Rightank

I apologize for not posting anything this past week. I’ve been traveling, but expect some good stuff next week.

The whole Cindy Sheehan saga is the story of a mother who lost her son, joined up with a bunch of left-wing kooks, then used her son’s death to advocate ending the War in Iraq by playing in a ditch near Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas. The “Rallies for Cindy,” spawned by her anti-war fatalism and organized by members of MoveOn.org, are emblematic of what’s wrong with the Left. Glancing through the comments recorded by MoveOn.org from the peacenik vigil, it is easy to pierce through their symbolic gesture of “Support the Troops” to focus on what the mean when the anti-war utter those words:

2-year old who said to me first thing ‘support our troops, bring them home. - Janet A., East Lansing, Michigan

Anti-war rant, from the mouth of babes. Indoctrinating them young, aren’t they? Unfortunately, supporting the war effort does not mean bringing the troops home. Supporting the troops means sending letters of encouragement, supporting the war effort (not discouraging it), and praising and honoring the valiant soldiers who traverse the sand-encrusted deserts of Baghdad. One can disagree with the war effort, but that disagreement cannot be tied to supporting the troops because the troops are fighting the war. You can do both things–disagree and support the troops–but disagreement with the war does not equal support. Rather, the rampant dispargement of our war effort by the Left demeans the soldiers and smacks of disrespect of the military’s sacrifice for our freedoms.

Also, MoveOn’s snapshot of the vigils suggests yet another attempt to compare The War in Iraq to Vietnam:

Being there with my wife and daughter was the most moving moment, sharing comments with another Vietnam era vet. - Hank B., Wethersfield, Connecticut

When the Vietnam Vet spoke. I had just met him and he was quite eloquent and to the point. It was very moving. - Vivian G., Corpus Christi, Texas

Two or three Vietnam veterans happened upon our vigil and join in with love, tears and peace in their hearts. They were very grateful. A mom whose son is leaving in 5 weeks for Iraq was there and was comforted by all the love and connections. A young woman put a photo of here brother in Iraq on our small altar. - Katherine S., Lake Worth, Florida

Try as MoveOn does to re-invent the chicanery of John Kerry and his anti-war crowd, their puny rallies cannot muffle the truth: Iraq is not Vietnam. President Bush isn’t pulling out. Too many Americans are more-informed about the war effort and will not fall for the lies of the anti-war Left. We have won the War in Iraq, the only question remains is how the Iraqis will govern themselves, Islamically or democratically. Too bad Cindy is fighting on the wrong side of history, again.

In accordance with its policy of a continual dumpfest, the White House is granting more and more records in accordance with the liberals demands. In a recently-released memorandum, Judge Roberts described the Supreme Court’s decision to prohibit school prayer as “indefensible. ” Not suprisingly, such a revelation riled up the posse at Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (”AU”). In a press release, AU’s Atheist-in-Chief Barry Lynn responded:

This is just one more piece of evidence that Roberts has spent years working to erode the First Amendment principle of church-state separation, said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. It’s no wonder Religious Right lobbyists are backing his nomination with such enthusiasm.

Public schools serve children of all faiths and none, Lynn continued. It is imperative that our schools leave decisions about worship to parents. Religious minorities would face unrelenting majority pressures if Roberts’ views of the Constitution became the law of the land.

While re-affirming AU’s blind allegiance to their ill-begotten pillar of separation of church and state, Lynn indirectly raises an interesting point. Should schools inculcate the value of prayer in public school? Furthermore, does any type of religious teaching or influence deserve protection in public schools? If you were to ask George Washington, who proclaimed a Day of Thanksgiving, what would he say? How about Benjamin Franklin?

While it is true that the Constitution protects religious majorities and minorities, it does not reject religion neither bar nor prohibit religion in the public arena. Religion plays an indispensable role in instilling moral direction in the lives of youth. School prayer is just one example. While it is the parents charge to teach or open up religious opportunities in a child’s home, it is the Nation’s responsibility to promote religion insofar as religion is necessary for a nation’s moral foundation.

I’m pleased Judge Roberts supports (at least he did support) school prayer and even more pleased that he understands what the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment means and does not mean.

An interesting report was issued this week regarding the impact of political bloggers, particularly the liberals or “progressives.” (I don’t understand why the Left desires to use “progressive” in lieu of “liberal.” Even if they believe this massages the radicialism out of the liberalism, any American who is semi-intelligent will see beyond such linguistic tomfoolery).

The report, entitled “Emergence of a Progressive Blogosphere: A New Force in American Politics,” attempts to argue that liberal bloggers are gaining ground politically through the blogosphere and already carry internet trophies commemorating their enterprising successes.

What is interesting are the “successes” attributed to both liberal and conservative bloggers. In most cases, the successes attributed to liberal bloggers were glorified failures. Conservatives, however, can legitimately claim victories:

Liberal

Outcome: John Bolton was appointed by President Bush as a recess appointment. John Bolton is the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.

Outcome: The Downing Street Memo was mentioned by the press. So what? The memo’s bite was a supposition by a British staffer that the Bush Administration planned to get rid of Saddam before possesses adequate intelligence or evidence to support a war in Iraq. A mere supposition hardly is an accusation or evidence of vindictive intent on Bush to eliminate Saddam without assessing his threat to our national security.

Outcome: This success claim is the most legitimate. President Bush’s social security plan is in the works for next year, however. Thus, at best this success could be described as “defeating W.’s social security plan in 2005.” That’s it.

Outcome: First key word: little. Second key word: noticed. Third key word: affair. Result: If success is measured by hitting the pages of the New York Times, perhaps the authors of the report need to look at the dwindling subscription numbers of the Gray Lady.

Outcome: Hackett lost. If losing is succeeding, the liberals and liberal bloggers are doing a bang-up job.

Conservative

Outcome: Daschle lost to John Thume in the Senate race in South Dakota. Quite a success to clean-out Daschle, although I believe other conservative interest groups like the Club for Growth influenced the race more than the bloggers. Success #1

Outcome: Excellent book by John O’Neill and Jerome Corsi and. New York Times bestseller. Millions read it. Key component in defeating John Kerry. Success #2

Outcome: Jordan made stupid comments alleging U.S. soldiers were deliberating shooting at journalists. Jordan was fired as a result. Success #3

Outcome: Labeling Dan Rather’s deliberate use of a forged memorandum in an attempt to tarnish President Bush’s military service a “charge” implies that the authors of the report believe the charge is untrue. Perhaps, they need to re-educate themselves, but the impish habit liberals have of ignoring the truth in order to push their agenda is hard to break. The truth to Rathergate is here. Rather was forced to recant, even though he still maintains that the memorandum is authentic. Success #4

The authors of the report, Chris Bowers and Matthew Stoller, belie their claim that “progressive bloggers” success on the internet trumphs conservative victories. Even as bloggers, they still seek to liberally spin the truth in order to justify success or rally their cause. The report is interesting, but bogged down in spin. They are right about one thing though: the blogosphere is the campaign headquarters of the future.

Tony Blair’s emphatic decision to deport hate-filled imams and others who support terrorist activities within Britain is a welcome move. Hopefully, his proposals will turn into aggressive action toward eliminating the cancerous terror that preachers are filling young, impressionable Muslim minds in London and elsewhere.

Will the U.S. follow suit? Or, will the U.S. sit on its hands and wait until terror strikes again? President Bush has worked hard to advance the War on Terror outside our Nation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Does his volition extend to our borders as well? On illegal immigration, definitely not. Freedom of speech does not extend to hate-filled, terrorist rhetoric. Those imams who preach terror and praise suicide bombings should be deported. Next, the mosques that welcomed the hate-filled preachers should be shutdown and demolished with a wrecking crew. The message should be sent clear and with an iron fist. No toleration and no deviation. Moreover, terroristic expression in a religious setting is not the type of religious expression the Founders intended to protect when they added the First Amendment religious protections to the Constitution. Only when religion serves as a inculcator of morality and civility does it deserve constitutional protection–the exact opposite of the radical Islamicism spewing out of some imams who preach in the United States.

It is time for the Bush Administration to follow Blair’s lead and actively deport illegal aliens and legal citizens who reside in the United States and preach hatred of the United States, justifying terrorist activities and murder as the cause of Islam.

Yesterday Gerald Howarth, a member of the British parliament, told the Scotish daily The Scotsman that “fanatical Muslims” should get out of the UK if they support the terrorist thugs who murdered several Brits and wounded more than a hundred more on 7/7.

Mr Howarth said yesterday that he is incensed by suggestions from Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, that Britain is “part of the problem” in Iraq - and said that the problem in the UK lies in fanatical Muslims living within our shores.

He is the first mainstream UK politician to suggest that extremist British Muslims should leave for Islamic societies. The government is looking at deporting foreign-born nationals and imprisoning British Muslims who incite or glorify terrorism.

“If they don’t like our way of life, there is a simple remedy: go to another country, get out,” Mr Howarth said. Asked what if these people were born in Britain, he replied: “Tough. If you don’t give allegiance to this country, then leave.”

He added: “There are plenty of other countries whose way of life would appear to be more conducive to what they aspire to. They would be happy and we would be happy.”

Howarth’s gutsy and honest statement hits the nail on the head. Allegiance to the nation is essential to a nation’s survival. If no loyalty exists, then disunity results, ultimately leading to unproductive government and chaotic listlessness of the polity. If there is no allegiance, nationalism, or patriotism of the citizenry, then the nation will eventually cease to exist. Howarth’s voice should resonate with Brits who love their country and desire its continuation for their children and grandchildren. Before another 9/11, the United States should act and deport Muslims sympathetic to al Qaeda. If not, the terrorist cells that exist in the U.S. will continue to flourish and the price paid by Americans will be in the blood of the children and family members. This might sound extreme coupled with Howarth’s statement. Nonetheless, it is hard to deny the reality that if the U.S. and other democratic nations are to survive, terrorism must be rooted out premptively, not post-mortem.

The reaction from the Muslim community was typical: Casting the blame away from the terrorist thug Muslims and pushing it toward a politican who has enough guts to stand up the radical Muslim extremists:

Mr Howarth stressed that the majority of Muslims did adhere to British values and described how the Union Flag had been flown at a meeting he had with Muslims over the weekend. However, his remarks were condemned as “arrogant” and “naive” by the Muslim Association of Britain.

Its spokesman, Anas Altikriti, compared the Tory defence spokesman to those who carried out the attacks on London, saying: “They bombed in order to eliminate people, while he is proposing to eliminate people by deporting them.”

Altikriti does a double take. First, he swaps out murder for eliminate. Next he claims that deportation of citizens is the same as blowing people up in buses using the word eliminate to juxtapose his awful and dishonest interpolation. While deportation could be described as elimination (it’s a stretch), deportation cannot be stretched the same way to describe cold-blooded murder.

Frankly, I’m disgusted by Altikriti’s statement. The survival of the nation-state is of upmost importance, particularly if that nation-state espouses democratic ideals. The national interest trumps individualistic interests. Thus, Great Britain and the other UK countries should boot out the scum who sympathize with the brutal murders of 7/7–and the U.S. better follow . . . and soon.

As a taxpaying citizen, it is agonizing to see money sucked from my wallet and the wallets of other Americans wasted. It is quite another thing to see taxpayer money distributed to non-profit organizations for the betterment of the poor and downtrodden used to promote and financially sustain liberal thought.

Air America, the liberal-leaning, Bush-bashing, talk radio wannabe head-lined by Al Franken received money earmarked for the elderly and inner-city children. The money was funneled from the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club, whose mission statement omits subsidizing terrible talk radio like Air America.

Interestingly, the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club has a program called “Camp Air America.” Camp Air America is a week-long camping extravaganza for kids 8-12, jam-packed with learning opportunities such as ping-pong, cultural fun, and journalism. And of course, Camp Air America is open to all 8 year-old kids regardless of their sexual orientation!

That money is being funneled from a liberal non-profit to sustain a beleaguered station like Air America is not that surprising. Moreover, the clear attempt to indoctrinate impressionable youths to the garbage and sludge that flows from the mouthpieces of Air America by the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club is very disturbing. Their federal and state funding should be cut. The executives should be investigated. They should be ashamed and disgusted. Taking money from the poor and giving it to the an elitist station like Air America. I guess that made the liberals that run Gloria Wise feel better than helping impoverished kids.

How much more can Air America take (besides the bad ratings, mediocre performance, and lack of ad revenue?)

Check out Michelle Malkin’s blog for an excellent wrap-up of events and persuasive analysis of Al Franken’s botched attempt to smooth over the fraudulent business of Air America.

Well, I moved conservative dwellings. The relocation went smoothly, however, I was unable to blog. Rightank will be up and running tomorrow!