution, I will assume you are aware of and recognize the validity of the scientific doubts it raises. I will also assume that you at least recognize some validity in the argument for Intelligent Design. So I won’t bother debating the scientific merits of either. But I will address the issue of trying to reconcile evolution to Christianity.

The first and main reason why evolution is contradictory to my faith as an Evangelical Christian is the issue of sin. One of foundations of Christianity is that God originally made us perfect, but of our own free will we chose to sin. This is in fact the premise on which the Gospels- the entire Bible- is based.

But if we evolved from apes, how is that possible? Were we never perfect? Did we evolve as sinners? Or did we evolve as perfect beings and then suddenly choose to sin? And if there is no fine line between man and apes, how far back in the evolutionary chain does our soul go? Do all animals have souls or did God choose a specific point in evolution to give souls to ape-men?

There are dozens of questions like these that make it nearly impossible to adequately reconcile the theory of evolution as it is taught in schools to Evangelical Christianity. This does not even take into account the debate over how literal the Bible should be taken, and the consequences of interpreting the Bible as symbolic.

I would also like to address your chastisement of Christians for their motivation in fighting for I.D. You claim that we fight for I.D. because we are religiously motivated. I say- darn right! It’s the very same motivation that makes us fight against abortion and the gay agenda. But since our hands are tied when it comes to the separation of the church and government, we are forced to instead base this battle on scientific, not religious merit. In the same way, we fight to keep Nativity Scenes in public schools based on cultural, not religious merit. But I have not heard you argue against those battles.

Personally, I am not as upset or offended by the teaching of evolution and the denial of I.D. as I am by the killing of babies. But for me, they are both symptoms stemming from society’s rejection of God. But please do not ask us to accept evolution as fact simply because it is unpopular not to do so. We have been called a lot worse than “ignorant hicks” for our fight against things like abortion and the liberal agenda. This a small price to pay for what we believe is both the truth and the right thing to do.

The premise on which evolution is based and the conclusion it attempts to prove is that the Universe is self-contained and self-sufficient…yes, there might be a god out there somewhere, but there is no evidence of it in the natural world. Denying Intelligent Design implies that we would still be here if God didn’t exist. Again, if you don’t believe this then you must believe He had SOME kind of influence over our origins, and that is starting to sound a bit like Intelligent Design.

Thank you for your time. I truly do appreciate your articles and your viewpoint, but I felt it was necessary to explain why I disagree with you on this issue.

Minnesota Liberals Against Pro-War Ad Campaign
Mood:  sharp
Now Playing: Lynyrd Skynyrd - Call Me The Breeze
Topic: Politics

Yet another example of Liberal hypocrisy is getting exposure through blogging communities, this time in the Midwest. The Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL) is attempting to get a pro-war commercial made by the Midwest Heroes taken off the air. The reason for this attack on free-speech: the commercial makes the assertions that the media is only showing the negative side of the war, that Iraq was linked to 9/11, and that US troops are fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq right now.

Let us ignore, for the moment, the hypocrisy of the DFL and focus on the validity of the ad’s assertions. The statement about the media is a subjective opinion given by a war Vet, and is not sufficient cause to withhold his 1st Amendment rights. The statement that Iraq was linked to 9/11 is also valid opinion and not necessarily false. Though there is currently no proven cooperation between al-Qaeda and Iraq on 9/11, evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda exist. Additionally, tapes recovered by US forces in Iraq are continuing to reveal new information on Saddam’s involvement with terror.

The statement that US troops are fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq right now is also a very valid and provable opinion. On 2/12, 101 Iraqis associated with Tawhid and Jihad of the al-Qaeda network were taken into custody by an Iraqi led security force (view story here). Prof Rogers, from the Department of Peace Studies at Bradford University made this reference to Iraq when he said "The real gift to al-Qaeda is a long-term urban combat training zone, not a rural one as previously.” Al-Qaeda is sending insurgents in to Iraq to teach them how to fight.

Can these assertions be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt? No. Is there evidence to support the validity of either point-of-view. Yes. But according to the DFL, the debate is over. We know all the facts, we have all the evidence, and it all decisively concludes that Iraq was in no way linked to al-Qaeda and that there is no al-Qaeda movement in Iraq right now.

So let us assume for moment that the DFL is correct and these statements are misleading and false. What Constitutional, or even legal basis is there to remove this add from the airwaves? Is this ad slandering anyone? Is it inciting an uprising? No, of course not. But it does conflict with the Liberal point-of-view. This is the real issue. The DFL stood silent as Dan Rather gave false and slanderous information about Bush’s time in the service. Yet here, when an opinion is aired that contradicts their own, they attempt to suppress it.

To send a message to the DFL, or to read their article on this ad, please visit here.

You can also email Brian Melendez, DFL State Chair directly at bmelendez@dfl.org, or Donna Cassutt, DFL State Associate Chair, at dcassutt@dfl.org.

To view the ad or to show your support for Midwest Heroes, visit their website at www.midwestheroes.com.

Tapes Reveal Saddam Concealed Weapons Information
Mood:  bright
Now Playing: Velvet Revolver - Slither
Topic: Politics

ABC's Nightline revealed tonight the translated content of unclassified tapes that recorded meetings between Saddam and top Iraqi officials before the war. The tapes were brought to ABC by Bill Tierney, a former UN weapons inspector who realized the tapes' importance when he was asked to translate them for the FBI.

The tapes contain 12 hours of dialog between Saddam and his cohorts discussing, among other things, terrorism in the US, concealment of weapons from inspectors and biological and chemical warfare. At one point Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, reveals how Iraq was deceiving the weapons inspectors investigating their weapons program:

"Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this."

He describes Iraq's concealment of their nuclear program:

"As for the nuclear, we say we have disclosed everything but no. We have undeclared problems in nuclear as well, and I believe that they know. There are teams working with no one knowing about some of them."

And Iraq's development of chemical and biological agents:

"We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials."

Hussein also expresses his incredulity that the inspectors did not know about their program:

"How come they [the inspectors] don't know — if they want to? There is what leads to knowledge. There are materials we have imported from America by volume. We have imported from Europe by volume."

What do these statements ultimately reveal about America's justification for going to war with Iraq? They don't reveal evidence that Iraq was in possession of WMD's at the time the war began, but according to Charles Duelfer, who led the US investigation into the existence of Iraq WMD's, "What they do is support the conclusion in the report, which we made in the last couple of years, that the regime had the intention of building and rebuilding weapons of mass destruction, when circumstances permitted."

To read the full Nightline report and to view transcriptions of excerpts from the tapes, including Saddam's discussion of biological terrorism in the United States, visit the official ABC Nightline website.

The Blitherer

Showing Radical Islam How It's Done
Mood:  on fire
Now Playing: Simon & Garfunkel- Bridge Over Troubled Water
Topic: Religion

In a surprising turn of events, Hamshahri, a leading Iranian newspaper has called for cartoons depicting the Holocaust to be submitted for a competition. This is surprising because it actually cleverly and non-violently targets the dilemma the West is currently facing over the issue of free-speech vs. religious respect, or “good taste”. The newspaper wants to know how far the West is willing to go to protect free-speech when something as appalling as the Holocaust is derided and mocked through cartoons.

I think this is wonderful. I welcome the opportunity to show the Arab Muslims how civilized societies respond to offensive free-speech. When the cartoons are published I will protest them by writing scathing commentaries. I will decry the glee and humor the cartoons will most likely contain regarding genocide. I will explain how such a grotesque disregard for human life is a testament to radical Islam.

What I will not do is send death threats to the editors of the newspaper. I will not attack UN Peacekeepers or start violent riots. Nor will I burn down embassies and vow to behead those who offend me. Because the right to free-speech also includes the right to peaceful protest, a concept that is apparently unfamiliar to many Muslims in the Arab world. PEACEFUL protests. Making your displeasure known through debate and dialogue.

The Muslims who are violently protesting the cartoon images of Muhammad cannot seem to comprehend that while the West believes in the freedom of expression, there is a built-in safeguard in that very freedom that dictates it be used responsibly. For example, a major network recently aired a show that was offensive to many Evangelical Christians in America. The network had the freedom to air this show without legislation hindering it. Christians, using that same freedom, were able to protest the show. Eventually, the protesters made it more profitable for the network to cancel the show than to continue airing it. The key here is that this was all done PEACEFULLY.

So bring it on, Iran. Bring on these offensive cartoons. We’ll show you how free-speech REALLY works in the West.

The Blitherer

The Nativity Scene Banned in NYC Schools
Mood:  incredulous
Now Playing: 3 Doors Down- Be Like That
Topic: Religion

Apparently the menorah and the crescent and star are "secular" symbols, while the nativity scene is "purely religious". A big thanks goes out to a federal appeals court in New York, cause I didn't know this. But the court forgot to answer one other question: what about "cultural" and "historical" symbols? I dare anyone to deny that Jesus and his teachings did not have a massive historical and cultural impact. So what's wrong with a depiction of the birth of a cultural and historical icon? Yes, the nativity scene is primarily religious, but so is the menorah and the cresent/star (just ask any practicing Jew or Muslim). If the nativity scene can also be interpreted as cultural or historical then its not "purely religious" and there's no legal basis for banning it, no matter how loose your "interpretation" of the Constitution.

The Blitherer

Islam and the Problem With Globalization
Mood:  sharp
Now Playing: Joan Jett- I Love Rock N Roll
Topic: Politics
The problems with globalization were rudely brought into focus this past week with the sudden and violent outcry of the Muslim community against Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that printed 12 cartoons depicting Muhammad. The newspaper was trying to make a point about censorship and free speech among the Islamic community, and in the process laid bare the very crux of the globalization dilemma. How can any ruling global entity reconcile the myriad of social, religious and legal ideals of independent, sovereign nations?

It is possible that the feverous response brought on by the Muhammad cartoons will die down without serious global repercussions, but what about the next time, or the time after that? The very nature of an international authority is the establishment of a global code based on a certain set of ideals. But the ideals of its member states are often contradictory or mutually exclusive. Does free speech in one country trump religious law in another? In the Arab states, respect for Muhammad is clearly more sacred than free speech. In Denmark, free speech is clearly more sacred than Muhammad’s dignity. Do current international governments have the authority to declare one ideal more acceptable than another?

So far, the official responses of the UN, the EU and the US have included personal condemnations of the cartoons but no official action taken against the newspaper or the nation of Denmark.

On February 2nd European Union Vice-President Franco Frattini stated:

"I personally regard the publication of the cartoons as somewhat imprudent"

And earlier in his statement:

"One of the founding principles of our Europe is freedom of expression, including the right to criticise.
A difference of opinion, even if it is bitter and disrespectful, often feeds into free polemic debate, in which satire plays a full part. We often discuss matters, sometimes passionately or even rudely, not only in our Parliaments or in the press, but in all manner of public arenas. This is the rule now, replacing armed and violent conflict, using words and ideas to create a society bound by the rule of law."

The statement from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan:

"The Secretary-General is concerned over the controversy that has been created by the publication of the Danish cartoons. He believes that the freedom of the press should always be exercised in a way that fully respects the religious beliefs and tenets of all religions. The Secretary-General also believes in the importance of overcoming misunderstandings and animosities between people of different beliefs and cultural traditions through peaceful dialogue and mutual respect."

The US State Department had this to say:

"So while we share the offense that Muslims have taken at these images, we at the same time vigorously defend the right of individuals to express points of view. We may -- like I said, we may not agree with those points of view, we may condemn those points of view but we respect and emphasize the importance that those individuals have the right to express those points of view."

The State Department also stated that “Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images or any other religious belief.” When questioned about the term “unacceptable”, the official spokesperson denied that the term implied the US would take any action with regards to the controversy.

So far, these blanket statements about religious respect and tolerance are as far as these governing bodies are willing to go. They continue to claim respect for the Muslim religion but maintain that free speech trumps that respect. This has worked in the past with other conflicts between religion and free speech, and it might work this time. But eventually the time will come when the progressing globalization of the Muslim community will create an international split. Individual nations will be forced to choose between true freedom of expression and appeasing an increasingly violent Muslim community.

At this point the international governing bodies will have two choices; go along with these nations and abandon the long-held ideal of free speech, or condemn these nations and reveal their true impotence. Buckle up, all you proponents of globalization; this is an impossible situation of frightening and far-reaching consequence which will not be going away.

The Blitherer

It Comes Down to This
Mood:  on fire
Now Playing: Free- All Right Now
Topic: Politics

In an article posted at TownHall.com entitled 58-42: Alito Confirmed- Partisanship Will Prove Costly, Horace Cooper makes the claim that the 58-42 confirmation of Judge Alito will ultimately prove detrimental to the Court. His reason:

"The risk is that the bitter partisanship associated with [Alito's] confirmation could undermine the Court’s independence and authority."

He goes on to explain why the bitter partisanship is a problem:

"When a nominee’s competence, legal skill, and experience are evaluated on what appear to be solely partisan bases, it can’t go unnoticed by the nominee. And finally even the most evenhanded nominee can’t help but notice who their attackers are throughout the hearings and equally as important who their defenders are.
There are two consequences to this state of affairs. First, in the short run, the decisions of judges unduly affected by partisanship begin to appear."

Cooper blames this shift in the confirmation process on Senators like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and special interests groups. But as another blogger pointed out, this partisanship did not originate in the Senate, but rather in the Supreme Court itself, when Judges took it upon themselves to legislate from the bench. Instead of impeaching these judges, the Senate took advantage of this turn of events and encouraged the Judges to act in this manner.

But why? Why do liberals feel they need Judges to do the job of the Senate?

It comes down to this; the Liberals want two things from the Conservative Right. First, they want acknowledgment that their worldview is morally acceptable. Second, they want the legal right to both live out and promote their worldview.

For years Conservatives have been bending over backwards to accommodate these demands. They've caved morally and legislatively on issues like promiscuity, language and entertainment. But as a society, we've finally hit a line that Conservatives are not willing to cave on.

Liberals are attempting the push the envelope on some of the most basic moral values on which Conservatives (led by Fundamental Christians) base their own worldview. These issues concern both the traditional institution of marriage, and the very definition of life itself.

Fundamental Christians refuse to acknowledge the moral validity of gay marriage and abortion. And we never will. It flies in the face of the very core of our beliefs. For Christians, marriage is one of the most sacred symbols of the Church's relationship to Jesus, and is detailed very specifically in the Bible. Life begins in the womb, and to kill it is murder.

Nor will Fundamental Christians and Conservatives allow our country to legislate in favor of these issues. We will fight it tooth and nail because we believe it goes against God's will and the very decency of human nature. We also believe it will propogate the decline of our nation.

Apparently, most people in this country agree with us, which is why Liberals have been largely unsuccessful in getting their legislation passed through the legal process of election. So they have instead turned to the courts. Judges are not elected, they are appointed, which means they do not answer directly to the people they are appointed over.

This is the perfect venue for Liberals to push their "progressive" legislation on the nation, and why the confirmation process has become so partisan. Conservatives continue to nominate judges who will judge impartially without legislating. Liberals know this will set them back in their attempts to subvert the legislative process, hence the bitter partisan confirmation process.

My warning for Liberals: You are trying to subvert the very system of government that makes possible your attempts to promote your own worldview. By doing this you are opening the door for anyone with enough political savvy to undermine the very principles on which this country was founded. This can only result in a true loss of freedom for everyone.

The Blitherer

Ready...Set...GO!!!
Mood:  sharp
Now Playing: Weezer- Hash Pipe
Topic: Politics

Welcome to my blog!

I've had a lot of ideas floating around in my brain for quite some time, so I figured I'd write them out and put them on the internet for all to see.

Just to warn you, I'm conservative and I'm a Christian, so if that's not your thing, keep reading, cause you might learn something. :-)

Below I've included an snippet info that's near and dear to my heart, and what inspired me to get off my lazy bum and post something.

Cindy Sheehan, on her arrest and release in Washington DC (found online here):

I have some lawyers looking into filing a First Amendment lawsuit against the government for what happened tonight. I will file it. It is time to take our freedoms and our country back.

I don't want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ulitmate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government. That's why I am going to take my freedoms and liberties back. That's why I am not going to let Bushco take anything else away from me...or you.

Cindy, however, apparently has no problem with leaders of other countries who prohibit negative statements about the government and take away liberty and freedom. Just last week she attended the World Social Forum in Venezuela during which she embraced Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and expressed her admiration for him...

By the way, a list of missing persons and political prisoners in Venezuela can be found here at vcrisis.com.  Amnesty International also has some very interesting information on human rights in Venezuela.  Double standard on the part of a Liberal torch-bearer?  What a shocker.

The Blitherer