Rightank

The undeniable success of the Iraq election (in terms of voter turnout) is what it is–undeniably successful. Why? Primarily, because of W’s vision of a free, democratic Iraq and the blood of our soldiers that stained the soil and sands of Baghdad and Fallujah. The Iraqis braved the bullets of fellow Iraqis turned terrorist madmen, dipped their finger in purple ink, and celebrated the feeling of voting in an democratic Iraq:

“The Iraqi people Sunday stuck a finger in the eye of the country’s vicious insurgency and its former jackbooted rulers. The finger, of course, was stained in the purple ink that marked participation in Iraq’s first meaningful election in 50 years.

Iraqis braved the insurgents’ threats and all the predictions of gloom to plant the flag of nascent democracy in their country. How many lives of American GIs, innocent Iraqi victims of terror, and Iraqi government officials, professionals, and election workers targeted for assassination have been lost to make yesterday possible? The Iraqis took a step to making good on all those terrible losses. Which is just one reason why the spectacle of Iraqis lining up to vote–and sometimes cheering and dancing with joy–was so moving.”

Iraqis took a gigantic leap toward democratization. Although the terrorist fighters will still wage their demonic war against Iraqis and the United States, freedom will endure. We must continue to fight, continue to use our resources to destroy the fundamentalist religious fanatics who are waging a holy war against us.

The Iraqi election is a sign of hope, a beacon of freedom to other Muslims in the Middle East, and a smile to my face and the face of Americans who savor the principles of democracy.

A fantastic salute to Hollywood for helping W. secure a 2nd term (special thanks to big fatso Michael Moore).

Are you dreading that extra money in your wallet this year? Do you wish you could give away that pay raise you slavishly worked for and earned? Well, no fear, state, local, and world governments are eagerly waiting to strip the money from your calloused hands and into their greedy, bottomless pockets.

In San Francisco, the city of gay rainbows and bums, the city’s Deparment of the Environment (translate: Environmental Wackos) announced that San Francisco should institute a 17 cent tax on all plastic grocery bags used by customers at local grocers. Fantastic! And, I’m sure it’s purpose is to “encourage recycling.” Yeah, this is a fabulous idea. Maybe the Department of the Environment could get the Homeless to safeguard all the revenues the tax rakes into the city treasury. Now that would be progressive. . . Does San Francisco have no shame? What’s next, each box of McDonalds french fries will cost you an extra 10 cents?

In France, the Mr. French-French himself Jacques Chriac proposed an international tax to support the fight against HIV/AIDS. He called the tax “experimental,” and suggesting the airlines or fuel transportation industries are prime for this compassionate tax. This overly-generous gesture by Chirac will fail and should fail. It’s bad enough that we Americans are taxed three times (state, local, and federal). Hey Chirac, bug off. Calling a tax “experimental” is government-code for “of infinite duration” or permanent. Plus, who is going to handle/swindle the money? The Bank of France? Kofi Annan’s son?

In Indiana, the new governor has proposed slapping a 1% tax on individuals who earn $100,000 plus annually. This is disgusting, particularly from a Republican governor. The governor, Mitch Daniels, says that the “most fortunate” group of Indianians should graciously except this “one-time” tax in order to restore balance to the state’s bank account. How callous. I wonder if the esteemed Governor feels that “most fortunate” means your the lucky group to get taxed or that you’ve made over $100 grand? I don’t know about anyone else, but, I earn my money, not fortunate it.

These sad cases illustrate the importance of electing wise leaders who are fiscally conservative and are working to cut goverment and curb spending programs so we as Americans can keep more of the money we earn and distribute it how we want. It’s our money, and sooner or later, we might have to stand up and fight for it.

Enviro-wacko articles like this make me want to buy a Hummer (if I could). The author (Robert Pryce) preens that hybrid-friendly legislation would (finally?) be a “success story that [neocons] could brag about.” Instead of what you ask? The most successful military operation in history: the Iraq war. Also, does it occur to the crackpot author that Iraqis will democratically elect their new leadership this weekend? I guess, to some on the left, a clean environment trumps liberty and democracy.

Colin Powell gave his farewell address to members of the State Department this past week, the day after Condoleeza Rice endured the haughty posturing of Democratic Senators during her confirmation hearing. Powell’s departure leaves in his wake a State Department still chuck full of Libs’ who believe that the United States’s interest is not their number one priority.

Powell’s farewell remarks are encouraging. Particularly, he lauds the efforts of the State Department in reacting to 9/11 and bringing freedom to Afghanistan and Iraq. He even called the regimes of Hussein and Taliban “despotic.” What courage!

However, Powell’s speech wanders in the internationalist mire that places our interests beneath other nations:

“We have not shrunk from the challenges. We are focusing on Iran and North Korea and trying to persuade them that there is a better way. We put the spotlight on these kinds of problems. We solved the problem in Libya of weapons of mass destruction. We hope other nations that are thinking in those terms will come to the same conclusion that the Libyans did.”

9/11 forced our Nation to change its posture toward other countries of our world. We must wage a preemptive battle against the religous terriorists who seek to destroy us. Preemption is not persuasion, unless we say: Hey North Korea, you know, if you don’t get rid of your nuclear ambitions, we’re going to wipe you off the face of the planet. But, I have a feeling that this level of persuasion is not what Powell is refering to when he spoke “persuasion” as retiring Secretary of State. Powell meant diplomacy, the hobnobing with dictators and their minions in hopes that they’ll wake up one day and say “Geez, I should dismantle my nuclear and biological weapons programs because that American from the Department of State is such a nice guy/gal.” This form of diplomacy might work for stable countries, but it doesn’t work with psychopaths (e.g., President of North Korea) and religious fanatics.

Libya learned from what our military did in Afghanistan and Iraq–regime change. Libya is fearful of our military might, and desires to remain relatively alone in the Middle East. That’s why Libya discontinued their weapons programs, not because of hobnobing between Kadhafi and Powell.

Hopefully Condi chooses to persuade the Axis of Evil–not only via skillful and strategic argument, but with an AK-47 . . . made in America.

Norman Mineta, Bush’s appointed czar of the Department of Transporation (”DOT”) should leave. Now.

The DOT’s lastest case of ineptness concerned the inability of Air Marshals to communicate with the FAA’s Mission Operations Center in Washington D.C. This is slightly problematic due to the fact that the Marshals could not retrieve any terrorist-related information that would assist them in selecting which flights to board to prevent terrorists from wreaking havoc with our planes (like 9/11) on the eve of W.’s inauguration. But, hey, at least the Air Marshals were wearing suits and ties, right?

Mineta might not share all the blame for this embarassing event, but his governing of the DOT has been pathetic. Also, he not helped matters in advocating that airport screeners should be precluded from targeting potential terrorists based upon their racial characteristics (Doesn’t his speech make you feel protected?).

Now, I realize the TSA (”Transporation Security Administration”) is not under his control. But, the FAA is closely intertwined with the TSA, and Maneta’s policies with regard to airport screening have not yet been lifted.

If our government cannot speedily identify potential terrorists (Thou shalt not racial profile) or receive data regarding potential terrorists in order to safeguard a few of our airplanes, we are going to be in a world of hurt, sooner than later. Mineta’s firing would be a great first step toward a safer America.

I hate the American Civil Liberities Union (”ACLU”). It is an anti-American organization, full of socialists, liberal elites, militant gays, and moral relativists. The ACLU is beloved by the main-stream media hacks, who laboriously seek their comments like the leprechan looking for the pot-o’-gold at the end of the rainbow.

The ACLU disguises its anarchial scheme of dethroning traditional, American values (e.g., freedom of religion, marriage) by projecting a hardy defense of our Constitution. Rightank will critically analyze the ACLU’s mission over the next two weeks, prong by prong.

The first prong of the ACLU’s mission is to “protect and preserve”:

“Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.”

In order to carefully analyze this statement, it is helpful to read the text of the First Amendment in its entiriety:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It is interesting to note, first off how the ACLU separates the enumerated rights, as it is naive to believe that the ordering of the rights is grammarical happenstance. First off, in the Amendment religion is listed first wheras the ACLU joyfully puts it last. Second, the ACLU creates a ideolgical chasm between the rights. The ACLU appears to fully support the rights of free speech, peaceful assembly/assocation, and press. However, the ACLU qualifies the right of freedom of religion, stating that they support that only when viewed as a “strict separation of church and state.” Hmmm . . . I don’t see that anywhere in the First Amendment.

The ACLU interprets the Establishment Clause “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” as requiring this strict separation of church and state. Why? The answer is two-fold:

1. They rely on the U.S. Supreme Court’s illogical 1947 decision in Everson v. Board of Education that the Establishment Clause “intended to erect a wall of separation between Church and State” (quotations omitted).
   
2. They do not want freedom of religion, rather freedom from religion (translate: Christian religion).

Recent activity of the ACLU demostrates their antagonism for Christianity. The ACLU has fought several times in federal and state courts to strip courtrooms and civic buildings of Ten Commandments displays, school vouchers programs that allow parents to send their children to religious schools with public funds, and traditional government symbols of religious expression of faith in God, such as the Pledge of Allegiance.

Currently, Congress is working on a bill that would prohibit the federal courts from hearing any case or claim that would prevent the Pledge of Allegiance from being recited in our schools. The ACLU’s letter protesting this bill is a perfect example of the ACLU’s bigoted approach to the Establishment Clause. It calls such a measure by Congress “extreme,” and that it would endanger the rights of religious minorities (who cares about the majority).

The fact is that a majority of this country is Christian, and our nation is a Christian nation. It is founded upon Judeo-Christian principles (e.g., the Bible) and a deep faith in God–which abhors the ACLU. The ACLU is simply more concerned about gutting religious expression from public and civic life (maintaining the strict separation) rather than upholding the American religious symbols and expressions that the Founders of our Nation intended the First Amendment to safeguard . . . And their mission statement and actions prove it.

As I wrote yesterday, W. will protect our nation’s security above else. His thought-provoking inaugural speech indicates as much:

“My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test America’s resolve, and have found it firm.”

I wonder what Kerry’s most solemn duty would have been . . . timely Botox treatments?

At least there is one federal judge who will uphold DOMA.

Here’s a must read on W’s inauguration.