Pakistan President Musharraf's troubles bode both good and bad for the Bush Administration. Initially, Musharraf was a reliable ally in the War on Terror; particularly due to the fact that Pakistan, a Muslim nation, was helping the United States pursue and capture the leader of a Muslim organization.

Musharraf, for a while, was able to skilfully walk that fine line between openly helping the United States in it's Afghanistan campaign to soothing over ill-feelings within it's own borders from the Pakistani people. Bin Laden, after all, was actually a popular figure there. For awhile, it looked as if Bin Laden was trapped in the mountainous region that borders Afghanistan and Pakistan. It looked as if it would be just a matter of time before either American or Pakistani forces captured the most notorious terrorist in world history.

Eventually, however, Pakistan's involvement in the Bin Laden chase stalled, sputtered and finally died out as the campaign became more unpopular in Pakistan. Rumors of a truce between Al-Qaeda and Musharraf persisted for months before finally being confirmed. Still, Pakistan's alliance with the United States just didn't sit well. Musharaff clamped down on dissidents both pro and con alike resulting in a spiralling downfall of popularity of Musharraf with the Pakistani people.

Meanwhile, Musharraff has  re-played the French-German World War 1 drama of "The Phony War" along the Pakistani-Afghan border; pretending to pursue Al-Qaeda but stopping short of actually doing so.

Bhutto's resurgence among the people can be a positive sign for the United States. Musharraf's removal and her reinstatement could lead to Pakistan taking a more aggressive stance against Al-Qaeda or, worst case scenario, she may take a hand's off policy while she stabilizes her hold on power.

Only time will tell how this will turn out.

But, meanwhile, Bin Laden will continue to roam freely through the Afghan mountainside plotting his next terrorist attack.

While the nation is focused upon the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are oblivious to another, more silent war, going on here, within our own borders, led by liberalism, upon family values, morality and decency.

It seems that there are no lengths that liberals are not willing to go to bring about their own twisted version of America. There is no cause which liberals will not embrace: gay rights, abortion, illegal immigration, atheism, pornography, legalization of drugs and prostitution, global warming and even New Age paganism.  Their goals are pretty obvious; multi-culturalism at the expense of the culture already here. Liberals intend on changing American culture from one once firmly founded upon Christian morals and values into a culture of hedonism and selfishness. America, it seems, is to be rebuilt and remade into a new, modern-day, Babylon or even another Sodom and Gomorrah.

Nothing is sacred in this war which has been as aggressive as Al-Qaeda has been in Iraq. Like the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, liberals have targeted the core center of American decency: God and the Family.

In the liberal world, Mom and Dad will be replaced by Steve and Gary or even Eve and Lacy for the long standing family unit of one man and one woman is considered by many of today's intellectual scholars as being archaic. Homosexuality is encouraged by liberals at an early age. Our children are being indoctrinated with this doctrine that same-sex relationships are acceptable; that it is normal behavior, as early as 3rd Grade. The State of California has even gone as far as attempting to place 'trans-sexual' bathrooms in public schools. Mom and Dad are to be replaced with Dad and Dad and Mom and Mom. Children, according to liberal doctrine, do not  have to be satisfied with the gender they've been born into and should have the right to choose which sex or sexuality they want to be.

Sexuality, and sex itself, seems to be at the core of liberalism's attempts to derail American culture. Liberals believe that men and women can have sex with whomever and whatever they feel like.  Whereas, most conservatives are appalled at the amount of pornography being accessed by children through the Internet, Liberals state that there is nothing wrong with this; that pornography is natural and that it is protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution. I've seen pornography, and while it may be a sexual act, it is not a normal sexual relationship. I'm married and I don't bend my wife like a pretzel, choke her, slap her or spew bodily fluids across her body. My wife is treated with respect, as she deserves, the vast majority of women in pornography might as well be nothing but rubber dolls for over-sexed men to play with.

Liberals claim that they believe in the sanctity of life and yet they are in the forefront in regards to promoting abortion. With a bit of hypocrisy, most pro-choice advocates are also animal rights activists and environmentalists.  Liberals will shout that we must Save the Whales, the Rainforest and warn us of the dangers of Global Warming (led by the erroneous data provided in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth) but yet they believe that an unborn child bears no rights whatsoever. They are so callous in their regard towards human life that they have attempted to re-install partial birth abortion (made illegal by President Bush) and have even made attempts to shroud their inhumanity by using the aborted remains of fetuses as part of stem cell research. Don't kill that rabbit or rat but by all means use an aborted child.  I wonder how long it will be before liberals authorize the government to begin 'human farms' to produce fetuses for scientists to experiment with?

Lastly, if destroying the family unit wasn't enough, liberals have begun an assault upon God Himself. Atheists such as Christopher Hitchens, Philip Pullman, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Pinker have led the charge in assault the free practice of religion in the United States. Various attempts have been made to remove the influence of Christianity from our nation starting from protests against the display of the Ten Commandments, nativity scenes and school prayer to attempts to remove or change the Pledge of Allegiance and prohibiting the use of the word God in government documents. Sadly, atheists seem to have allies within or own Congress in the form of Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi who have openly supported their efforts.

As our generation is considered 'lost' to them, liberals have targeted our children and have attempted to brainwash them against the morals we have tried to instill in them. Even 'safe organizations' such as the YMCA, Big Brothers/Little Sisters and the Boy Scouts of America have become hunted in a form of Open Season against them.

There is no choice in liberalism. You must either conform to their ideaology or be destroyed.

The War upon Decency has begun and it is up to us to fight it.

  

 In a monumental victory for pro-lifers, the procedure known as a partial birth abortion has been banned by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision. You can read about the decision on the American Center for Law & Justice website http://www.aclj.org/Spotlight/

You can go here: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html to see how this awful procedure was accomplished. It's in the past now; it's illegal!

Now if we can only outlaw abortions altogether ...

I am a fan of the CBS action-drama, The Unit , which details the missions of a U.S. Army Special Forces team against terrorists, drug smugglers and petty dictators throughout the world.

At a fan site located at TV.com for the TV show an English fan criticizes the last episode of season one called The Wall. In the episode, the French are portrayed negatively, if not a bit shady, in their support of the team who is hunting a Serbian terrorist group here in the U.S. The critic of the show claims that America has a very wrong attitude towards the French and that the French baiting by Hollywood is negatively affecting America's opinions towards France.

Of course, our good English critic fails to remember France's refusal to allow U.S. bombers to fly over French airspace on a retaliation mission over Libya in the 1980s, their 'not so overt' support for the Serbs during the Kosovo Campaign and the illegal arms shipments and supplies found by US troops with French markings in Iraq. Iraq, at the time, was under a UN sponsored embargo which France chose to completely ignore. Our Englishmen claims that there is no French animosity towards Americans.

Having been to France (Marseille), I can tell  you from experience that there is indeed a French feeling of ill will towards America. During our port visit over Christmas in 2003, there were 5 incidents involving attacks by French nationals on American sailors including one stabbing and another incident involving a gun. We got a warmer welcome from the Muslim community in Marseille than we got from the French people. During our 5 day stay, the good French people staged two protests at the gates to the base we were at. The last one was so violent that we were not allowed to leave the pier. And France says we portray them negatively? Oh, boo-hoo.
 
France has a very poor military reputation; particularly in the 20th Century and an even poorer one when it comes to support it's allies. France, in my opinion, rightly deserves any bashing it may or may not receive from Hollywood TV shows.   

  

Being Right Wing is Not a Crime

I think that it is time to put an issue finally to rest. So many people nowadays equate the term 'right-wing' to someone who is intolerant, war-mongering, religion obsessed as well as having an apathetic attitude towards the sick and the poor. I have seen these very words appear in multiple web blogs throughout the Internet especially on the Daily Kos (www.dailykos.com).

I will make my political sponsorship and support clearly. I am a moderate and I am also am independent of any political party. I am not a Democrat but I support Barack Obama for President. I am not voting for the Democratic party; I am voting for the Senator named Barack Obama who I believe is the best man for the job of President. If he is not elected as a candidate, I will go elsewhere and look. I'll never vote for anyone named Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Jeb Bush, Rudy Giuliani or Milt Romney. I just don't feel comfortable with them and think that they are just a continuation of the poor leadership we currently have.

But on the topic of those on the right-wing of politics I believe it is time to re-evaluate them and see, not the bad we think they do, but the good aspects of their political ideology.

Those who reside in the left-wing of society are very good at pointing at others and claiming that they judge by labels. Sadly, their claims hold as much merit as the pot calling the kettle black. Truthfully, though, the left also needs to take a hard look at itself in the mirror for they also appear to judge, as they claim their adversaries do, by the book cover and not by the pages within.

Where I work, I am surrounded by a pretty good cross-section of society. There are liberals, conservatives and moderates to be found in every corner of the building. There are those who believe strongly in religion and those agnostics who just believe in having good morals. There are also those who think that anything goes and who will broadly accept any cause, no matter how silly, without even looking into it first.

Despite what many may believe, there are many people who are right-wing but who also are some of the kindest and compassionate people I have ever met. I have met many who have donated hundreds of dollars at a time to charity or to church. I have seen them volunteer their time to help out at shelters or elderly homes. I have even seen them tend to AIDS patients. On the flip side, there are those liberals who believe that rudeness and disrespecting someone is acceptable behavior. They have taken being crass to new levels and have even gone as far as to try to claim it as an art. As much as those on the left would like to think it; they need the people on the right just as much as the right-wing needs the left.

It is true that those on the right are very pro-military. It is because they believe that America has enemies and that it is necessary to be prepared for anything. The left would, mistakenly, like everyone to believe that the world is hunky-dory and everyone just wants to love one another. Here is the truth: America does have enemies including some who claim to be our allies. They are indeed envious of our wealth and status in this world and would like nothing better than to knock us off of our pedestal. While we do need a strong military, however, it should also be a military used wisely and not one that is used on foolish endeavors. The Bible claims that we should always 'temper justice with mercy' and that parable definitely applies to the use of military force. We should be used only when America is definitely threatened and not to prop up shady allies or dictators who abuse the human rights of their own people just so that we can have access to their oil. We claim to be the arsenal of democracy and the defender of freedom ... before we can fully put on that mantle, we must first practice what we preach. We need to stop supporting human rights violators and those who oppress their own people. We also need to use force more wisely and not jump into a war unless we are going to fully commit to it. I hate to tell my brethren on the left but we need the military because I wouldn't trust our so-called neighbors with a ten feet pole and I definitely would not ever turn my backs upon them. People are self serving and self seeking and they would love to see America fall for good and there are those abroad who are plotting that right now even as I write.

Those on the right believe strongly in religion. America was founded upon Christian mores and values. God is mentioned more than once in both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The men who wrote these documents were 18^th Century men who practiced some form of either Judaism, Catholicism or Protestantism. They wanted to create a nation where no one branch of religion would ever dominate but at the same time everyone would be free to practice their faith freely. Many remember the former but mostly forget the latter that people are free to pray and to worship when they want to and whenever they desire to. There are many on the left who hate religion. They hate it with an unbridled passion to the point where they have become prejudiced towards it. They mock Jesus and put images of him in pornographic magazines and in trashy cartoons. They laugh at him but know absolutely nothing about him. They don't even understand the message he was trying to teach us all. People on the left focus more on the mistakes Christianity has made instead of what it has brought to Western civilization. Our first schools were founded by the clergy. Writing, literature and philosophy were preserved by Christian monks. During the years of the Black Death, it was priests who tended to the sick; not the government. So many priests died during the years of the Black plague that there was actually a shortage of priests after the epidemic was over. Even today, it is the Christian clergy who reaches out to the starving, the sick and the poor of many Third World countries. Of course, the left denies this. There is much that Christianity has to offer and it is a shame that there are those who will avoid it and condemn it as if it were a new incarnation of the plague. People have a right to practice Christianity and encompass it in their lives as much as they desire ... just as New Age groups, Buddhists, Hindus and other faiths do. At the same time, you cannot force someone to believe in Christianity and Jesus told his disciples that if they were greeted poorly to shake off the dust of those homes off of their sandals and move on. God does not want unwilling converts; He wants to be accepted willingly.

Those on the right-wing believe that hard work should be rewarded. They believe in charity and even welfare but not to the point where welfare has become a permanent fixture in the lives of many people. It has become a sort of inheritance that is passed on from one generation to another. In essence, it has become a new form of slavery by keeping entire families at a low and destitute economic level and making them dependent upon the government. As Jesus taught his disciples, there will always be poor but he also told them that it was our duty to take care of them. Welfare is necessary but it also should not be an excuse for laziness either. The right-wing has called for a reform in the welfare system and I believe that this proposal holds merit.

The right-wing believes in personal responsibility for one's actions. Too many nowadays do not take account of what they do and instead look quickly for the first person to blame their woes on. We have become a society of victims always saying 'it's not my fault' when really, it is. Responsibility also must encompass fiscal responsibility too. Just because we can spend the money doesn't mean we should. Money should also go first to our own people way before so much as a penny is spent overseas to very ungrateful allies and not-so much allies. It's time to cut or even reduce our aid to foreign nations who offer us nothing in return. American taxpayers pay money to support our government who in turn is to use it to provide for the American people ... not for the people of Latin America, Africa, Asia or the Middle East. Sounds biting but that is the true purpose of the taxes we pay. Most Americans don't mind paying taxes and all they ask is that our money be spent wisely.

There, I have defended the right and shown the good merits they possess. Being “right-wing” is not a dirty word nor should anyone be ashamed of being called “right-wing” for there is goodness in your beliefs just as there is on the left. It's a shame that somehow, the two 'wings' of our country could not unite and do just what John F. Kennedy said over 40 years ago: “So let us begin anew remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate. Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us. .... And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”

It is time to put petty differences aside and do not is best for our respective parties but what is best for our own nation.

Since the end of the Reagan Era, there has been a growing prejudice towards those of the Christian faith. It sprang forth from the Democratic Party's fanatic embrace of liberalism which cuminated in the election of Bill Clinton as President of the United States. This dislike of the left wing of our society of anything to do with Christianity was planted and watered liberally by our then President's party until it sprang in the 21st Century as a full-fledged movement to eradicate anything and everything that has to do with the Christian faith. I have lost track of the lawsuits I have seen in the news which have ranged from the trivial display of nativity scenes during Christmas (not X-Mas) to bigger and bolder attempts such as to try to remove 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance and the suppression of bible study classes after hours in schools.

During my time in the service, I have come across those in uniform, and not, who are of the liberal persuasion and who have taken a strong dislike towards those who profess a belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ. They openly participate in this prejudicial hostility towards Christianity and hide their prejudice under the moniker of 'seperation of church and state' or of being 'politically correct'.

I am attending college on-line through Thomas Edison State College where I became involved in a discussion of Christianity and it's role in history. The course we were studying was Western Civilization. It is no secret that Christianity has played a major role in the development of the West. While there are many countries in Europe who no longer practice Christianity, Western civilization, as a whole, still bears witness to Christianity's influence upon it with a mixture of  both good and bad results.

I take Christianity at face value. I know that it has a storied past and I am not ignorant of it but I am also aware that it was not the religion that went bad but those who claimed to be acting in it's name. Still, I never thought I would have to defend my religion in a college class.

My opponents wrongly claimed Christianity as a cult. The exact term used to describe it was 'the Jesus cult'. They also claimed that Christianity is just a form of paganism and that we are not monotheists and that we are also idolators. They proudly boasted of the 'evils' of Christianity; of how we harass and persecute homosexuals and people of other faiths; mainly Muslims. We don't like sex nor do we like alcohol and all Christians want to do is to control how other people live. They claimed that all of Europe's wars were started by Christianity and that nothing good could come from the religion.

I wouldn't be surprised if I saw a claim that Christians were responsible for the 9/11 attacks for it seems that Christians have become labeled as the new terrorists to watch.

I believe that I defended my faith rather well. I told them that their interpretations of history were incorrect. Wars were started by individuals seeking their own selfish goals and ambitions. The name of God may have been used as a rallying cry to go to war but only a fool would believe that such a thing was sanctioned by God. Apparently, there were an awful lot of fools in history. Christianity has always been a religion of peace. There have been those who have misused it but it's essence of peace has always been there. I, however, live in the 21st Century; not the 11th or 13th century. I know, all too well, when a politician or religious leader is twisting scripture around to suit his or her own ends.

As to Christianity doing no good I beg to differ. The first schools in Europe were run by the clergy. The Irish monks became living repositories for Greek and Roman literature and philosophy following the fall of the once mighty Roman Empire. It was Christian priests who tended the sick during the Great Plague; the Black Death of the Dark Ages. So many priests died in service to the sick that there was actually a shortage of them for quite a while. Christianity brought about the creation of Chivalry and was the genesis of the very human rights we all claim to have today. Christianity is also much more successful in tending to the poor and suffering than many governments are capable of. In my city of Philadelphia I see more church run shelters and soup kitchens than I do city run ones. So much for left wing championship of socialism and welfare which fail where Christianity succeeds.

Critics of Christianity love to bring up the Crusades and the Inquisition but say nothing about pagans who openly tortured, maimed and killed early Christians for their own pleasure. Apparently, their memory is short.

Jesus is not a cult figure but is a real life historical person. He is noted in Greek, Hebrew and Latin histories of Judea. He performed miracles, true, but his greatest gift was not feeding hundreds with but a few fish and bread or even raising the dead. Jesus greatest gifts were his teachings for us to love on another which was emphasized by his death upon the cross.

When I question those who criticize Christianity I find something interestingly in common between them. The vast majority of it's detractors have either never been to church or attended it very sparingly. They have not read the Bible in it's entireity and instead are quite satisfied picking out bits and pieces of scripture which suit their argument. You cannot do that with the Bible. You must take both books; older and newer Testaments as one complete work for they compliment each other. The New Testament is the fulfillment of the prophecies described in the Old. It is God's promise to us come true.

I caution those who openly criticize Christianity for they are violating the very principles they claim Christians violate. Their accusations are biased, incomplete, false in nature and are completely ignorant and prejudiced.  I think critics of Christianity should take their own advice and not judge a book by it's cover or at least, take the time to walk a mile in our shoes. 

I watched with great interest this morning the Bill O'Reilly/Geraldo Rivera confrontation which occurred on FoxNews Thursday evening. For awhile, I was wondering if I was watching a special edition of WWE: Smackdown instead of Bill O'Reilly's TV show.

I am moderate in my political views and while I found the entire discussion entertaining I also found merit from both sides of the story.

I have been stationed in Hampton Roads for much of my US Navy career. I lived in Virginia Beach from 1995-2006 so I am well acquainted with the policies and sometimes very shady practices of the mayor of Virginia Beach, Ms. Oberndorf. It is no secret that she panders openly to the upper middle class in her city and their tendency to hire illegal immigrants.

In regards to the drunk driving incident which took the lives of two teenagers on Wednesday evening I say, first of all, that it is an immense tragedy. Drunk driving, whether it be from the locals, tourists or illegal aliens is a major problem in the region particularly as we approach the warmer summer months.

In defense of Geraldo Rivera, he is correct in that if this incident did not involve a Mexican national who was here illegally it would have been doubtful if the coverage of this event would have garnered much interest beyond the local community. Looking past all the exchange of rhetoric Mr. Rivera is also correct that this about a drunk driver who slammed into the back end of a stopped vehicle. He is correct on this point but his defense of the accused, Mr. Ramos, also bares some holes in it. Mr. Ramos has been arrested 4 times in his stay in the United States and twice on drunk driving. He already has a history involving alcohol and using Mr. Rivera's 'this is about a drunk driver' he is correct again but I have to ask, did the police do any investigation? That answer is no. Mr. Ramos's history of drunk driving should have been enough to keep him off of the road and deported but it did not. Mr. O'Reilly however, makes a strong counterpoint, if Mr. Ramos was in his country where he came from and not here illegally would this accident have occurred? That answer is probably not but it is also not a given that some other person would have come down the same road and done the very same thing that Mr. Ramos did.
 
In defense of Mr. O'Reilly, it is true that Mr. Ramos was  here illegally and he should have been deported when he was arrested on drunk driving charges the first time. He is also correct that Virginia Beach's mayor is well aware of the illegal aliens in her city. If she does not see them walking the streets of Atlantic Avenue then she is awfully blind and needs a better prescription for the glasses she wears. The truth is, however, that illegal immigrants play the role of nanny, landscaper, laborer and janitor to many of the mayor's supporters. Mayor Oberndorf has a long history of shady dealings which many residents are all too aware of. Still, it does looks as if the mayor will look the other way when it comes to the large number of illegal immigrants in the city. Mr. O'Reilly's claim that Virginia Beach is a 'haven' or 'safe city' for illegals is probably very true.
 
Nothing is being done to stem the tide of illegal immigrants here in the United States. I am personally for immigration. My grandfather was an immigrant from the Ukraine; but he came her legally and he learned the English language. In fairness, I expect the same from this new 'wave' of immigrants. They must earn their citizenship. I expect Mexicans to enter this country legally and to learn English as my own family did.

Mr. Rivera seemed to indicate that Mr. O'Reilly has a bias against hispanics. I can neither prove nor disprove this. Is  he a tad prejudiced towards them? Perhaps. Is he racist? I doubt it. I believe that Mr. O'Reilly, despite his views, is a strong supporter of law and order and all he desires is for our nation's laws to be followed.
 
So, as I look back at the wrestling match, err, discussion between Mr. Rivera and Mr. O'Reilly ended I see the conclusion as  .... a draw.

I wonder if there will be a rematch?