Rightank

The world is wailing. You see, tomorrow is the second term inauguration of the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush. The Libs’ are beside themselves. In fact, I heard Kimberly-Clark had to work overtime to supply enough boxes of Kleenex for the offices of Planned Parenthood, moveon.org, the ACLU, and the Democratic party.

Today’s lead story in UK’s Guardian attempts to project the world’s utter disdain for W. The headline (I’m sure they thought hard about it): “World Fears New Bush Era.” And it just keeps getting better. The esteemed wacko-journalist, Ewen MacAskill, claims that there is “mounting international concern” that the Bush Adminstration (translate: Warmongers) “will make the world a more dangerous place.” Woooh . . . I know I am scared.

The Guardian makes it’s case relying on a BBC poll (geez!) that found people in 18 out of 21 polled countries (not including the highly popular country of Panama) feel Bush makes them “unsafe” or “less secure.”

I wonder why BBC felt the need to conduct the poll. Because, it doesn’t matter what the world thinks of Bush’s re-election. It just doesn’t matter. Screw ‘em. I don’t care what the world thinks or feels about Bush. What I do care about is the direction of our Nation and the safety of my family and my friends. Bush makes me and over 50 million American voters feel safe. There is no question that any attack on the USA will be met with the fierce might of our military under Bush. Hey Frenchy-French et al., we’re not listening to your swarmy cry. Bush and his Administration will hold true to the principles of democracy that have made our country strong and will forcefully defend our interests abroad. If that means staying the course in Iraq, or sacking Kim Jong II, so be it. The Liberals and world elites can flagelate themselves into a frenzy, but America and Bush will not yield. Iraq will soon have a representative democracy, and that example will shine as a light on a hill to the rest of the world and her doubters.

Here’s a great story of a Kuwati who dared to believe that America is a great country and of a college professor wallowing in his self-absorbed mire of Anti-Americanism.

The Federal Marriage Amendment should be one of Bush’s main legislative goals (if not the main goal) for Bush’s second term. Right now, Bush needlessly uses his limited, not limitless, political capital for the immigrant workers program (translate: horrendously stupid idea) and social security reform (translate: really good idea).

Liberals will continue to actively pursue a judical, rather than legislative route toward marriage “equality”–more like “desecration.” Congress must work quickly and forcefully, along-side President Bush, in order for the Marriage Amendment to surrmount the liberal, Democratic waste-dump that prevents its passage.

It is more than interesting that Sullivan admits in a recent blog that radical gay activists (like himself) believe that a judicial decision is not the full equivalent of a democratic, legislative decision on gay marriage. Sullivan characterizes a judical ruling establishing gay marriage as “activity” whereas a legislative decision is pronounced “legitimate.” Why is a legislative decision more sound that a judicial one? Because, a judicial fiat “Thou shalt have same-sex marriage” is an order of a few, in most-cases unelected, unrepresentative black-clothed lawyers whereas a legislative act is representative of the people.

The Four Pyschopath Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Court illegitimately forced same-sex marriage upon the citizenry of Boston et al. At least, in this case, Sullivan has the gumption to openly admit it.

I’ve been reading an excellent book (Bush Country by John Podhoretz) that thoughtfully analyzes Bush’s first three-plus years in office and debunks several “crazy liberal ideas” perpetuated by Bush-haters. Podhoretz, quoting a “close student of Bush,” sheds more light on how W.’s faith interplays with his Presidential direction and instinct:

“The president believes that we are called of God to do the best we can, to act responsibly and ethically and with good judgment. And then you rest in the comfort that God is in control, that history is not random, that He sustains the world that He has created. You do all you can–but you understand the results are not, in the deepest sense, yours to control.

[This] does not mean that you simply act and forget about things; there is a duty to persist in, and fight for, what is right. Justice is not self-executing; it needs advocates here on earth.” But ultimately, “the president’s faith allows him . . . a freedom to act and an inner comfort that others may not possess.”

Sullivan is still miffed (see Bush and the Lord) about W’s statement in the Washington Times regarding the Lord and the Presidency. It’s typical of the Libs’ (and Sullivan is a Lib) to grovel about the separation of church and state and use it as a straw man to bash any connection between government and religion (translate: Christianity). The myth of the separation of church and state is the anti-religionists biggest victory over the past 60 years. I challenge anyone to find that language in the First Amendment . . . Hey Sullivan, get back to me when you’ve found it.

There has been a big hub-bub today over Bush’s comment regarding his faith and its influence on his role as the President of the United States. He said from “my perspective, how you can be president, without a relationship with the Lord.”

The Liberals are in an uproar over this clearly extremist (translate: religious) and divisive (translate: religious) statement. Andrew Sullivan, the gay wanna-be conservative extraordinare, is aghast, calling W.’s comments an “anathema to this country’s traditions and to the task of toleration.” To what traditions does he refer? The tradition of praising God daily as Congress begins its session? The prayer echoed in the Supreme Court before the Justices hear a case: “God save this Honorable Court”? Thanksgiving? Christmas?

What is the “task of toleration”? OK, for Sullivan it’s equal rights for homosexuals et al., especially gay marriage. Does toleration include, by chance, not jumping into a sissy (oops, I mean tissy) fit over a man’s belief in Christ or God? Or does toleration mean that religious zealots (translate: Christians) must silence themselves and Never, Never, say anything about their religious beliefs publicly as it might offend some defenseless mind who’s life will shatter to pieces upon hearing such words as faith, God or traditional marriage.

Another example is the litany of comments attached to truthpusher’s post regarding Bush’s expression of faith at the Liberal Haven democraticunderground.com. Here’s one snobbish comment (See post by muse): “His remarks are always so off the cuff and not well thought out. No depth. It’s hardly worth analyzing these remarks and commenting on them because they are so sophmoric. That’s the problem. We have a man as our president who continually rattles on in a light weight manner every time he opens his mouth”. . . I mean sophmoric . . . even better: dopey.

Liberals and those who hate religion in the public square (e.g., the Reverend Barry “Separation” Lynn) will always equate Christian religiousity with stupidity. But, if you’re an Islamist and preach hate of anything American then you’re tolerant and introspective.

Well, here’s my tolerant post:

“I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Thanks W. for keeping the time-honored tradition of having a President who believes in God and Jesus Christ. And all you Libs’, stop your whining.

It seems that the mainstream press have an overreactive impulse to bash Bush at any cost and the ideals he stands for, particularly his clarity of purpose on fighting the War against the Muslim terrorists.

Donald Rumsfeld, beginning his fourth term as Secretary of Defense, will face the wrath of the liberal’s Monte Blanc. (Perhaps, the libs’ writing instrument of choice is a pen filled with organically-processed black ink–never red, because the Republicans are red, and they don’t want nothing to do with Red-Staters . . .)

Liberals hate Rumsfeld for Abu Ghraib. Liberals hate Rumsfeld because he’s a straight-talker (i.e., honest). But, unfortunately for the libs’, Rumsfield isn’t going to roll over and die. He’s far too chiseled and savy, far too dedicated to see America’s infusion of hope into the Middle East (particularly Iraq) succeed. David Frum, author of The Right Man, among other great books, noted the following on National Review Online that vividly captures one of Rumsfield’s most admirable qualities: honor. (See “Tears for the Wounded“).

America may never see another Sec Def like Rumsfield. For our sake, I sure hope it does.

Senator Barbara Boxer is out of her freakin’ mind. Will liberals ever get a grip? The election is OVER. It’s went bye-bye. It’s done. That includes you too, Senator Boxer.

If you didn’t hear, Senator Boxer screamed loudly today about the “franchise,” the right of each American (not illegal I assume . . . separate question: Can you be illegal and be American?) to vote. She said that one’s vote should be counted regardless of status, from the dot.com millionaire to hapless peasant (OK, I threw in “hapless”). Now, it might be just me, but, I do not know any American peasants. Does she think of herself as a noble, and her constituents peasants? Is a homeless person a peasant (in Berkley, they’d be nobles)? It is absolutely hilarious to believe that if you’re rich your vote counts more than a poor person or vice versa, if you’re poor that your vote counts more that if you’re rich. When I cast my vote for Bush in November, the poll worker did not ask me how much money I made before he gave me permission to vote. Maybe I’m just the exception.

Here’s more of what loud-mouth Boxer said, quoting her remarks from the Senate floor: “Every citizen of this country who is registered to vote should be guaranteed that their vote matters, that their vote is counted, and that in the voting booth of their community, their vote has as much weight as the vote of any Senator, any Congressperson, any President, any cabinet member, or any CEO of any Fortune 500 Corporation.”

How pathetically distasteful, Senator Boxer. Do you really believe this? How could anyone with an IQ over 35? Bush won fair and square (in 2000 and 2004), so get over it, please.

Maybe California should consider recalling Boxer as well.

Conservative thought (or as I like to think of it enlightenment), is the weapon that won W. four more years. Although W.’s forceful, unapologetic stance on the War on Terror and traditional marriage was important, conservative bloggers and radio commentators (Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh et al.,) carried this message to his supporters, voters, and those sitting on the independent fence. Rightank adds its might to the conservative bloggers and is founded upon the ideals of our Founders (nationalism, family, liberty, integrity of purpose, and self-reliance–more on this in future posts).

By all means, Rightank does not advocate squashing liberals in the literal sense–that is, turning them into mush. Rather, Rightank will focus on turning liberal thought into mush (not edible mush, though, as I don’t want Michael Moore emailing me and demanding food).

Rightank is not a Bush Kool-Aid drinker. Rightank is a a conservative bastion, not Republican. Rightank will critically analyze both sides, but, always come out on the Right . . . Tank.

Rightank looks forward to the invigorating adventure and challenge of stepping into the Blogosphere.