The Briefing

Thanksgiving is Not Dead

2006-11-20T06:03:00.000-05:00

Many people express their disgust regarding the commercialization of Thanksgiving. But is it really that bad? To me it seems that the commercialization of Thanksgiving is the very thing that has escalated the holiday into one of the four major holidays of the year where distant family members gather to commune and celebrate with one another (Independence Day, Christams, and New Year's being the other three). I mean, would we really feel compelled to drive countless hours with crying babies and frequent bathroom breaks using toilets that even God himself has forsaken with the primary purpose of spending time with our families? I would answer this by saying 'no.' I think that it is the commercialization of Thanksgiving that rends the couch potato off of his hotseat and sets those spuds on the road for what typically results in a much more enjoyable weekend. There are other national holidays which we celebrate as a nation that are unable to do what the commercialization of the four holidays has done to us: Veterans' Day, Memorial Day, MLK, St. Patrick's Day, and even Valentine's Day. Could it be that these holidays do not mean as much to our nation as the four primary holidays? Perhaps. All I am saying is that the commercialization of the four holidays has a track record of bringing family members together here in the US, and that should not be overlooked. Commercialization tends to be a negative thing whenever values are lost or overlooked. Such should not be the case with Thanksgiving.

The Media Cannot Do It Justice

2006-03-15T14:16:00.000-05:00

Over the past week, I was working at the St. Benard Parish outside of New Orleans. I will spare the minute details because the entire experience could written about extensively. However, there are a few details that I would like to highlight.

Entering the parish, I realized that the images on the news were real. Yet, the camara is unable to depict the atmosphere accurately. Boats were on the shores, stores were destroyed, stoplights were out, and trash was everywhere. I even got the feeling that the police officers who were still working were not even concerned that I was speeding through the city. It was if the locals of the region had entered a state of somber acceptance; they had come to terms with the disaster while understanding that life continues.

There were 15 people with our group from NC State University, and we were volunteering with the Samaritan's Purse (the organization started by Franklin Graham). The work was HARD and INTENSE! But, it was so much fun and life changing. We had the opportunity to talk and pray with the homeowners, and we got to see the devastation first hand.

Our responsibility was to clean out the houses and prepare them for reconstruction. We labored through muck and mire, we tore down the walls, and then swept the floors. It sounds simple, but it was tough. In one week, we cleared 3 homes (the average for a group of 15).

There's so much to say, that I write another web log about it soon.

American Abusers

2006-02-15T14:15:00.000-05:00

More disturbing images have been released reflecting the cruel treatment of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers at Abu Ghraib. I would first like to say that I completely support our efforts in Iraq, and more importantly, I support the efforts of our US military. I do not support, however, the lawlessness of a few of this nation's military recruits as they go against everything that is humane as they abuse and demoralize the prisoners.

I believe that full legal action should be taken against these insubordinates while some form of appeasement be made to the prisoners for their dehumanization. We are not savages; therefore, we should not act in accordance to a nature that would deem us to be such.

Understanding that their actions would perhaps lead to the deaths of current American war prisoners, I would say that these insubordinates were acting in manner that is far from patriotic. I am both confused and disturbed. In order to demonstrate the validity of our military efforts in Iraq, such aforementioned abuses should not be tolerated nor should they be repeated, so now the powers that be should make an example of these American soliders.

Wal-Mart Woes

2006-02-14T13:42:00.000-05:00

I am a bit confused about a recent article that I read regarding one of our nation's largest distributors. It appears that in Massachusetts Wal-Mart is being forced to make emergency birth control pills available to its consumers. State policy in Mass. indicates that failure to comply with this law is, well, illegal.

I find that difficult to believe. To me, it's absurd that state governments can force businesses (in particular the pharmaceutical branch of Wal-Mart) to sell a product that the owners of Wal-Mart obviously disagree with selling. Whatever happened to sole-proprietorship? Why cannot American business owners sell or refuse to sell whatever products they desire within reason? I find it very disturbing to think that our government has the ability to force the sell of items that often are not necessities.

Some one may argue that if a woman were raped, then she should have a right to such pills; therefore, Wal-Mart should be forced to sell them. I disagree because rapes only constitute about 1% of abortions in America meaning that such a case is minute. By no means am I belittling the seriousness of survivors of rape nor am I being insensitive. Nevertheless, I strongly believe that forcing a large corporation to sell such a product is a gross misuse of state governmental power.

Color of Christ

2006-02-06T15:05:00.000-05:00

I find it disturbing that the goal for the new movie Color of Christ is to "introduce the black community to new ideas about Christ." Was I upset to see all of the pictures of a white Jesus while growing up? Yes, I was. But, to perpetuate another lie about Jesus' skin color is just as disturbing. We are just as sure that Jesus was not "Black" as we are sure that he was not "White." All we know about Jesus' skin color for certain is that he was dark.

What I am seeing and what I have seen is that whenever the Black Community attempts to combat Jesus' phenotype, we have done it in ways that are counter productive to the message of Jesus Christ: he died and rose from the dead so that we can believe in him in order to live. However, whenever the Christ's physical features are debated in an untruthful manner (i.e. arguing that Jesus was Black or more black than white instead of portraying him as a Hebrew), the message gets lost in the phenotypic jargon. It's quite unfortunate.

I don't think that we should allow ourselves to get caught in the net of vain ideologies. It's just not effective - at least not to me.

Bush Bashing

2006-01-30T15:05:00.001-05:00

Why do we continually have to deal with the liberal persuasion whenever it comes to our current president? It seems that there are a series of plays in Manhattan which discuss and address many of the shortcomings of our current administration.

My frustation comes in whenever I consider that much of this liberal persuasion is so far left that the good deeds of the administration are drowned in the sea of lies and biases. To me, that's not good reporting, nor is it a good represenation of the leader of our nation.

I will always think that Bush has made some decisions that I am against. Yet, his reasoning, I can sometimes understand. Other times I cannot. But, to highlight the downfalls of his administration alone seems to be naive and irresponsible.

I am not asking that liberals become conservative - just sensible.

Bush Bashing

2006-01-30T15:05:00.000-05:00

Chirac

2006-01-19T15:06:00.000-05:00

I have noticed that there are quite a few things happening in the news today. I have found it difficult to pinpoint an issue that invokes thought while enabling me to express my full opinion on the matter. We are aware of the threats made by Osama about which we all have our own opinions. On that, I respect our governments rigidity: 'The United States does not negotiate with terrorists.'

However, my concern arises regarding our distant but relatively loyal French government. Jacques Chirac has announced that a terrorist attack in France will result in France using nuclear weapons on the accused nation. I think that such rash decisions should be more closely considered.

Our world has seen the lasting effects of nuclear warfare. We know that such tactics are brutal and inhumane although necessary under the most impossible conditions. That said, we have not fully seen the force of terrorism. Therefore, we should truly consider that a nuclear attack would not only harm more innocent lives, but it would ultimately ignite the fires of our enemies. Are we seriously prepared for such global animosity? Tensions are high enough already. I think that nuclear warfare should be a last resort, not the primary.

Carolina Panthers

2006-01-16T01:10:00.000-05:00

I must preface this by saying that I am 100% a Kansity Chiefs Fan! However, I AM an North Carolinian so my Carolina Panthers are a very close second. I did like the Chiefs before the Panthers were established; that's the only reason Carolina is not number one to me.

That said, the Panthers are in the NFC Championship and I cannot be more excited. I was in Charlotte earlier, but I could not await the return of the Panthers at Bank of America stadium.

Anyway, if you need to pull for a team to win the NFC Championship and the Super Bowl, you can always cheer for the the Panthers. Thanks for your allegiance.

Complaints about the Administration

2006-01-13T11:42:00.000-05:00

Rev. Al Sharpton is a man whom I do respect. I respect him because he is able to stand behind a cause while persevering to see the cause to the end. I respect him because I think that he is a genuine man who honestly believes everything that he says. I don't think that his motives are impure in that he is simply rallying Blacks and members of the democratic party for his own personal gain. And for that, I do respect him.

However, I completely disagree with his arguments and with his approach. In a recent article in the Darthmouth Online Al Sharpton addresses the Bush administration and its inadequacies. The article mentions that Sharpton's remarks trail closely behind the upcoming MLK holiday. I find that personally disturbing for two reasons: 1) MLK never wanted to enforce a racial divide and 2) MLK represented positive empowerment of the people. Al Sharpton has stomped on both of these issues by bitterly reminding people of the past rather than invoking them to change the future.

For anyone to still complain about the response to Katrina is absurd to me. There are other issues that these survivors have to deal with, and placing the blame is not one of them. Sharpton brought up the infamous Liberal Trump Card WMD in Iraq. But what so many people fail to realize is that "[Iraq] Confirmed to UN in 1995 that it had a clandestine nuclear weapons scheme following revelations by Saddam Hussein's brother-in-law who had defected."

I give no credibility to arguments that simply criticize and point out inadequacies because such arguments do not aid the development of our nation. What we need to do as a nation - as patriots to the United States - is recognize our shortcomings and mistakes, correct them, and set up infrastructures that will keep such from reoccurring.

Alito thinks the Same Thing

2006-01-10T11:34:00.000-05:00

I have been away for a while due to inconsistencies with my internet access, and for that I do apologize.

Judge Alito was forced to defend his 1991 decision for believing that a man should have the right to decide if a his child should be aborted. It's interesting to me because I was having the same thoughts a few days ago before this issue with Alito emerged.

I find it disturbing that a man cannot decide if his child will be aborted, but if the woman keeps the child he could be forced to pay child support. This inconsistency says to me that the woman is not entirely responsible for the life of the child as our liberal friends have made it seem. In North Carolina, child support is about 367 dollars a month. That's not much considering the challenges of raising a child, but it only shows that our government policy indicates that the man, too, is responsible.

That said, I think that it's necessary for the father to be granted the same ability to be responsible in the case of abortions. There is no reason for a wife to be able to make an automonous decision about a child that belongs to both her and her husband. And I'd even go as far as to say that an unmarried man deserves that right as well. One songwriter puts it this way: "It takes two to make a thing go right, It takes two to put it out of sight." There's a bit of validity in that.

We Didn't Ask for This, But This is What We Do.

2005-11-06T13:33:00.000-05:00

I have recently discussed a very interesting topic with a close friend of mine. I asked her this question: "Knowing that we had to engage militarily with one nation, which nation should it have been: China, North Korea, Venezuela, Iraq, Iran, or Syria." All things considered, I concluded that such was definitely a good question.

I think that an invasion of China would be a waste of military resources. I'm not saying that we'd lose, but I am saying that it'd definitely be a fight. The problem with invading North Korea is that we've tried that before, and as we can see, it was not as effective as we would have liked. Venezueala is a joke for now. Iran is a beast. Iraq with Saddam was a wise choice, and Syria is a threat only because of its allies.

Now, we know that it's absurd to stand back and allow dictators to run the earth. We tried that approach in the 1920's and all of Europe was devastated by its consequences. So, now we have the unwanted but desparately needed role of being the global police. We're not perfect, but I think we're dang good at it.

Stupid War in Iraq!

2005-11-06T12:31:00.000-05:00

Many people tend to hate the war in Iraq. In fact, the opinion polls regarding our success in the war effort shows that a growing majority of the US is against the war. I think that such animosity arises due to articles such as this one: Iraq battle stress worse that WWII . In this article, Michael Smith describes how many of the soldiers are petrified to even fire their weapons for fear of being court marshalled.

Now, I don't think that such articles should be silenced. But, it seems that the liberal media is mainstream; therefore, the balance of similar more conservative viewpoints are neither shown nor expressed. The truth is that many people - liberal and conservative - believe whatever they hear because people tend not to want to research things for themselves. That said, we have our liberal propaganda experts to thank for the lack of morale and support for the War in Iraq.

Do I think that our current administration should be more upfront with the successes? Absolutely. But the problem is that even when the successes are presented, we have the liberal voices drowning these successes with their alleged failures (i.e. 2000th US soldier death).

With the lack of support for the war, the most detrimental thing for our troops and citizens of Iraq is ahead: the pullout of our military. To me, it seems that political pressure will provoke the 2008 elected president - democrat or republican - to 'bring our troops home.' I really wish that our currect administration as well as the media would inform people just how inconceivable the results of such would be.

So What? They're Poor Anyway.

2005-11-04T15:15:00.000-05:00

I have just read a disturbing article. Many extreme conservatives will disagree with my stance here. Nevertheless, these kinds of things frustrate me about the republican party. The article is entitled Senate Approves Cuts to Social Programs. This article describes how the Senate has recently voted 52-47 to cut funds allocated to the elderly for healthcare, to the poor, and to those who are disabled all in the name of wise spending.

I am not an advocate of programs that are solely designed at spoon feeding a particular branch of society. However, I do not deny that such treatment is necessary in order for the expected steps to take place. What I mean is this: I think that social programs should have the purpose of meeting the temporary need while empowering the individual to succeed in our society. I admit that I our social programs do not. Yet, when you take away funds from the temporary fix, the long-term solutions are taken away as well. I am outraged that there was even consideration to cut food stamps! There are many other areas to cut government spending (i.e. NASA).

For example, let's say there is a single mom who is going to school while providing for her two children. She works, pays for their daycare services, provides food and clothing for her children. Her goal is to get off of welfare, but she knows that it is welfare that is sustaining her at that time. To cut her fund allocation would be to set her back even more than she has already been, and that's absurd to me. I'm sorry. That's stupid to me.

Granted, there are others who are not so ambitious. But, I think that if social programs would give people a greater vision for opportunity and success, then the poverty rate would slowly decrease because people would be self-motivated to succeed. This decision by our elected officials just seems senseless to me. I am deeply hurt by the apparent lack of compassion. I really hope that the bill doesn't pass.

African American Black Negro

2005-11-04T10:20:00.000-05:00

I found this comment: 'I have a problem with the term African American...The word negro is a perfectly good word. There is nothing wrong with that' -- Andy Rooney on Imus 11/4/05, MSNBC, 8:45am ET.

It seems to me that the attempt to classify Blacks in America is a difficult and 'touchy' subject. Depending on who you ask, a different term is in order. There are those who prefer African American, those who prefer Black, those who prefer Negro, and even some who prefer people of color.

When it comes to my personal preference, I refer to myself as a Black American. Ultimately, I'd like to be called a Nigerian-American, or an Ethipian-American, South African American - you get the picture. The problem is that so many American Black people have no genealogy that links them to a nation or a specific African culture. Therefore, such specific identification is imperative.

The term African American is inaccurate because according to modern thought, we all are of an African descent. So, such a term is all inclusvie as well. Black appears to be the most accurate, but even black is a far cry off from describing Black Americans.

Al Sharpton has no problem with the term people of color. I do. People of Color implies that white is the standard, but white is a color as well. I would even contend that the title for the NAACP (National Association for the the Advancement of Colored People) is a bit outdated in that colored is offensive to me.

Regarding the term negro, I just refuse to be labeled as such. That word is to close to n*gger of which I will not be called. Some people prefer negro, but I don't know anyone who does. I will say this. If Andy Rooney ever called me a Negro, I'd probably have to count backwards from 1o.

Repent or Perish

2005-10-25T11:29:00.000-04:00

I have just read a disturbing article about how Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas has expressed its excitement about particular events such as the hurricanes, and 9/11. The church also has deemed that the cure for homosexuality is AIDS. Question: Why would anyone say something SO STUPID!?

Since this issue is regarding the Church, I'll take the biblical approach. Self-righteous Christians (or Christians who believe that because of our beliefs we are superior) have completely forgotten that we are only right with God because of the sacrifice of Jesus. Does that mean that we should compromise our beliefs? NO! But it does mean that we should approach every issue with compassion and love.

Whenever God judged a nation in the Hebrew Bible, he always longed for their return to him. In fact, mercy triumphs over judgment 100% of the time. That said, organizations like the ACLU and others who are anti-Christian are this way because such churches have given Jesus the wrong name. Christ makes a name for himself, and we as Christians have the privelege of representing him.

It's sad to see that the church has lost it's vision. We have resulted to hatred and name-calling because we have not been taught how to love and embrace. I make no excuses for the lifestyles of people who are sexually immoral, homosexuals, liars, uncontrollable, slanderers, gossips, etc. Yet, I do say that our solution is to serve our community and let Jesus change the lives of those whom we come in contact with. Let's not be foolish. Remember we were not born Christians; that's why we had to be born again.

Away

2005-10-21T12:57:00.000-04:00

I'm out of the web log loop right now because I have been traveling to different cities: Charlotte and now Raleigh. I'll try to keep up though.

I-RAN should RUN and hide! Iran claims now that they are not looking to build nuclear weapons, they simply need nuclear power for the rising demand. This sounds great until the WMD Grand Opening that I'm sure Iran will host once their nuclear program is complete.

That said, now I must prepare to go to Raleigh. Have a good weekend.

The Forming Alliance

2005-10-18T11:04:00.000-04:00

It has come to my attention that there is a pending alliance that is occuring with our South American neighbor Venezuela. Intelligence shows that President Chavez has found it necessary to form alliances with Iran and Cuba's own Castro. Along with these alliances, Chavez deems it necessary to advance Venezuela's nuclear technology (a decision that I would not disagree with).

I have a brief assessment of this situation since I am need to go to Charlotte today. Chavez is making a costly decision. Nothing good can come out of such an alliance. The one set back is that Venezuela owns many oil reserves which our nation will be panting hungrily for in the coming years. That said, we need to ensure that we institute a domestic policy that will put energy conservation in the forefront while researching costly and effective alternate energy sources. When the US becomes self-sufficient in these areas, we can truly live out our role as the global police officer. That said, Chavez, you're under arrest.

Therefore Choose Life: The Letter I am Going to Send to My Elected Officials

2005-10-16T12:13:00.000-04:00

I am writing to you because I am concerned about the legislation concerning abortion in our state and in our nation.

Countless mothers become pregnant unexpectedly. Fearing the worse for their lives and the lives of their unborn children, many of these mothers in our nation choose to abort these children. When their child faces poverty, an unsafe environment, and perhaps even the absence of a father, why would abortion not be a viable option?

Believing that life is a better alternative, I am convinced that government intervention is imperative. Am I suggesting that these pre-mothers be compelled to choose life for their unborn child? No, such is not the case at all. Yet, I am certain that more effective programs and legislation should be in place for mothers who desire to keep their babies.

What should such programs include?
1) Mothers should be given substantial tax breaks – not simply right offs for dependents.

2) Mothers should only be left to fend for themselves ten years after the birth of the child. That said, we should remember that children do not simply need life’s necessities, but they need school utensils as well as school clothing, etc. Now, I know that welfare programs are set up for this purpose. Yet, single moms are barely able to get by with the current government allotment of resources.

3) Classes should be available for mothers who want to pursue entrepreneurial careers and occupations of that nature. These mothers should be trained in the stock exchange as well as lucrative professions such as real estate.

4) Classes should be available for healthy parenting which would also include psychological training and adjustment for these mothers.

5) Classes should be available teaching the importance of marriage when raising children so that a lifestyle of unplanned pregnancies is not perpetuated.

6) Before an abortion is final, the father of the unborn child should have to co-sign with the abortion agreement except in the case of special circumstances (i.e. rape which only constitutes a small portion of abortions). As a male, I have rights to a child just as much as a female who may be carrying the child. It seems to be an infringement upon the rights of the father for such legislation not to be in place.

7) Abortion clinics and doctors who perform abortions must be responsible for laying out the advantages and disadvantages of having a child vs. not have a child. A mother cannot make a rational decision without truly having all of the consequences – positive and negative – of her decision laid out before her. Fathers of these unborn children should receive the same analysis since he too will be agreeing or disagreeing with the abortion.

8) Parents of children under the age of 18 should be notified both from the potential mother’s family and from the potential father’s family.

These suggestions, in my opinion, are more than necessary if we desire to see lives saved while assisting single moms in their efforts to raise their children. If our legislation encourages life, then potential mothers and potential fathers would be more apt to choose life.

Your influence on our legislation in this effort is greatly warranted. Life and death are in your hands; therefore choose life. Thank you for you time and your consideration. Our state and our nation depend on you, and I have faith that your decision will be a wise one.

'Electronic Opium'

2005-10-12T20:52:00.000-04:00

I confess. I am a recovering gamehead. I recently read an article entitled 'Are Multiplayer Online Games More Compelling, More Addictive?.' In the article Gregory Lamb discusses the phenomenom of the Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Player Game (MMORPG). Lamb states that literally tens of millions of people worldwide have become addicted to MMORPG because such games allow for the player to live vicariously through their created character.

Now in my case, I have played Star Wars Galaxies, Final Fantasy XI, and World of Warcraft. I would say that my total play time for these three games would definitely be the equivalent of at least one month (and that is extremely modest). Now that's frightening. One month of my life was poured into these games of which have absolutely NO long-term value.

Why are these games so compelling? Nick Yee who has studied online gaming since 1999 and is a graduate student at Stanford University says the following: "For a lot of people, in their real lives they don't get to be a hero. Suddenly, [in the game] they're a cleric who can resurrect a warrior, can save other players. [Or they're a] a wizard who can cast out a rain of fire ... someone with great powers."

It appears that MMORPG grant people some of their greatest desires. It's not about the sorcery, nor is it necessarily about the game itself. It's about the heroism and the respect. It's about the prestige and the opportunities that are available.

I can remember playing World of Warcraft as a Warlock. I used to marvel at the higher leveled Warlocks who were exponentially stronger, and they had obtained their character's high-leveled weaponry. It was definitely an interesting experience. The games are so consuming that I would be in class thinking of what I needed to do on the game for that day. The situation had gotten so bad with these MMORPG for me that I literally prayed to God apologizing for the time that I had lost on such a meaningless kill-time (kill-time because it far surpasses a pass-time).

So what does it appear that millions of people are looking for? People want adventure. They want to be heroes. They want to develop and grow socially. They want to achieve status in groups, yet they want the glory of being an individual. They want responsibilty, and they want a tangible means for the procuration of goods and services.

One thing is certain about these games: they grant the player a sense of purpose. Once we have found our purpose, we will undoubtedly forsake all that is sacred to us in order to obtain this purpose. I used to turn my friends down for outings, I used to skip certain meals, and I would ration my sleep only so that I could achieve more in whichever game I was engulfed in. Show a person purpose, and that person will unquestionable go to great lengths to fulfill his/her destiny.

Pandemic or Pandeceit

2005-10-08T10:36:00.000-04:00

It appears that the avian flu virus is a pending peril that may pose a greater threat than the Spanish Flu of 1918 (which killed over 50 million worldwide). Due to the threat of the influenza flu virus, our federal government has posed an extensive 381 page plan to quarantine citizens while also restricting travel.

Ethically and constitutionally I am opposed to such measures. However, there is a huge part of me that would desire that cities known to have the virus be quarantined. Unfortunately, that idea would be unfair for those people in that area who are not ineffected which means that quarantining and travel restrictions are absurd. That said, I wonder if our government feels compelled to be proactive in disaster prerelief even if it means submitting such heinous ideas.

I hate that I do not have an answer because I am left only to complain about the proposed response of our current administration. The good news is that we can always pray fervently that such a disaster will never happen....

'The Final Solution'

2005-09-30T11:43:00.000-04:00

Bill Bennet has shown himself to be a racist. Several days ago former Education Secretary Bill Bennett expressed his attitude towards blacks in America. He claims that aborting black babies would decrease our nation's crime rate. I find these comments extremely offensive.

Now, I tend to give people the opportunity to clarify themselves whenever such idiotic statements are made. So I waited for what I expected to be an apology at least; yet, Bennet simply reiterated his claim with the following comment: "That [aborting black babies] would be an impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down."

Bennett recognizes that aborting black babies is "impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible," but he completes his statement claiming that the crime rate would go down. In the words of Rev. Al Sharpton, "so he [Bill Bennett] is saying that blacks and crime are synonomous." Apparently, that's exactly what he's saying.

Now in Bennett's defense he has done major things with the inner-city communities. In his own confession, he even lead the arrest of four major drug lords. However, Bennett assumes that his actions are proof of his attitude towards the black community. I disagree. In this case, Bennett's words are actually counter-productive to his actions. So, Mr. Bennett, I'm black. Should my mother have aborted me, too? I can only imagine what you'd say.

The Legacy of Unimaginable Trade-Offs

2005-09-28T02:15:00.000-04:00

One major flaw of our current generation is that we have lost our understanding of legacy. History has reiterated time and again the importance of establing our 'mark' in society. That 'mark' is often insinuated through our children, through monuments, through policy changes, and through other means as well.

To lose sight of the future while forsaking the past creates a societal vacuum in the present. What I mean is that as our culture becomes increasingly nearsighted our individual and collective ambitions become more and more temporal. Our legacy becomes unimportant.

I say this in support of our nation's war efforts in Iraq. Perhaps to regain your attention after such a bold statement I should quote our nation's chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Richard Meyers. General Meyers claims that "the outcome and consequences of defeat [in Iraq] are greater than World War II." Meyers goes on to say that "Iraq is now Al-Qaeda's center of gravity, and if terrorism wins in Iraq, the next 9/11 is right around the corner."

While I am not completely convinced that a loss in Iraq would be equivalent to a loss in WWII, I am convinced that we should analyze the ramifications of a premature military evacuation. Although much of the war details are either skewed or blurred by progandists, I implore that our nation think logically while considering the outcome of our obvious two options regarding Iraq. We could evacuate our troops, or we could remain in the nation while while continuing to train Iraqi soldiers until they were capable of fending for their own civil liberties.

General Meyers even says that we should not reallocate funds from Iraq to the relief of Katrina. Hesitantly, I say that I agree. Yet, my consent is completely dependent upon which of the two aforementioned options we as a nation choose. If we decide to continue our overseas support, then we should do so with no hesitation. And if we agree to evacuate Iraq, then it should be a complete evacuation. We should use the funds from the war, in this case, to support the relief effort of the Katrina survivors.

Regardless of the decision, the consequences are inevitable. I, personally, am thankful that I do not have to make this decision. All that I know is that whichever path we choose, we'll either have Americans who will never want to depend on our federal government again. Or we'll have a nation who remembers how we abandoned them in their moment of crisis. Which legacy would you choose...?

Exhausted Heroes

2005-09-24T22:19:00.000-04:00

I have noticed the insurgence of many Americans as we have committed what I consider to be high treason. Yet, I will say that such insurgence arises due to the incompetence of our federal government in foreign affairs over the last 50 years. Albeit, such incompetence should not warrant the anti-government subculture which has apparently emerged.

I can recall that about 225 years ago our pre-nation was united under the common vision of establishing our independence. This independence has been tested countless times throughout history with the war of 1812 and the ensuing Civil War five decades later. Our nation endured the Spanish American War of 1898, as well as The Great War almost a generation later.

We witnessed the rise and fall of three major fascist dictators, as well as the regime which those dictators represented. Yet, through it all the American soldier was always there. He was there battling for the ideals which he too believed. He left his home, his family, and his life in order to ensure that we might continue to salute our stars and stripes. From the surrender at Yorktown to the beaches of Normandy, our soldiers were there representing everything that gave us the right to say that we are Americans.

He fought for us at Antietam and Ghettysburg, while he cried for us on the Western Front. He even sailed to an unknown fate towards the island of Iwo Jima. He looked into the eyes of death and smiled...because he knew that American - his nation - would be proud of him.

And she was proud of him. But as it would prove, her pride became disgust. Her salutes became middle fingers. And her smiles of approval soon became suspicious expressions of doubt. No longer is the American soldier revered. No longer do people commit suicide because they are unable to go to war (happened in WWII and maybe some others). Instead, we feign sickness. We draft dodge, and we sneer at his role.

Leave it to people like Cindy Sheehan to resurrect the spirit of the post-Vietnam era. Leave it me, to crucify it once again.

Katrina the Racist written by Goat

2005-09-20T10:48:00.000-04:00

Visit (hattip:Goat) The Barynard

This is a great piece by Heather MacDonald (hattip:Michelle Malkin) that further discusses previous arguments I have made on socialist welfare and the manmade destruction in New Orleans. Sometimes when you cry wolf to often as Jesse Jackson and his cadre of bigoted racists have done you become exposed for the charlatans you are. They and the rest of the political hacks on the left continue to moan and cry while millions of american citizens have motivated the most incredible outpouring of the true american spirit in our history. I know how decent americans respond to tragedy it has been written on the pages of our history as the selfless giving people in the world.

I am proud of my country, we can do better by moving beyond socialist big government and judicial dicdat to a truelly free america. Growing up in the deep south it was very apparent that the very people, black and white , that so hated the"system"(working for a living) rely on that same system for their very survival. Unwilling to get into the "system" of education ,family and self reliance they fall behind and blame the "system" for their increasing failures.

The cycle is easy to see from that point and as it has become worse over generations as a vicious degradation of morale and self worth sets in. For the amount of money we spend on socialist welfare programs we could buy them a house and a private education and cut them loose, forever. One simple move, turn all the gov't run projects into condos and the current residents become owners of their abode, ownership brings pride,and then cut them off from welfare, permanently.

I support school vouchers so kids can get out of squalid public schools. The unionization and politically correct feel goodism of our public school system has destroyed it and the anti-family socialists are paving the way.

Katrina showed the inadequacies of bigger government, do we really want more of it?Update: Carol LieBau has an interesting take on it .

Tropical Storm Clinton

2005-09-19T00:00:00.000-04:00

"Mr. Clinton argued that lower-income Americans had done better under the economic policies of his [Bill Clinton's] administration than they are doing now, saying the storm highlighted class divisions in the country that often played out along racial lines." - Philip Shenan: The New York Times

Former President Bill Clinton made these allegations clearly regarding President Bush's response to the hurricane relief effort. Perhaps I would not be so stirred up by these comments had Bush not appointed Clinton to raise funds for the hurricane survivors. Making such statements represents Clinton's willingness to abandon his responsbility to America in order to highlight his political perspective. In doing so, Clinton expressed his politcal views while challenging the effectiveness of the current administration.

To me, it appears that Clinton is committing a great injustice to the survivors. Instead of performing his appointed duty, he has found it necessary to elevate himself to a place where he possibly could be thwarting the effectiveness of the releif effort. This reminds me of the all but subtle comments made by hip-hop artist Kanye West. West, too, turned his back on the aid of the hurricane victims by making accusations against the president based on his own ideas (and maybe the ideas of BET and MTV, but that would imply that he's incapable of thinking for himself in regards to political issues). My point is that Bill Clinton has stooped to the mudslinging level of Kanye West. Clinton has taken advantage of the survivors by using them as a platform expecting an American emotional response for the purpose of backing his own personal agenda.

In Clinton's case, what could his agenda really be? I mean, he is not able to run for the presidential position again. Perhaps he is trying to rebuild his reputation in which his own integrity destroyed. Perhaps he is attempting to ensure the election of a 2008 democratic president. Or maybe he simply wants to tear down what's left of the reputation of our existenting president not realizing the trade-off is the lives of the survivors. Hurricane Katrina was devasting while tropical storm Clinton promises to be equally as destructive.

In'Cindy'ary Sheehan

2005-09-16T16:46:00.000-04:00

"If George Bush truly listened to God and read the words of the Christ, Iraq and the devastation in New Orleans would have never happened." - Cindy Sheehan

How do I begin without expressing my utter frustration? Well, I suppose I have already expressed it. What kind of logistical system does Cindy Sheehan utilize in claiming that Bush reads the word of the Christ ergo 'Iraq and the devastation in New Orleans' should have never happened? Well, I suppose I could assume in the case of New Orleans that she were giving Bush supernatural capabilities wherein Bush should have divinely intervened diverting the path of Hurricane Katrina.

But, I will grant Sheehan the benefit of the doubt by assuming that she was referring to the aftermath of Katrina and the federal government's response. She posted her accusations earlier today September 16th. Perhaps Sheehan does not have a television on the bus she is riding around the country because did Bush not accept the responsibility of the aftermath in his national address?

My question now then is: what does Sheehan demand of president Bush? And, why are the cries of such an obviously bitter left-winged liberal even considered? What party you associate with doesn't matter to me, but please don't allow personal experiences and emotions to cloud your judgment, Cindy.

One commenter on her blog made this statement: "You need to consider running for political office one day. You have what it takes no doubt, and you represent a HUGE amount of people and they way they think." WOW! I say agaain: wow. I think that Cindy should run. She should run away to Never, Never Land because obviously she has no desire to grow up.

In'Cindy'ary makes statments claiming that the looters were merely stealing to provide basic nutrients for themselves. I know that we need food, water, clothing, and shelter. I was unaware that televisions and jewelry were amongst our basic necessities. Perhaps, I should return to grade school in order to get a recap of human sustenance.

She mentions that the soldiers were armed. Well did not the Lt. Gen. of the US Army fervently issue a mandate for the soldiers to enter the zone with their guns pointed downward? I'm beginning to think that perhaps one of the looters should allow Cindy to barrow a television so that she can become more informed. (sigh)

My point is this. It's okay to disagree with the Bush administration. But please disagree logically. Give credit where credit is due, and constructionally critize whenever necessary. And before any 'smart mouths' can read this, I'll say: It's not always necessary....

One Nation Over God

2005-09-15T01:53:00.000-04:00

One judge has once again decided that the term 'one nation under God' is unconstitutional; therefore, it has been this judge's decision to expel the pledge of allegiance from public schools.

Now, I do have an opinion about this: it's absurd. I begin by exclaiming that the pledge of allegiance is a patriotic decree which to me ignites a child's nationalism. In fact, the plege of allegiance is just as necessary as the national anthem when instilling a sense of national pride within an individual. So, this judge in his furious anger with God decides to disspate the pledge. Okay. Let me say that in politcally correct terminology. So, this judge in his furious anger with God decides to dissipate the pledge. Supreme Court Judge Nominee Roberts puts it this way, "This judge does not intend to protect our citizens from all things unconstitutional, but this judge intends to declare war upon all things religious."

Now, for this judge who is an atheist (self professed) contests God upon the grounds that God does not exist. Well, I am not attempting to prove his existence; yet, I am compelled to ask this question: If we discount God's existence solely upon our inability to see him, then can we not on the same grounds dismiss so many other seemingly intangibles?

What I mean is this: we believe in courage, we belive in patriotism, and we believe in ethics. Prove to me that these exist. Better yet, prove to me that we can live without them. Imagine a world without courage, without patriotism, and without ethics. In such a world, we would be demolished by anarchy (even though anrchy wouldn't exist), we could not muster any national unity (even though this wouldn't exist), and we could never confront the issue (even though fear wouldn't exist either).

My point is that such a world could not exist because the intangibles define our existence. That said, how could we ever discount the presence of a higher power? To me, that's absurd. Considering the absurdity of the idea, would it not make sense for us to grant such a higher power some type of thanks as we express our national pride. What really is the problem with 'one nation under God?' Or have we become so prideful that we are now one nation over God?

Burning the 'Bush': Not a Republican Just Concerned

2005-09-15T01:52:00.000-04:00

Quite often there are many in our nation and even gloabally whose desire is to "burn the Bush." In other words, these people desire to set ablaze our respected president any chance that they get. Time and time again our president is bombarded with accusations that may or may not be true; yet, he is continously accused.

It seems that the basis of many of the accusations is that George Bush cares only about enconomic gain, and he has no real compassion for the common man. I disagree.

I have seen this man in one of his more compassionate moments as he arrived in Biloxi, MI in order to comfort the locals in that area. Was he there for the popular vote? Well, that would be a stupid assumption because he cannot run for another presidential term.Was he there because of the Biloxi's position as an economic asset? Certainly not. Was he there simply due to national pressure and political pressure? I suppose you could make a case - although such a case would seemingly have no foundation. Or was he there simply for moral support as the leader of our nation? I would contend that this is his objective indeed.

There are numerous images of our great leader talking with the locals of Biloxi while comforting them in various ways as they poured out their hearts to him. He greeted many of the men, women, and children in the area bringing them hope and encouragement, and there was not one person who did not show obvious signs of appreciation for his presence there. Sounds like compassion to me. So, those whose desire it is to burn the 'Bush' have two options: extinguish the flame, or find more fuel for your apparently dwindling fire.