Today's news of the barbaric murders of two US servicemen -- heroes in my book -- is the last straw. If this doesn't shake the pansy, America-hating leftists in this country out of their 1960's induced stupor, then there is no hope for them. What will it take for these liberals to see what animals we are fighting over in Mohammed-land?
I've already heard one unnamed "non-partisan" reporter on the radio blather on about how this is revenge for the alleged non-combatants being killed in Haditha. I'm sorry, that's asinine logic and a thinly veiled attempt at disguising commentary as news. I for one am not buying it. The two events have absolutely nothing to do with each other. In one instance, we have the remains of soldiers who'd been tortured and murdered. In the other, bodies of Iraqis are mixed among terrorists. It is quite clear what happened to the two soldiers. It is yet to be determined what really happened at Haditha, although those poor Marines are being treated like war criminals and convicted in the anti-military media before getting any opportunity to defend themselves. That's another story, however.
There's a stark difference between our troops and these Islamic jihadists. US troops are constrained by the Laws of Armed Conflict. For example, that means we don't carry out random kidnappings, we take prisoners captured in combat and secure them in safe locations, we wear identifiable uniforms, and we avoid the use of bombs planted under cars, buses, and cafe tables. Do you see the difference now? Our enemies in this war refuse to acknowledge any type of legal structure for combat operations. I would expect nothing less from terrorists. Actually, the left prefers the term "insurgents," as if that makes these murderers more humane. Instead, we get decapitated civilian contractors, mutilated remains of innocent Iraqi citizens, American soldiers maimed by IEDs, and indiscriminate killing from an enemy that makes no distinction between warriors and non-combatants. And the liberals claim we're losing the moral high ground?
The US has made some great strides in "streamlining" the leadership structure of Al-Qaida in Iraq, courtesy of a few well-placed munitions. It is difficult to conduct traditional operations in a guerilla environment, but I am afraid our enemies won't reciprocate and adhere to any organized laws of war. If that's the case, we should declare open season on any Al-Qaida supporters and put them on notice that the next sound they hear will be a laser-guided bomb whistling through their front door in an effort to arrange the meeting between them and God. Paradise is pretty hot this time of year, I hear...
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Monday, June 05, 2006
Love and Marriage, Love and Marriage...
According to most observers today, President Bush’s speech in support of a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage smacked of a desperate attempt to mobilize the conservative base of the Republican Party with an issue near and dear to their hearts. Many religious conservatives have adopted prohibiting gay marriage as a legislative goal. Predictably, several Republican senators lined up to support the effort, despite an extremely small chance of the bill ever seeing the light of day.
I am somewhat torn between how best to argue my opposition to this amendment. As a conservative Christian, I find the homosexual lifestyle repugnant. Many conservatives, this author included, are tired of the radical gay agenda being forced upon society in the name of diversity or equality. Thanks to activist judges and the US Supreme Court, homosexual behavior is now constitutionally protected. What goes on behind closed doors between consenting homosexual adults is their own affair according to the law. Thus, I consider the moral argument compelling, yet moot for the sake of discussion.
I’d prefer to dissent based on general conservative principles. I doubt many will be fooled by the play to the conservative base today. Liberal senators like Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have already cried foul and quickly criticized the Bush administration. The US Senate, hamstrung by ineffective leadership, has produced an impotent immigration bill, neglected some desperately needed tax reform, and has wasted time and money on a mind-boggling scale.
Why make banning homosexual marriage a priority when there is so much more productive governing to be done? The goal of conservatism is to make government smaller and less invasive on the lives of American citizens. This is a fairly libertarian response to the gay marriage issue – primacy of a citizen’s private, personal activities with limited government interference. The time is now for conservative leaders to take control, stop the moderate waffling, eliminate bloated entitlements, and advance the agenda to which they were elected. Banning gay marriage, while agreeable on its face, ranks fairly low on the urgency scale. Has our society continued its drift into questionable morality? Absolutely. Look at the “wholesome” films spawned in Hollywood. If you think Brokeback Mountain was simply a gay cowboy movie, you’re naïve or completely missing the point. Ultimately, Conservatives should look locally to seek the results they desire.
Although I oppose gay marriage, I don’t want my elected officials legislating for legislation’s sake, especially on issues that are ultimately symbolic. From a purely states’ rights perspective, what on earth do we need a constitutional amendment for when marriages are “regulated” (for lack of a better description) by the states themselves? Radical homosexuals want to redefine moral norms advocated by citizens that have lasted for several millennia. The extremist element of the gay lobby gets the press because they scream the loudest, and again, the useful idiots of the mainstream media are happy to oblige. Men should not be married to other men, nor women married to other women, and legally defining marriage as a permanent union between a man and a woman should certainly fall within the realm of an individual state’s powers. If Congress wants to support the states’ initiatives, it has the constitutional power to limit the lower courts’ jurisdiction on specific matters. Pass a law specifically addressing the desired definition of marriage, and protect that legislation from liberals whose sole means of advancing their agenda involves an end-run around the electoral will of the people by exploiting judicial activism. To keep the ACLU in check, legislators should avoid specific religious implications to hopefully preclude any establishment issue lawsuits.
What will become of this issue is uncertain. What is certain, however, is the need for our elected officials to produce tangible results that actually mean something to the public. Symbolic acts that pander to limited constituencies cloud the reality of a majority party whose accomplishments have been mediocre at best and ineffective at worst.
I am somewhat torn between how best to argue my opposition to this amendment. As a conservative Christian, I find the homosexual lifestyle repugnant. Many conservatives, this author included, are tired of the radical gay agenda being forced upon society in the name of diversity or equality. Thanks to activist judges and the US Supreme Court, homosexual behavior is now constitutionally protected. What goes on behind closed doors between consenting homosexual adults is their own affair according to the law. Thus, I consider the moral argument compelling, yet moot for the sake of discussion.
I’d prefer to dissent based on general conservative principles. I doubt many will be fooled by the play to the conservative base today. Liberal senators like Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have already cried foul and quickly criticized the Bush administration. The US Senate, hamstrung by ineffective leadership, has produced an impotent immigration bill, neglected some desperately needed tax reform, and has wasted time and money on a mind-boggling scale.
Why make banning homosexual marriage a priority when there is so much more productive governing to be done? The goal of conservatism is to make government smaller and less invasive on the lives of American citizens. This is a fairly libertarian response to the gay marriage issue – primacy of a citizen’s private, personal activities with limited government interference. The time is now for conservative leaders to take control, stop the moderate waffling, eliminate bloated entitlements, and advance the agenda to which they were elected. Banning gay marriage, while agreeable on its face, ranks fairly low on the urgency scale. Has our society continued its drift into questionable morality? Absolutely. Look at the “wholesome” films spawned in Hollywood. If you think Brokeback Mountain was simply a gay cowboy movie, you’re naïve or completely missing the point. Ultimately, Conservatives should look locally to seek the results they desire.
Although I oppose gay marriage, I don’t want my elected officials legislating for legislation’s sake, especially on issues that are ultimately symbolic. From a purely states’ rights perspective, what on earth do we need a constitutional amendment for when marriages are “regulated” (for lack of a better description) by the states themselves? Radical homosexuals want to redefine moral norms advocated by citizens that have lasted for several millennia. The extremist element of the gay lobby gets the press because they scream the loudest, and again, the useful idiots of the mainstream media are happy to oblige. Men should not be married to other men, nor women married to other women, and legally defining marriage as a permanent union between a man and a woman should certainly fall within the realm of an individual state’s powers. If Congress wants to support the states’ initiatives, it has the constitutional power to limit the lower courts’ jurisdiction on specific matters. Pass a law specifically addressing the desired definition of marriage, and protect that legislation from liberals whose sole means of advancing their agenda involves an end-run around the electoral will of the people by exploiting judicial activism. To keep the ACLU in check, legislators should avoid specific religious implications to hopefully preclude any establishment issue lawsuits.
What will become of this issue is uncertain. What is certain, however, is the need for our elected officials to produce tangible results that actually mean something to the public. Symbolic acts that pander to limited constituencies cloud the reality of a majority party whose accomplishments have been mediocre at best and ineffective at worst.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)