<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Battle Born Politics</title>
      <link>http://www.battlebornpolitics.com/</link>
      <description>The blog-away-from-blog of Mark Noonan; where his Catholicism really comes out.</description>
      <language>en</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2008</copyright>
      <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:54:51 -0800</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

            <item>
         <title>President Bush to Convert to Catholicism?</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=89274">Interesting</a>:

<blockquote>Vatican City, Jun 13, 2008 (CNA).- As President Bush and Pope Benedict XVI met at the Vatican, the English newspaper, The Telegraph reported that Bush may be considering converting to Catholicism at the end of his presidential term.

The Telegraph indicated that various Italian newspapers have been commenting on the news, especially Il Foglio.

Il Foglio explains that the circulating rumors could be correct: "anything is possible, especially for someone reborn like Bush.” Yet, similar to former Prime Minister Tony Blair, "if anything happens, it will happen after he finishes his period as president, not before. It is similar to Blair's case, but with different circumstances."

A friend of President Bush, Fr. George William Rutler, who converted to Catholicism in 1979, stated that Bush respects how Catholicism was founded by Christ who appointed Peter as the first Pope. "I think what fascinates him about Catholicism is its historical plausibility," said the priest. "He does appreciate the systematic theology of the church, its intellectual cogency and stability." Fr. Rutler also mentioned that the president "is not unaware of how evangelicalism -- by comparison with Catholicism -- may seem more limited both theologically and historically."

According to the Washington Post, President Bush currently belongs to a Methodist church in Texas and attends an Episcopal church in Washington, D.C.

However, in recent years, the head of state has developed a strong relationship with the Pope and has made known his deep respect for Catholicism. The Telegraph noted that prior to his presidency, Bush's political advisor invited Catholic intellectuals to Texas to explain the teachings of the Church to the president. Bush has also appointed Catholic judges to the Supreme Court, has selected Catholic speech-writers and consultants, and has read the Pope’s theological books.

In April, prior to the Pope’s visit to the U.S., the Washington Post quoted William McGurn, one of Bush’s former writers who stated, "I used to say that there are more Catholics on President Bush's speechwriting team than on any Notre Dame starting lineup in the past half-century."

The Post’s story detailed the likelihood of Bush's possible conversion to Catholicism by quoting those close to the head of state. Rick Santorum, former U.S. senator, labeled Bush as a Catholic president. “I don't think there's any question about it. He's certainly much more Catholic than Kennedy."</blockquote>

All roads, as they say, lead to Rome - we'll have to see if this is true, but I'll say a Rosary for the guidance of President Bush, and if he does convert I'll congratulate my brother for coming into full communion.]]></description>
         <link>http://www.battlebornpolitics.com/2008/06/president_bush_to_co.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.battlebornpolitics.com/2008/06/president_bush_to_co.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">President Bush</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:54:51 -0800</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>In Spite of Large Nevada Effort, Obama Still Trails McCain</title>
         <description><![CDATA[From the <a href="http://www.lvrj.com/news/19954494.html">Las Vegas Review-Journal</a>:

<blockquote>As the presidential candidates square off for the general election, Nevadans are closely divided between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, according to a statewide poll.

If the election were held today, 44 percent would vote for McCain, 42 percent for Obama, while 14 percent of likely voters remain undecided, according to the poll of 625 likely voters, conducted Monday through Wednesday by Washington, D.C.-based Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. for the Review-Journal and reviewjournal.com.

The presidential contest is well within the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. It confirms the conventional wisdom that Nevada is a swing state that might throw its electoral votes to either candidate in November.

"It's a statistical tie. It's a toss-up," said pollster Brad Coker, managing partner of Mason-Dixon. "Nevada is a battleground. It's clearly a state both candidates, both campaigns, both parties are going to pay a lot of attention to.</blockquote>

They sure will pay a lot of attention - Nevada's five electoral votes might be the difference between victory and defeat.  From my point of view, McCain is best position to eventually win in Nevada - popular with hispanics, a large military population, shared Mountain West conservatism - all of these will tell in McCain's favor as Nevadans make their choice in November.

The bad news:  being a Battleground State means we'll have a lot more political ads than other States, which can get annoying at times.]]></description>
         <link>http://www.battlebornpolitics.com/2008/06/in_spite_of_large_ne.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.battlebornpolitics.com/2008/06/in_spite_of_large_ne.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">2008 Election</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:55:45 -0800</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Increasing Security in Israel - But the Fundamental Problem Remains</title>
         <description><![CDATA[Seems that <a href="http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=88913">good fences do make good neighbors </a>- this is likely the result of the reduction in terrorist violence in Israel since Israel started to fence out the suicide bombers:

<blockquote>Auxiliary Bishop Giacinto-Boulos Marcuzzo of Jerusalem told L’Osservatore Romano this week that there has been a marked increase in the number of pilgrims visiting the Holy Land, thus allowing for the Church in Israel and peace in the Middle East to be promoted.

Father Gianfranco Pinto Ostuni, director of the Office of Pilgrimages of the Delegations from Rome to the Holy Land, told the Vatican daily that from June 2008 to January 2009, there are 27 pilgrimages scheduled. “We have doubled the trips since 2007. It’s enough just point out that last Easter 45,000 Italian pilgrims visited Jerusalem.”

In 2006, 58,000 Italian pilgrims visited the Holy Land and in 2007, 82,000. According to tourism promoter Maurizio Baiocchi, “at least 100,000” are expected to visit in 2009.</blockquote>

The Christian presence throughout the middle east is in jeopardy - and one should remember that all of that area - from Morroco to Iraq - was once Christian.  Caught between two fires, Christians are usually forced to leave - including one good friend of mine here, a Palestinian Catholic who left because there was just nothing for him in Palestine...and, indeed, there is still nothing in those areas where the Palestinian Authority holds sway; good government is just a distant dream, as various groups of thugs and theives battle over who shall be in charge.

Wise Israelis knew even before the 1967 war that Israel had no business taking over the West Bank and Gaza, because the large non-Jewish population was a threat to Israel's identity as a Jewish State - but the thing was done, and Israel has paid a high price for a foolhardy desire to reconstruct the Kingdom of David and Solomon.  But now Israel is out of the West Bank and Gaza - and what do we do from here?

The insoluable riddle must be solved - but it likely cannot be solved as long as outside actors are fueling the fires of terrorism.  In this, Iran and Syria are the two prime movers, and it is to them we must apply ourselves in order to set up a situation where the Palestinians who wish to live and build (who, like their compatriots in Iraq are probably the overwhelming majority) are able to get the upper hand on those who will to kill and destroy.  Key to the Iran/Syria question is Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons - a nuclear Iran will be nearly impossible to deter from terrorist action, so the whole thing flows together:  Peace in Israel/Palestine requires an end to terrorism (and do keep in mind that the terrorism to be stopped in not just Palestinian terrorism against Israelis, but actually more importantly Palestinian terrorism against Palestinians); an end to terrorism requires an end to outside sponsorship of terrorism; an and to outside sponsorship requires bringing Iran and Syria to heel; bringing Iran and Syria to heel will require the prevention of an Iranian nuclear force.

The next year or so will be decisive as to whether or not peace can be made with the basic status quo, or whether an eventual general war will have to be fought in the middle east, ending in the wholesale transfer of populations and the redrawing of the map of the middle east.  If we can remain firm on Iran and prevent them from going nuclear, then we can - using the democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan as leverage - force Iran's governmen to give ground on sponsorship of terrorism, which will allow a real government and peace to emerge in Palestine, which will then set off the chain reaction of peace...not brotherly love, but at least a peace where fists are shaken, but bombs aren't detonated.

An American policy of strength and determination will carry the day - an American policy of withdrawal and accomodation will merely put off the day of reckoning.  We have a choice to make this November, and I pray we choose wisely.


]]></description>
         <link>http://www.battlebornpolitics.com/2008/06/increasing_security.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.battlebornpolitics.com/2008/06/increasing_security.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Israel</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 22:12:29 -0800</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Obama&apos;s Faith</title>
         <description><![CDATA[Interesting 2004 interview - do read <a href="http://falsani.blogspot.com/2008/04/barack-obama-2004-god-factor-interview.html">the whole thing</a>, but this is striking:

<blockquote><strong>GG</strong>:
Do you believe in sin?

<strong>OBAMA</strong>:
Yes.

<strong>GG</strong>:
What is sin?

<strong>OBAMA</strong>:
Being out of alignment with my values.</blockquote>

Errrr...no.  The <a href="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt1art8.htm">definition of sin</a>:

<blockquote>Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."</blockquote>

Being in alignment with your values can be as much a sin as being out of alignment with them - because values created by a human being are, well, worthless...any one of us can think up anything we can to justify whatever it is we wish to do...but in the adherence to God's values - to truth, that is - we do the right thing, always...and any time we stray from God's values, we sin.  

This does explain a lot - especially how Obama, after accepting Jesus Christ as his Lord, could attend for 20 years a racist, anti-American church and think, apparantly, nothing of it...Obama was adhering to Obama's values.  Time for a bit of a radical change Senator - time to kneel down and ask God to guide you.  It'll work a lot better - and you'll never been entangled in a place like Trinity again.

<em>Cross Posted at Blogs for Victory</em>]]></description>
         <link>http://www.battlebornpolitics.com/2008/06/obamas_faith.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.battlebornpolitics.com/2008/06/obamas_faith.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Obama Watch</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 02:16:20 -0800</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>The Liberation of Iraq is Working Precisely as I Hoped it Would</title>
         <description><![CDATA[From the <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121218707586633975.html?mod=djemEditorialPage">Wall Street Journal</a>:

<blockquote>... al Qaeda finds itself on the ideological backfoot, even in radical circles. As our Bret Stephens reported in March, Sayyed Imam, a founder of Egyptian Islamic Jihad and once a mentor to Ayman al Zawahiri, has written an influential manifesto sternly denouncing his former comrades for their methods and theology. This was enough to prompt a 215-page rebuttal from Zawahiri, who seems to have time on his hands. Lawrence Wright in the New Yorker and Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank in the New Republic have recently written about similar jihadist defections.

But the U.S. offensives in Afghanistan and especially Iraq deserve most of the credit. The destruction of the Taliban denied al Qaeda one sanctuary, and the U.S. seems to have picked up the pace of Predator strikes in Pakistan – or at least their success rate. This has damaged al Qaeda's freedom of movement and command-and-control.

As for Iraq, Zawahiri himself last month repeated his claim that the country "is now the most important arena in which our Muslim nation is waging the battle against the forces of the Crusader-Zionist campaign." So it's all the more significant that on this crucial battleground, al Qaeda has been decimated by the surge of U.S. forces into Baghdad. The surge, in turn, gave confidence to the Sunni tribes that this was a fight they could win. For Zawahiri, losing the battles you say you need to win is not a way to collect new recruits...

...One irony here is that Barack Obama is promising a rapid withdrawal from Iraq on grounds that we can't defeat al Qaeda unless we focus on Afghanistan. He opposed the Iraq surge on similar grounds. Yet it is the surge, and the destruction of al Qaeda in Iraq, that has helped to demoralize al Qaeda around the world. Nothing would more embolden Zawahiri now than a U.S. retreat from Iraq, which al Qaeda would see as the U.S. version of the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan.

It is far too soon to declare victory over al Qaeda. Still, Mr. Hayden's upbeat assessment is encouraging, and it suggests that President Bush's strategy of taking the battle to the terrorists is making America safer.</blockquote>

After the buildings came down I, like the rest of you, was in a state of shock for a while.  After the shock wore off a little bit came the desire to wreck vengeance upon those who did this.  But that wore off, too.  After shock and rage had played themselves out over a few days, one began to think about what to do.  A cruel foe had reached out from across the seas and killed thousands of Americans at trifling cost to himself.  Even if we went on an extended bombing run against terrorist targets around the globe, the plain fact of the matter is that the enemy could trade punches with us like that indefinitely and we'd always come out the loser in the exchange - bomb the heck out of a terrorist training camp and you might kill a score or two terrorists...but the other score is already enroute to the US, where they will killed hundreds, if not thousands.  It became clear to me that a fundamental change had to be effected, some how, in the way things were done.

One of the first thing which occurs to a person who starts to think about the people of the middle east is that they are, indeed, people.  As I am also a people, I tried to imagine what I - translated into the highly conservative, Moslem society - might want out of life.  I figured that I wanted to be mostly left alone, and if I had a wife and children then I would want very much to provide them the best life I could, with a mind towards my children having an overall better life than I experienced.  "Left alone" and "life" became the most important parts of the equation because life is pretty miserable in most of the middle east, and the on thing the people there aren't is "left alone".  They are pestered by Islamists.  Pestered by secret police.  Pestered by con artists who want their blood and treasure in order to enrich themselves.  And, sure, they might hate with a white-hot passion the very concept of Israel, but for the guy in Cairo who has to bribe an official just to he can open up a small shop, or the guy in Riyadh who is being harrassaed by the "virtue police" because his wife's ankle was seen in public...well, hating Israel takes a backseat to more day to day concerns.  I developed a bet I was willing for us to make:

That given a free choice, the masses of the Arab/Moslem world would choose to live and build rather than kill and destroy.

Now, while I have been and will always be a strong supporter of President Bush, its not like he called me and asked my advice.  I had no idea what he would do any faster than any other regular American.  But when I saw his policies developing - not treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue; understanding that this was a twilight struggle in which military force would only be partially useful; that there is an evil ideology out there using Islam as a means to an end; that anyone who sponsors terrorism must be considered at least somewhat an enemy of the United States, even if they haven't done anything to us; that pre-emptive strikes might be needed - I was in complete agreement, because I figured that President Bush and team were seeing the situation in much the same way I was.  And then came Iraq.

Well, truth be told, them came the long song and dance about Iraq which delayed action for at least 9 months (one of the more amusing aspects of leftwing criticism is their stout insistence that we "rushed" into Iraq).  I wanted us to go into Iraq - and I didn't really care what particular reason we used because we had a perfectly good legal right - in both US and international law - to go into Iraq any time we wanted and overthrow the wicked Saddamite regime.  I wish, very often, that we hadn't used WMD as a main (but not the <em>only </em>reason, as our leftwing friends assert) reason, but only because our failure to find the large stocks of WMDs <em>everyone in the world knows where there in 2002 </em>has allowed the left to cast a cloud of doubt over the whole effort.  Among the score of perfectly valid reasons for liberating Iraq - any one of which, by itself and even without 9/11 as an ice-breaker, as it were - the one I wanted was the bit about overthrowing Saddam and helping the Iraqi people towards a free future.  From the <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html">war resolution</a>:

<blockquote>Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by <strong>continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region</strong>, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait...

...Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be <strong>the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government</strong> to replace that regime...(emphasis added)</blockquote>

I backed this and very much wanted this because I wanted the Iraqi people to have that free choice - to decide whether they wanted to live and build, or kill and destroy.  It has taken a lot of fighting and some heartbreaking losses and setbacks, but we've now done it.  The Iraqi people are, for the first time in their history, being allowed to freely choose what sort of lives they will have...and they are choosing to be free, and they are choosing to fight for this freedom.  They want to live and they want to build - just like all other sane human beings in the world, Iraqis want to be pretty much left alone and allowed to live their lives.  Only thusly could we show a different paradigm to the people of the Arab/Moslem world and defuse the strength of Islamist propaganda - and it should be noted here that this propaganda says that the only way Moslem people can regain power and prosperity is to kill at the bidding of Islamists.  Iraq is demonstrating that power and prosperity can be secured without the Islamists - and, indeed, in partnership with the United States of America, even though America is a friend of Israel.  The linked article notes how al-Qaeda is up against the wall - this didn't happen "just because"; it happened because the US went into this with a desire to bring something better to the people of Iraq, and they are now responding heavily in our favor.

As I said before the liberation began, it is either do this deed and thereby change the middle east for better, or play around the edges of the issue and be faced with the inevitible WMD terrorist attack in the United States.  We couldn't fight them outside the middle east - outside their homeland, that is - with any prospect of success.  Dangerous as it was - and it was an immense risk we took; those who argued that it couldn't be done weren't just being fools - it had to be tried.  If we failed, then we failed and we'd have to just to the best we could to thwart the enemy....but if we won (and we have), then the whole dynamic would change in our favor, and we come into a position where we can end the use of terrorism as a means of political assertion.

Still a lot left to do in Iraq - but the only way we can lose it now (and give up all the gains we've made) is to elect a President who is so blind in his knee-jerk leftism that he won't change his anti-war views to suit current condition...to elect, that is, an Obama pledged to defeat.  Only thus can we lose.

<strong>HAT TIP</strong>:  NRO's <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTc2MWM1ZTMyNTQyODcxZTIyOGU2MTA5ZmU0NzNjMTc=">The Corner</a>

<strong>UPDATE</strong>:  <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSL01687040">US deaths at a post-liberation low, Iraq oil production at a post-liberation high</a>...which means our lefties will be back on the "blood for oil" meme, but what it really means is that we're winning.

<em>Cross Posted at Blogs for Victory</em>]]></description>
         <link>http://www.battlebornpolitics.com/2008/06/the_liberation_of_ir.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.battlebornpolitics.com/2008/06/the_liberation_of_ir.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Liberation of Iraq</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Sun, 01 Jun 2008 05:19:12 -0800</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Paul Supporters Causing Needless Trouble</title>
         <description><![CDATA[The <a href="http://www.lvrj.com/news/19422784.html">reason </a>why monomaniacs tend to be annoying:

<blockquote>A Sparks dentist and Ron Paul supporter said Friday that Nevada Republican Party leaders are stalling on completion of the GOP's state convention -- so he and others who want to wrap it up will meet June 28 in Reno to resume the event.

Dr. Wayne Terhune said he's still willing to pay for a room at the Grand Sierra Resort big enough to hold the nearly 1,400 Nevada Republicans who were at the party's chaotic April 26 convention. He added that other party members have offered to help cover the cost.

The April 26 event was abruptly shut down prior to final votes on what was shaping up as a national convention delegation with more backers for Paul than for presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain.

"It's not about one candidate or another," Terhune said. "It's right versus wrong. There seems to be absolutely no plans (by leadership) to reconvene."</blockquote>

The only thing the Paul people can do is cause trouble - McCain will be the GOP nominee and our task, as GOPers, is to ensure that he wins because a win by either part of HillBama will be a disaster for all Americans, not least those libertarian supporters of Paul who just won't quit gnawing their political bone.  This is not time to make symbolic gestures or to muck things up because you've got an fixed idea that your particular issue is the most important one out there.  A party is made up of a wide variety of people, and all of us have to give in a bit in order to have any success at all.

Trust me on this, Paul supporters, I'm with you on a lot of things - including being on your side in oppsition to some of what McCain wants to do...but quit it, already.  This is serious business and its time for everyone who isn't a kook leftist to unite behind the one man who can ensure that libertarian and conservative policies at least have a seat at the table.]]></description>
         <link>http://www.battlebornpolitics.com/2008/05/paul_supporters_caus.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.battlebornpolitics.com/2008/05/paul_supporters_caus.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Republicans</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Sat, 31 May 2008 13:13:38 -0800</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title> Obama Buddy Rezko Stiffs Vegas</title>
         <description><![CDATA[And these days, we just don't have Guido and the boys to take care of <a href="http://www.lvrj.com/business/19384369.html">such things</a>:

<blockquote>A political fundraiser on trial in a corruption case in Chicago is wanted in Nevada on allegations that he rang up more than $803,000 in Strip casino debts, court documents show.

Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was awaiting a jury decision Thursday at his fraud trial in Chicago, is sought on a felony arrest warrant issued May 20 alleging he failed to repay 10 casino loans totaling $472,275 and dating to mid-2006 at Caesars Palace and Bally's, Clark County court spokesman Michael Sommermeyer said.

Rezko, of Wilmette, Ill., also is named in a separate lawsuit alleging he owes $331,000 plus interest to the Bellagio for loans he received in February 2006.

Rezko is a real estate developer and fast-food entrepreneur who has raised thousands of dollars for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.</blockquote>

As it turns out, Rezko does own a piece of property which might be sold to help pay off this debt - it is right behind Obama's house and, as fate would have it, the property is perfectly useless to anyone other than Obama, as you can't access the property except though Obama's...given that Rezko's purchase of this property greatly lowered the cost of Obama's swell home, maybe it is time for Obama to return the favor to his long time and very close political friend?

<em>Cross Posted at Blogs for Victory</em>]]></description>
         <link>http://www.battlebornpolitics.com/2008/05/obama_buddy_rezko_st.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.battlebornpolitics.com/2008/05/obama_buddy_rezko_st.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Obama Watch</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2008 17:20:42 -0800</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>The Result of Agnosticism</title>
         <description><![CDATA[It isn't that you believe in nothing, but that  you'll actually believe <a href="http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=88815">just about anything</a>:

<blockquote>Italian journalist and Muslim convert to Catholicism, Magdi Allam, warned this week that Islam is growing as a result of the ideology of relativism that pervades the West and claims that there are many truths instead of one unique Truth.

In an article published by the magazine Mundo Cristiano and quoted by Analisis Digital, Allam explained that relativism, which attributes “equal dignity to everything regardless of the content” has made it possible for extremism and Islamic terrorism “to be introduced and to take root” in Europe, to the point that there are Islamic extremists with European citizenship who “act upon and spread an ideology of hatred and violence.”

Likewise, Allam, who was recently baptized by Benedict XVI, said it was impossible to be a moderate Muslim, because the religion of Islam is “physiologically violent, as confirmed by certain verses from the Koran that defend an ideology of hatred, violence, death and condemnation of those who are not Muslims. This way of thinking comes from Mohammed,” Allam said, adding that Islam is an “intrinsically violent” religion.

Asked about his conversion to the faith, Allam said he was convinced by the preaching and testimony of Benedict XVI, whose “strong affirmation of the relationship between faith and reason as a foundation for understanding the authenticity of true religion” fascinated him.</blockquote>

These oh, so advanced Europeans with their Euro-Cool indifference to the great questions of theology and ideology...they might think they are blazing a path to a future of peace and equity, but what they are actually doing is paving - with good intentions, it goes without saying - a road to hell in which Europe, to survive, might have to fight a cruel civil war with an indigestible Islamist minority determined on conquest.

You have to believe - faith does, indeed, move mountains...without faith, you are just a jellyfish; easy prey for anyone who comes along who has a backbone.  The Islamists believe - that they believe something we consider wrong and, indeed, downright stupid doesn't matter - the Nazis and Communists believed wrong things which were downright stupid, too...but the world had to pay a very steep price to get rid of them.  We have to pay a price to get rid of the Islamists, too - but those who believe in nothing won't pay the price, and thus will eventually find themselves up against a wall, forced to choose between death and conversion.

Europe must return to its Christian roots - only thusly can Europe expell the Islamists in their midst.  Charles Martel once lived - does his spirit still live anywhere in Europe?  The next 20 years will tell the tale, one way or the other.
]]></description>
         <link>http://www.battlebornpolitics.com/2008/05/the_result_of_agnost.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.battlebornpolitics.com/2008/05/the_result_of_agnost.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Religion</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2008 06:53:09 -0800</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Governor Gibbons Should Resign</title>
         <description><![CDATA[Not what you like to see in <a href="http://www.lvrj.com/news/19347704.html">the local paper</a>:

<blockquote>The attorney for first lady Dawn Gibbons accused Gov. Jim Gibbons of involvement with another woman, stating in court documents filed Wednesday that this is his real reason for seeking a divorce.

"Despite his disingenuous, shallow, and transparent protestation that his relationship with another man's wife is a mere friendship, his infatuation and involvement with the other woman is the real, concealed and undisclosed reason for his voluntary departure from the marriage and from the Mansion where he occasionally resided," wrote Cal Dunlap, the former Washoe County district attorney who represents the first lady. 

The comment is part of a motion filed in Washoe County Family Court that seeks to open all records in the first couple's divorce case and to have proceedings conducted in public. 

Citing incompatibility, the governor, 63, on May 2 filed for divorce from his 54-year-old wife after nearly 22 years of marriage. Three days later, at the governor's request, Carson City District Judge Bill Maddox ordered that the records be sealed and the divorce conducted in private.</blockquote>

So much for that - it isn't private, and it never had a chance of being private.  Its out in the public sphere and it will continue to absorb Governor Gibbons' time, to the detriment of the people of the State of Nevada, who require a governor who can concentrate fully on his job.  It is time for Gibbons to step down in the interests of good government.

It is not for me to judge on the merits of Mrs. Gibbons' accusations, but what I can judge is that the person who holds the highest office in the State of Nevada must be held to a far higher standard than the average person, outside the public eye.  What has caused this divorce to happen is immaterial (though it is a patent absurdity that "incompatability" is the reason given - men and women, as such, are naturally incompatible, and if after 22 years Mr. Gibbons hasn't figured out how to deal with his wife, then he simply lacks the mental ability to be governor, forget everything else).  It is high time we started insisting on a bit of probity on the part of our elected officials - it is not the Governor's right to air his dirty laundry in public, on our dime and our time; he is violating the trust we placed in him, and the only proper thing for him to do is turn his office over to another person who, perhaps, will be able to keep it together at least until the end of his term.


]]></description>
         <link>http://www.battlebornpolitics.com/2008/05/governor_gibbons_sho.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.battlebornpolitics.com/2008/05/governor_gibbons_sho.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Governor Gibbons</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2008 23:18:35 -0800</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Czech President Challenges Al Gore</title>
         <description><![CDATA[Lets see if the Goron <a href="http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/208338,czech-president-klaus-ready-to-debate-gore-on-climate-change.html">has any guts at all</a>:

<blockquote>Washington - Czech President Vaclav Klaus said Tuesday he is ready to debate Al Gore about global warming, as he presented the English version of his latest book that argues environmentalism poses a threat to basic human freedoms. "I many times tried to talk to have a public exchange of views with him, and he's not too much willing to make such a conversation," Klaus said. "So I'm ready to do it."

Klaus was speaking a the National Press Building in Washington to present his new book, <em>Blue Planet in Green Shackles - What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?</em>, before meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney Wednesday. 

"My answer is it is our freedom and, I might add, and our prosperity," he said. 

Gore a former US vice president who has become a leading international voice in the cause against global warming, was co-winner of this year's Nobel Peace Prize. Gore's effort was highlighted by his Oscar winning documentary film An Inconvienent Truth. 

Klaus, an economist, said he opposed the "climate alarmism" perpetuated by environmentalism trying to impose their ideals, comparing it to the decades of communist rule he experienced growing up in Soviet-dominated Czechoslovakia. 

"Like their (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality," he said. 

"In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat - this time, in the name of the planet," he added. 

Klaus said a free market should be used to address environmental concerns and said he oppposed as unrealistic regulations or greenhouse gas capping systems designed to reduce the impact of climate change. 

"It could be even true that we are now at a stage where mere facts, reason and truths are powerless in the face of the global warming propaganda," he said. 

Klaus alleged that the global warming was being championed by scientists and other environmentalists whose careers and funding requires selling the public on global warming.</blockquote>

That pretty much says it all about the motivations behind global warming alarmism - just another attempt at making a utopia on earth, and the only thing we have to sacrifice is the Common Man...'cause the elites, once again, have need of his blood and treasure for one more attempt at getting it right.  

I think, though, that Klaus is right about facts and reason having no place here - it is my view that we have utterly lost the global warming debate; not on facts and reason, but because of relentless, alarmist propaganda, all too often joined in by politicians on the make and grant-mongering institutions and individuals.  But if Gore has the courage of his convictions - if he really thinks that the truths of global warming are so solid - then he'll take Klaus up on his challenge...and if he doesn't, then just what are we to make of such an act of cowardice?

<em>Cross Posted at Blogs for Victory</em>]]></description>
         <link>http://www.battlebornpolitics.com/2008/05/czech_president_chal.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.battlebornpolitics.com/2008/05/czech_president_chal.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Global Warming</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 22:37:57 -0800</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Liberal Insanity on Display</title>
         <description><![CDATA[Ah, the modern, liberal world - <a href="http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23753182-2,00.html">from Australia</a>:

<blockquote>A JUDGE has allowed a 12-year-old Victorian girl to start a taxpayer-funded sex swap, despite objections from the child's father.

The girl has begun court-approved hormone treatment in the first step toward a complete gender switch. 

The Family Court orders also permit the girl, who cannot be named, to apply for a new birth certificate, passport and Medicare card in a boy's name. 

The application to allow the hormone treatment was lodged by the girl's mother. 

A state government observer, an endocrinologist, a psychiatrist, a family counsellor and a lawyer acting on the child's behalf all supported the plan. 

Only her father, who lives interstate, opposed the proposed sex change, though he did not attend the final court hearing and could not afford to send a lawyer on his behalf. 

The court was told he could not accept that his daughter had always seen herself as a boy and considered her too young to make such a decision. 

The mother expressed sadness and deep concern for her daughter, but said she would stand by the girl. 

The child's lawyer told the court she considered the girl capable of making an informed decision. 

The girl is one of the youngest patients in Australia granted permission to begin a sex swap. 

The court was told early intervention was needed because the child was stressed and anxious at the prospect of starting her period and had threatened self-harm. 

Hormones implanted under her skin every three months will stop her menstruating and prevent her hips and breasts growing.</blockquote>

A willfull little girl who is rather knee-worthy throws a trantrum and a court entertains her demand as if it were rational.  This is where modern liberalism leads us, good people...and please note that for all of liberalism's concern for the rights of defendants in criminal cases, there is no provision in liberalism to provide an attorney for girl's father to come to court and try to inject a note of sanity into the proceedings.

Whence comes this?  From several sources - but primarily from the cowardice of those who know better.  <em>Everyone </em>knows that this child should not have a sex change.  And yet, she's going to have one..."being yourself" is a fine thing, but "beiing yourself" cannot require surgery other other major, medical interventions into your normal biology.  It took a l ot of liberalism - and liberalism's lies - to get us to this point...it'll take a lot of Truth to turn us around and get us back to a rational society.

<em>Cross Posted at Blogs for Victory</em>]]></description>
         <link>http://www.battlebornpolitics.com/2008/05/liberal_insanity_on.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.battlebornpolitics.com/2008/05/liberal_insanity_on.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Moral Values</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Sun, 25 May 2008 10:53:25 -0800</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>President Bush in Israel</title>
         <description><![CDATA[This <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/05/20080515-1.html">speech </a>has really, <em>really </em>ticked off the Democrats - which means, of course, that it is 100% correct:

<blockquote>We believe in the matchless value of every man, woman, and child. So we insist that the people of Israel have the right to a decent, normal, and peaceful life, just like the citizens of every other nation.

We believe that democracy is the only way to ensure human rights. So we consider it a source of shame that the United Nations routinely passes more human rights resolutions against the freest democracy in the Middle East than any other nation in the world.

We believe that religious liberty is fundamental to a civilized society. So we condemn anti-Semitism in all forms -- whether by those who openly question Israel's right to exist, or by others who quietly excuse them. 

We believe that free people should strive and sacrifice for peace. So we applaud the courageous choices Israeli's leaders have made. We also believe that nations have a right to defend themselves and that no nation should ever be forced to negotiate with killers pledged to its destruction.

We believe that targeting innocent lives to achieve political objectives is always and everywhere wrong. So we stand together against terror and extremism, and we will never let down our guard or lose our resolve.

The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle. On the one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies. 

This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is an ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves. And they reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis. 

And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties." And that is why the President of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map. 

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century. 

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. 

Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you.</blockquote>

We know who it is who "quietly excuse them" - the people of the political left, who are always quick to point the finger of blame at the United States and Israel, as if the actions of free people defending themselves are in any way comparable to the actions of tyrants shedding the blood of innocents to further their own power.  We also know who offers us "the false comfort of appeasement" - those same leftists, led now by their pied piper, Barack Obama, who sings a song of talk, talk, talk to those who only know how to kill, and who's only delight is in the death of Americans and Israelis.  We know all this - and they know all this; and so they are angry at President Bush for once again has gently called them on their cowardice and folly.

It is a terrible thing these people on the left do - far worse than sinning, in my view, is to be an accessory to sin; to encourage sin, to make sin more likely.  The brutes we fight against are bad men who we pray will repent of their ways - but such a repentance and such a change is made all the harder because there are those in our midst who encourage the evil doers in their wicked deeds...who see a Kennedy saying the war was hatched in Texas, a Reid saying the war is lost, an Obama promising to surrender in Iraq and say to themselves "our deeds are good, because they are bringing us victory".  President Bush has been the rock of American and global resolve in this war, but he will leave office on January 20th, 2009 - it is our duty as patriots and as citizens of the larger world to see to it that his successor is a man with no illusions, and with the plain courage to see this noble fight to an honorable conclusion.  With Bush followed by McCain, all will be well, no matter how hard the task proves - with Bush followed by Obama, all the work and sacrifice of the past 7 years will be in vain.

<em>Cross Posted at Blogs for Victory</em>
]]></description>
         <link>http://www.battlebornpolitics.com/2008/05/president_bush_in_is.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.battlebornpolitics.com/2008/05/president_bush_in_is.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">War on Terror</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 22:08:39 -0800</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Do You Stand by Your Friends?</title>
         <description><![CDATA[Some people <a href="http://www.lvrj.com/news/18854704.html">really do</a>:

<blockquote>The Rev. Dave Casaleggio doesn't apologize for the company he keeps.

The 60-year-old Roman Catholic priest and chairman of the Las Vegas Housing Authority remains steadfastly loyal to his most controversial friends, even when questions about the friendships land him in the newspaper or, in one recent instance, before a federal grand jury.

Casaleggio, known to many as "Father Dave," doesn't seem to care much what others might think of his hanging out with the likes of former Crazy Horse Too owner Rick Rizzolo or former Las Vegas City Councilman Michael McDonald, each of whom has borne his share of negative press over the years.

He uses the example of Jesus to back him up.

"It wasn't the perfect people Jesus went after," Casaleggio said. "It was the prostitutes, tax collectors and public sinners he cared about. I'm not saying they (Rizzolo and McDonald) are public sinners. But church isn't about perfect people. It's about struggling and failing."</blockquote>

No doubt about it, Rizzolo and McDonald are men who need the Gospel brought to them - and it is a priest or pastor's job to preach the Word of God everywhere, not just where convenient and polite.  Still, as the article goes on to note, Fr. Dave did loan McDonald 30k, which is odd for a priest to do - but not as odd as a non-Catholic might think:  Fr. Dave is a diocesan priest, and thus can hold private property, like the house he inherited from his parents and borrowed against to loan money to McDonald.  No matter how you slice it, it took a lot of guts on the part of Fr. Dave to loan that money - to stick by his friend, even though it would certainly raise eyebrows not just amongst outsiders, but even amongst most Catholics, at least initially.

Jesus did not call the sinless to repentance, but the sinners - and he doesn't abandon anyone, no matter what they've done.  So, Fr. Dave is living the Christian life, and I hope that no harm comes of it - but this is one of those situations where "judge not" really comes into play - if we don't know all the details (and we can't) then we have to suspend judgement and work on the assumpting that Fr. Dave and his friends are on the level.  The hard part, of course, is actually doing this - of actually looking at the McDonalds and Rizzolos of the world and seeing Christ in them, rather than just looking at their surface sins and wanting nothing more to do with them.]]></description>
         <link>http://www.battlebornpolitics.com/2008/05/do_you_stand_by_your.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.battlebornpolitics.com/2008/05/do_you_stand_by_your.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Sin City Living</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 07:49:30 -0800</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Playing the Race Card in Democratic Politics</title>
         <description><![CDATA[Sherman Frederick in the <em>Las Vegas Review-Journal </em><a href="http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/18841454.html">figures it cuts both ways </a>for the Democratics:

<blockquote>Democrats bristle at talking about this in plainer terms. They say Sen. Hillary Clinton has found her base -- the "working class." That's why she won in the Rust Belt primaries. That's her great hope in Kentucky and West Virginia.

But calling Clinton's strategy one of kowtowing to the "working class" doesn't quite say it, does it? Isn't this just old-fashioned racism within the Democratic Party?

When Hillary strategists say they are winning the "working class," they don't mean they are winning working people with a household income of, say, less than $50,000. All the exit polls show quite clearly that lower middle-class people who work split between Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Clinton. The difference is generally skin color. Hillary wins the lion's share of the "working-class" white Democrats. And, sadly, as Hillary's campaign has become meaner and more to the point, that margin has become bigger.

The Clinton racism strategy first became apparent in Nevada, when her struggling campaign began to publicly talk about her "Hispanic firewall" against Obama among the rank-and-file in the Culinary union. It hit the national consciousness soon thereafter when former President Bill Clinton, after Hillary lost the South Carolina primary, dismissed Obama's big win as a race-inspired victory akin to Jesse Jackson's success in that state years ago.

The record clearly shows that Hillary's campaign was the first to use Obama's race against him. The strategy gained an unexpected boost when Sen. Obama's former pastor, the egomaniacal Rev. Jeremiah Wright, cribbed the Obama spotlight only to show the world that racism could be a black thing, too. The opportunistic Clinton campaign shamelessly took full advantage of the tension. They not only raised questions about what the Wright debacle meant for an Obama presidency, they slyly positioned Hillary, like a latter-day George Wallace (the Alabama governor, not the very funny Las Vegas comedian), as the "working-class" candidate...

...The "superdelegate" whisper campaign goes something like this: Hillary is better built to win in November. Obama is soft and elitist. He's a dangerous unknown quantity. But most importantly, Mr. and Mrs. Democratic Insider Superdelegate, look at the voter numbers in key states. Forget about pledged delegates, wins and losses and overall popular vote. Look deep into the numbers of the key states Democrats must win in November.

Do you see those "working-class" numbers? Those are Hillary people. Those are the people who will win the White House for Democrats this fall. Those are the people who count because, faced with a choice between Obama and Sen. John McCain, "working-class" Democrats will vote for McCain.

It's a disgusting display for which Democrats ought to be alarmed and ashamed. The remedy is this: Stop calling Hillary's base the "working class" and start calling it what it is.</blockquote>

I'm not so sure about this - about the concept that Hillary's appeal to working class white voters is evidence of lingering racism, or Hillary's playing up to it.  I believe that Obama would be one of the very worst Presidents we've ever had - he might even redeem Jimmy Carter from the basement of Presidential legacies...but I don't go telling black friends that they are fools for voting Obama.  I understand it - its akin to the way Catholics went nuts for JFK in 1960, even though JFK (a) wasn't much of a Catholic and (b) even though he wasn't a very good candidate as far as actual qualifications for office go.  But white support for Obama amongst black Americans can be traced in large measure to pride over one of their own doing well, opposition to Obama doesn't necessarily stem from racial animosity, overt or covert.  Opposition to Obama stems from, in my view, his elitism and his arrogant condescension to average Americans - Wright was damaging to Obama, but "bitter" was far more so...what Wright said was what Wright said, and thus Obama could distance himself, at least to a degree, form it...but Obama's comment about bitter Americans clinging to God and guns, that was out of his own mouth, and let all of us know what he really thinks about us.

Sherman's view - that Hillary has played an ugly, race-based political calculation - may be true in the narrow sense; for all we know, Hillary did decide to make a covert play to race, but even if Hillary hadn't done so, I think that working class white people - who are a lot smarter than most political elites - especially liberal elites - give them credit for - would have been turned off to Obama by Obama's own words.  

<em>Cross Posted at Blogs for Victory</em>]]></description>
         <link>http://www.battlebornpolitics.com/2008/05/playing_the_race_car.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.battlebornpolitics.com/2008/05/playing_the_race_car.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Democrats</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 00:28:13 -0800</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Michigan Court Upholds Constitutional Will of the People</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=88336">Rather surprising</a>, given the way courts routinely ignore the law these days:

<blockquote>The Michigan General Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the state’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages also blocks Michigan governments and state universities from offering “domestic partnership” benefits for homosexual couples. 

The Marriage Protection Amendment was approved by nearly sixty percent of voters in 2004. Considered the broadest of the 11 state marriage amendments barring same-sex marriage, the language of the Michigan amendment says “…the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.” 

The Michigan ACLU, representing the AFL-CIO homosexual activist group National Pride at Work, had challenged the application of the law as based in Attorney General Mike Cox’s interpretation of the amendment.

The Michigan court’s 5-2 decision did not rule on whether government employment benefits can be offered to homosexual partners on some broader basis also available to other employees. Some local governments and universities have attempted to maintain present benefits by amending the eligibility requirements. 

“The people of Michigan have constitutionally protected marriage as exclusively the union of one man and one woman, period, and that includes prohibiting the recognition of homosexual relationships as equal or similar to marriage for any purpose, including offering spousal-type benefits to the homosexual partners of government employees,” Gary Glenn, one of the co-authors of the Marriage Protection Amendment and head of the American Family Association of Michigan.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, praised the decision, saying, “The Michigan Supreme Court courageously upheld the will of the people.”</blockquote>

This shows that it can be done - that we can, really, by working through our constitutional system actually get the laws to reflect the will of the people.  Now we just need to apply this to the Federal courts...]]></description>
         <link>http://www.battlebornpolitics.com/2008/05/michigan_court_uphol.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.battlebornpolitics.com/2008/05/michigan_court_uphol.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Gay Marriage</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Sun, 11 May 2008 13:17:33 -0800</pubDate>
      </item>
      
   </channel>
</rss>
