Loose Lips Sink Soldiers

A great freedom in our country is the ability to speak your mind without fear. There are exceptions to our freedom of speech, of course. It is commonly accepted that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, nor can you threaten to kill someone. Most of us recognize the act of exercising our rights must not trample on the rights of others - "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".

Therefore, I would like to say to a couple of Senators: Shame on you!

Shame on you, Ted Kennedy!

Ted Kennedy has frequently referred to Iraq as "George Bush's Vietnam". He does this in front of cameras, to ensure his remarks are carried throughout the world. Kennedy doesn't understand the major historical differences between Vietnam and Iraq, so that is not the reason for his comments. His only reason for saying such things is to cause doubt in public opinion. Why? Political gain for the Democratic party.

Senator Kennedy was one of 23 "No" votes HJ Res #114 in October of 2002 - which authorized the President to use military force in Iraq. Senator Kennedy didn't see Iraq as a threat to United States national security.

Before we laud Senator Kennedy for his "progressive, anti-war vision", let's remember he voted "Yes" just three years earlier to use "all necessary force and any other means" in cooperation with allies of the United States - with no mention of requiring UN involvement - to deal with problems in Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia posed no threat to the United States. We still have troops in the region, does that mean Kosovo is Bill Clinton's Vietnam? I have not heard anyone suggest this, least of all Ted Kennedy.

Shame on you, Senator Clinton!

Senator Clinton voted "Yes" on HJ Res #114. Senator Clinton, a member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, was convinced Iraq possessed WMD capability and the means to deploy it outside Iraq's borders. Why shouldn't she be? Her husband had been saying it for years. She saw all of the intelligence confirming the existance of a robust chemical and biological capability and the development of a nuclear capabilty. Senator Clinton has recently stated she has no regret regarding her vote on Iraq. She is embittered by the conduct of the war, not the reasons for it.

Senator Clinton has on several occasions taken the liberty of announcing the arrogant and stubborn policies of President Bush in regards to Iraq. Most recently she has made these remarks to an independent journalist, interviewing her for a London-based Arab-language newspaper - Asharq al-Awsat. She even had the gall to tell soldiers in Iraq that many question the policies of the administration, while supposedly on a goodwill tour to bolster troop morale. Her spokespeople have stated the Senator believes soldiers are tough enough to take straight talk about doubts in their mission. This may be true, but it is certainly not something you do to bolster morale! To think otherwise is ridiculous, so why would these remarks be made? Political gain for the Senator Clinton.

These public servants have forgotten partisan politics are supposed to stop at the water's edge. While that may be increasingly difficult in this time of satellites and cell phones, it certainly isn't impossible. Our elected officials should speak with their votes instead of grandstanding for public opinion.

Senator Clinton's remarks are shameful and can only benefit Senator Clinton, as they serve no purpose to her constituency. Ted Kennedy is the most shameful as his remarks could embolden our enemies by convincing them of a lack of US resolve. Is he trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy?

We are engaged in a battle between those who wish Iraq to enjoy the same freedom we do and those who wish to create a "Greater Iran". You cannot allow people in positions of power to cast a shadow upon our goal of eventual peace in a region that has never seen lasting peace. Peace doesn't just happen, it has to be pursued. Without our involvement, lasting peace is not possible - as no one else seems to have the ability or desire to create it.

It is ambitious, yes! But we are Americans! Ambition and Hope is what has created the most powerful, economically stable, healthiest nation in the world! We can only safegaurd that by creating it elsewhere.

Support our fighting men and women - they are securing the dreams of our children. If these brave people are successful, it could mean your children will avoid experiencing the horrors of war.

And remember, loose lips sink soldiers.

God Bless the President and this Great Nation!

The Insurrection in Iraq

There are powerful forces being displayed in Iraq and the voices of millions of people are being heard. Or are they?

It is true coalition soldiers are being engaged with increasing frequency and brutality by opposition forces. But what are these forces opposing?

In Iraq today is a man named Imad Mughniyeh (Ee mahd Moo KNEE yeay). He is training the folks who are fighting for a Shi'ite cleric named Al-Sadr to oust the occupation forces in Iraq.

You see how the Iraqi people are banding together for the first time in many years? It surely must be a sign that Iraqi people don't want US forces there, right? There is just one problem - Mughniyeh is not Iraqi. He is the Hezb'Allah (Hezbollah) operations chief in Lebanon - which is controlled by Iran. Mughniyeh is responsible for the bomb attack which killed more than 200 American Marines in Beirut in the 1980s and has led an untold number of terror attacks against Israeli and European targets since.

Mughniyeh and many fighters from Iran and Lebanon are training and fighting with supporters of Al-Sadr in Iraq. Mughniyeh and Al-Sadr are responsible for the explosions occurring in Iraq today. They are killing not only coalition soldiers, but Iraqi men, women and children. This is not a fight for liberty of the people of Iraq. It is a fight for a Shi'ite theocracy in Iraq - like the one in Iran. The Ayatollah leadership in Iran is sponsoring much of the terror occurring in Iraq today. The recent kidnappings of foreigners are signature events of Iranian terrorists of the 1980s and 1990s. The terrorists in Iraq have found how easily some countries will grab at an excuse to get out of Iraq these days. But, bowing to terror hasn't decreased the number of attacks, has it? They have increased because signs of weakness embolden our enemies.

This is an Iranian power-grab. Iran would be the dominant force in the middle east if they controlled Lebanon, Iraq and Iran. They could easily swallow up Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates and the rest of the world would be unable to stop them. Iran is nuclear ambitious, if not already nuclear capable.

An insurrection is defined as an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government. The new government in Iraq is, for the first time in their history, a democratic one. So back to my original question: What are these forces opposing?

They are opposing the success of a new democracy. This is an insurrection against freedom for all Iraqis - not just a chosen few. It is an insurrection against free speech, against the right to assemble, against the right to pursue happiness, against the right to live without discrimination, against the right to choose your religion, against the right to defend your family for tyrany, against the right to - you fill in the blank.

John Kerry - Catholicism is not a democracy

John Kerry has been quoted as stating, "I was raised a Catholic, served as an altar boy, and once considered becoming a priest." Yet, "Whatever my personal beliefs are, they have no place here." And, "...the constitutional separation of church and state forbids lawmakers from regulating abortion based on their religious beliefs."

John Kerry's distinction between what he believes and what he thinks is an absurdity. It's schizophrenic. It's like saying, "I believe I love my Mom, but I don't think I do. Our laws are based upon society's belief of what is right and wrong. Do you exclude what you believe to be right and wrong as a means to determine it?

John Kerry would have you believe religious morality is a minority factor in determining law, when all evidence throughout human history points to the contrary. Here is a simple test: Name one of the Commandments which does not appear in law. John Kerry would also not point out that until 1973, abortion was outlawed in all fifty states. It took a judicial fiat - rather than the will of the people - to allow abortions in the individual states. Only one of the three branches of government was involved in legalizing abortion.

John Kerry has shown his misunderstanding of catechism by comparing abortion with capital punishment. First of all, there have been approximately 45 Million reported abortions performed in the US since 1973. There have been approximately 1 Thousand executions carried out since 1973. In the terms of sheer numbers, there is no equivalent. It appears the State has taken a grave and cautious approach to capital punishment.

The catechism spells out very clearly that a) life is to be protected from the moment of conception b) the Church views cooperation in abortion as an offense serious enough to warrant excommunication and c) abortion has a grave impact on society as a whole.

On the issue of capital punishment, the catechism is equally clear in providing recognition that the State may need, as horrible as capital punishment is, to use it as a means to ensure the human rights of others are protected from serious offenders.

John Kerry has several times stated his disagreement with the Vatican and various US Church officials, stating "I believe in the Church and I care about it enormously. But I think that it's important to not have the Church instructing politicians. That is an inappropriate crossing of the line in America."

Mr Kerry, the Church isn't instructing politicians. The Church is instructing Catholics. You were a Catholic when you became a politician. You took a pledge at Confirmation and that pledge was based upon your affirmation of belief in the catechism of the Catholic Church.

Mr. Kerry, Don't flip-flop on Catholicism too!