Check it out. I'm trying to do a little bit more blogging about politics and what not. Leave a comment or two.

Thanks friends,

Captain Leadbottom

Captain Leadbottom's Blog

I have had enough of the left abusing victims to forward their agenda. They know they cannot persuade Americans with facts and logic, but resort to tugging on the heart strings of the sympathetic.

This blog is not intended to debate embryonic stem cell research. It is also not about whether Rush Limbaugh was right to question if Michael J. Fox was medicated or not or if he was acting. This blog is not about if Fox has a right to talk about his affliction. What this blog is about; is how democrats use victims to stifle open and honest debate. It is deplorable and it's about time they are called to the carpet when they use this disgusting strategy.

Everyone wants Michael J. Fox to get well. Who doesn't love Marty McFly or my favorite young Republican Alex P. Keaton? Who didn't wish Superman would fly again, as Christopher Reeve sat incapacitated in his wheelchair on parade for his cause? What American does not sympathize with Cindy Sheehan's loss of her brave son and the family members who lost their loved ones on 9-11? We all do! The left does not have a monopoly on sympathy. They do however; have a monopoly on using these victims to affect national policy and even elections. But what needs to be seen here is the pattern. The pattern is of the left to use victims to stifle open debate.

Ann Coulter certainly made some waves when she called out the 9-11 widows for using their victim status for political motivation. Even I had a tendency to question if Ms. Coulter was being a little harsh on these women claiming they were "enjoying" from their husbands deaths. These victims have been working to investigate government failures before 9-11 and publicly endorsed John Kerry during the presidential election of 2004. I don't need to know who they support, in order to sympathize with their loss. But why, other than to influence politics, would they publicly support a specific candidate? Now, if you question one of these women about why they do what they do, you are labeled "heartless" and "vicious" and there you have it...end of debate.

We all love to hate the victim who made the most out of her 15 minutes of fame. Cindy Sheehan's involvement on the political scene is well known. From supporting Kerry to shaking hands with the likes of Chavez to political marches, she has used her victim standing like no other. In fact, if I did have any sympathy for her loss it has been far overshadowed by my contempt for her by using her brave son's sacrifice to stave off debate. Ask her anything about her political views and all you would hear is "because my son died in a war". Oops, there it is again. Who wants to debate a grieving widow? Yet she gets a "stage" to spew her leftist and social garbage with no rebuttals.

Howard Dean has to take the cake when he blatantly used the death of both Dana and Christopher Reeve when he said "We owe it to Dana Reeve to recommit ourselves to the cause she so eloquently championed. The best way to honor her life is to continue fighting to ensure that we do everything possible to realize the full promise of full scientific and medical research." Is anyone starting to see the pattern here?

And last but not least, our dear Mr. Fox and his political attack against Jim Talent and Michael Steel bought and paid for by the Democratic group Majority Action (another wonderful 529). It could not be clearer, whether Fox was medicated or acting or otherwise, that this is another deliberate attempt by democrats to suppress debate. I'm not going to tell poor Marty McFly that he is wrong about his hopes in this research. And if I do, as Mr. Limbaugh found out, you are labeled heartless, callus and cold. Even as I am reading news articles regarding this story I find the following comment:

Dear Michael,
My heart really goes out for you. Just keep your faith. I hope that one day a cure for PD can be found. I really enjoy watching you in the Back to the Future Trilogy. I feel so bad that Rush Limbaugh and some of the others feel the need to take shots at you. You are such a sweet man, and you do exude peace and harmony. You definitely have my support.
Hugs! :)

The democrats have sunk to the lowest of the low, once again proving that they cannot debate on equal footing. They will stop at nothing, and will use the most reprehensible and dishonest methods necessary to gain power.

I was asked today if I was worried about the dummycrats taking the House or the Senate and thought it was high time I posted a blog about it.

I have faith in our party to ultimately do the right thing and get out there and vote "R". I think I can speak for many republicans that we are angry at the politics that come into play with certain issues like immigration. Our knee-jerk response is to say "Well, I'll show him/her and not vote for them".

There is nothing the Dems would like more. In order to marginalize the politics that come into play, the party must feel secure in thier power. They must know that the base will continue to suport them and keep them in office or else they start to waffle and flip and make us want to vote them out.

Lets vote this November to keep the Republicans in power. We cannot afford to stay home because of a handful of moderates and allow a change of power in either the House or the Senate.

More importantly, a loss of the House would be a tremendous set back to our nation. Not only in terms of our efforts to combat terror abroad, but also domestically in terms of higher taxes, and dangerous liberal immigration policies. I have no doubt, that if in power, the left would attempt to impeach this president thus wasting even more of our tax dollars, but also in the proccess would weaken our international projection of power making us even more vulnerable to terrorism.

The thing we must remember is; if we stay home, we may as well be voting for these idiots. The likes of Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the loony left will work to pull out of Iraq and Afganistan, they will appease Iran and North Korea, roll back the Bush tax cuts, and further damage the moral fiber of this nation by appointing more liberal justices and passing liberal and immoral laws that endanger our children. We will be granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants and giving up more of our hard earned income and jobs to those that least deserve it.

So get out there and vote on Novemeber 7th. And make sure you are getting your friends and neighbors to vote too. We can keep Washington under Republican control, but only if we each do out part and vote the issues not our anger over a few.

I am such a proud father! I know, everyone is proud of their kids for the most part, and I am not an exception. With each good grade they bring home, each life lesson I see them learn, each value I see them practice, I want to shout at the rooftops. THAT'S MY KID!

I am by no means a perfect parent, nor were mine. In fact, I even wonder if there is such a thing. I am however, the best parent that I know how to be and I take the time to teach my progeny the values that I hold dear. I share with them my world views and encourage them to understand that this world is theirs to inherit.

I am fortunate that, so far, they all excel in school, they all have a musical interest and are engaged in athletics. Save for the youngest two of my four who are in elementary school, but they have no lack of energy, thats for sure. I have 3 caring boys and a beautiful daughter which make me more prideful each day. The eldest of which being my stepson.

Raising my kids RIGHT, is one of my most serious challenges as a parent. With the public school systems and educators filling their heads with leftist think not to mention the influence of their peers and television, I know that I must clearly articulate to them why I believe what I do. Hopefully, and with a little luck, they will be able to disseminate the right from the wrong and come to make good decisions, now and in their adult life.

I want to share a story with you about each from my pride, and the political and patriotic lessons my kids have learned and have in turn made me proud to be raising my kids RIGHT.

For a five year old, my youngest is so in touch with the world around him. It never ceases to amaze me the questions he asks about the president, the war, and things military. He is also an avid little astronomer, which is also dear to my heart. He never fails to point out every house that flies their American flag and where each one is in town, or on cars. He loves the Stars and Stripes!

A while back I had set my profile song to "Don't Tread on Me" by Metallica. He apparently liked the song and I started to hear him sing along. He likes to sing. After hearing it a few more times he stated asking me about what the words mean and about specific verses. In my "fatherly way" I told him that it is a song about when our country rose up against Britain and fought for our right to be free. I told him that it was about our Independence. Now he can't get enough of the song. Whenever he can, he asks me to play the "American Independence song".  As he sings the lines in the verses, I know that he has (at least a small) understanding, that the fighting that the song portrays is about what it means to be a proud strong American that will never back down from our enemies.

The US Army will be proud to have my next "Army of One". He is 9 years old now and already I think that he will be in the Special Forces. He crawls around on his belly in his camos, chasing imaginary enemies, and saving America from "the bad guys". I'm not really sure he understands just yet who exactly the "bad guys" are, but there is no doubt that as he becomes of age he will grasp the idea why sometimes our nation needs to be at war.

The other day upon arriving home from work I was told that the babysitter upset him. They were teasing him about his "political" affiliations. Obviously, my sitters don't share the same views of our president as we do in our home. Anybody know any good conservative babysitters? He was upset over the fact that they were saying that Bush is not a good president and that we should not be in Iraq. He defended his position adamantly in the face of getting a certain timeout. Just kidding there, but he made me proud once again, to hear that he was yelling at the babysitters "Bush is our president! You should not be talking about our president like that!" and following up with, "I'm telling my dad you guys are liberals!" Of course, he was talked to about the show of disrespect, but I secretly rewarded him with a late night cartoon for his support of our president.

The apple of my eye, my daughter is. She is 13 years old going on 17. Sheesh! A father's work is never done. It may sound sexist, but of all my kids I want to make sure understands conservative values the most. She is the one I am worried about coming home one day with a pierced tongue or that new "stripper tattoo" when she is 16. She hasn't given me any indication as of yet, that she would. I guess it's just one of this father's deepest fears.

Yet, for all her naiveté, she is the best student and by far, and has the smarts to know right from wrong. She asked me a few weeks ago, "Dad, what is your position on immigration?" "Uh, oh" I thought, "What are they teaching her now?" So I asked why she was asking. She informed me that it was a discussion in school and that they were discussing both sides of the issue. Of course, I thought that this may be a subject that is not appropriate for middle schoolers her age, but now that the subject was brought up we need to discuss it.

She listened attentively, albeit bored I'm sure, to why I believe that we should not grant amnesty and our need for more strict immigration laws and protections. I told her that about how the leaders we elect, including Bush, are just trying to get more votes by pandering to these illegal immigrants. I helped her understand the impact that illegals have on our society in terms of taxes, healthcare, education, and employment. I think I may have put my poor baby girl asleep that evening with what I am sure sounded like a lecture, but I had to make sure that she understood that it has nothing to do with racism, as there is a fairly high population of Latinos in her school, but rather that illegal immigration is just that, illegal. "She doesn't get it!" I thought, as after our conversation she said, "Dad, I think immigration is a good thing, all different people living together has to be good". I was soon proved wrong when she said, "But, I don't think its fair that people come to our country when it's against the law. They take our jobs and our tax money and make it worse for the ones who come here the right way. Oh my gosh! I can't believe it. I thought for sure, she just blocked it all out. Then she says this. I felt so good about this lesson learned. I felt confident that she would be able to intelligently share her position with others, without being called the typical "racist", as the left so often likes to label anti-illegal immigration supporters.

Finally let me tell you about my step-son. He is nearly 16 years old and has his driving permit. Talk about nerve-racking. He isa  far better and more responsible young man than I ever was at his age. I am blessed to have him as part of my family and even more blessed that his father and I agree on most things involving his upbringing. It's too bad the mother of my own children is not in the picture, and never would have been nearly as amicable if she were. His mother is also the mother of my youngest and I am convinced that the intelligence gene is passed through the female. Don't get me wrong, my children all have their strengths and weaknesses and they all are very well rounded. For what my eldest and youngest have in brains and common sense, mine from my first wife have her love and talent for the arts and philosophy not to mention her good looks. Well, maybe those are my good looks, lol.

My oldest informs me, the other day, that he will be old enough to vote in the next presidential election. He said he will most likely be voting for a republican president because he thinks they run the country best. He then asks me who I will be voting for in the election in November. I was a bit taken aback. Now, we have talked about politics and the war on terror and so forth before, but I had no idea he was interested in the actual candidates. Well, as it turns out he is just like any typical high school boy. When I asked him about his sudden interest in elections, he tells me that he has been discussing the issues and candidates with a girl he sits with at lunch. A "Republican Girl"!  HA, that's my boy! He has ulterior motives, I know it. He gets that silly bashful smile on his face and I see that he is smitten. I decided to question his understanding about what issues are important this election, just to make sure he's just not saying things to impress some girl he likes. It was no surprise that he was well informed. He told me he would vote for politicians that won't raise taxes, are tough on terrorists, will finish this war, protect our country, and tough on illegal immigration. He said that he is in support social security reform and says that he thinks the government needs to stay out of peoples pockets with their stupid welfare and is against affirmative action programs. I was impressed to say the least. Here it is, nearly 10 years since I first met my stepson. He used to be the kid of whose mom I was dating. Now he has become a fine young man, maturing, and making good life decisions that I can say that I was partly responsible for. He is becoming the type of person I pray all my children become and I am proud to be his "other" dad.

Each and every one of my kids makes me proud. I am Proud to be a father and proud to be American. I am raising my kids RIGHT because it is the RIGHT way to raise my kids.

As Hugo Chavez still speaks at a Harlem church in in New York, Americans are becoming outraged at his recent comments insulting President Bush. While addressing the UN Chavez, Venezuela's elected president, called Bush a "world Dictator", "The Devil" (more than 8 times), and claimed that the podium "still smelled of sulfur" from when Bush made his address. He has also stated that "The U.S. empire planned and conducted" the 9/11 terror attacks "against its own people" as an excuse to go to war.

Both side of the aisle are speaking out against Chavez's remarks. Politicians on the left and the right including House Democratic Leader, Nancy Polozzi, Amd. John Bolton and Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice.

Even Charles Rangle (D-NY) spoke words of wisdom when he said, "'You do not come into my country, my congressional district, and you do not condemn my president. If there is any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not. I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president, but do not come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State..."

What would the reaction be in Venezuela if Bush said those things about him. Regardless of whether you agree with our president's policies or not, Rangel has it right. You offend all Americans when you insult the leader of our nation. Despite our political polarization sometimes, Americans stand together when we are attacked. Chavez has attacked the US.

He and the people of his country do not deserve one red American cent! Refuse to purchase anything from Citgo and tell everyone you know to boycott Citgo. Citgo is a subsidiary of the the Venezuelan state owned oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela. It has only one shareholder and that is Hugo Chavez. Citgo profits go directly into the coffers of the "Pig" himself. Show your patriotism and boycott citgo!

Jihad, the Lord's Supper, and Eternal life
By Spengler

Jihad injures reason, for it honors a god who suffers no constraints on his caprice, unlike the Judeo-Christian god, who is limited by love. That is the nub of Pope Benedict XVI's September 12 address in Regensburg, Germany. It promises to be the Vatican's most controversial utterance in living memory.

When a German-language volume appeared in 2003 quoting the same analysis by a long-dead Jewish theologian, I wrote of "oil on the flames of civilizational war". [1] Now the same ban has been preached from St Peter's chair, and it is a defining moment comparable to Winston Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech at Fulton, Missouri, in 1946. Earlier this year, Benedict's elliptical remarks to former students at a private seminar in 2005, mentioned in passing by an American Jesuit and reported in this space, created a scandal. [2] I wrote at the time that even the pope must whisper when it comes to Islam. We have entered a different stage of civilizational war.

The Islamic world now views the pontiff as an existential threat, and with reason. Jihad is not merely the whim of a despotic divinity, as the pope implied. It is much more: jihad is the fundamental sacrament of Islam, the Muslim cognate of the Lord's Supper in Christianity, that is, the unique form of sacrifice by which the individual believer communes with the Transcendent. To denounce jihad on theological grounds is a blow at the foundations of Islam, in effect a papal call for the conversion of the Muslims.

Just before then-cardinal Ratzinger's election as pope last year, I wrote, "Now that everyone is talking about Europe's demographic death, it is time to point out that there exists a way out: convert European Muslims to Christianity. The reported front-runner at the Vatican conclave ... Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, is one of the few Church leaders unafraid to raise the subject." [3] The Regensburg address oversteps the bounds of dialogue and verges upon the missionary. A great deal has changed since John Paul II kissed the Koran before news cameras in 1999. The boys and girls of the Catholic youth organization Communione e Liberazione that Ratzinger nurtured for a generation will have a great deal to talk to their Muslim school-fellows about.

No more can one assume now that Europe will slide meekly into dhimmitude.

In that respect [I wrote during the conclave] John Paul II recalled the sad position of Pius XII, afraid to denounce publicly the murder of Polish priests by Nazi occupiers - let alone the murder of Polish Jews - for fear that the Nazis would react by killing even more. It is hard to second-guess the actions of Pius XII given his terrible predicament, but at some point one must ask when the Gates of Hell can be said to have prevailed over St Peter.

Specifically, Benedict stated that jihad, the propagation of Islam by force, is irrational, because it is against the Reason of God. Citing a 14th-century Byzantine emperor to the effect that Mohammed's "decree that the faith he preached should be spread with the sword" as "evil and inhumane" provoked headlines. But of greater weight is the pope's observation that Allah is a god whose "absolute transcendence" allows no constraint, to the point that Allah is free if he chooses to promote evil. The great German-Jewish theologian Franz Rosenzweig explained the matter more colorfully than did the pope, as I reported three years ago in the cited review:

The god of Mohammed is a creator who well might not have bothered to create. He displays his power like an Oriental potentate who rules by violence, not by acting according to necessity, not by authorizing the enactment of the law, but rather in his freedom to act arbitrarily ... Providence thus is shattered into infinitely many individual acts of creation, with no connection to each other, each of which has the importance of the entire creation. That has been the doctrine of the ruling orthodox philosophy in Islam. Every individual thing is created from scratch at every moment. Islam cannot be salvaged from this frightful providence of Allah ... despite its vehement, haughty insistence upon the idea of the god's unity, Islam slips back into a kind of monistic paganism, if you will permit the expression. God competes with God at every moment, as if it were the colorfully contending heavenful of gods of polytheism.

It is amusing to see liberal Jewish commentators in the United States, eg, the editorial page of the September 16 New York Times, deplore the pope's remarks, considering that Rosenzweig said it all the more sharply in 1920.

Benedict's comments regarding Islam served as a preamble to a longer discourse on the unity of faith and reason. "Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?" Benedict asked, and answered his own question: "I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God." It is not, however, the reasoned side of Benedict's remarks to which Muslims responded, but rather the existential.

Rather than rail at the pope's characterization of Islam, Muslims might have responded as follows: "Excuse me, Your Holiness, but did we hear you say that you represent a religion of reason, whereas Allah is a god of unreason? Do you not personally eat the body and blood of your god - at least things that you insist really are his flesh and blood - every day at Mass? And you accuse us of unreason!" That is a fair rebuttal, but it opens up Islam's can of worms.

True, we are not pottering about in this pilgrim existence to be rational. Today's Germans are irrational, and know that their time has past, and therefore desist from bearing children. What mankind - Christian, Muslim and Jew, and all - demand of God is irrational. We want eternal life! Christians do not want what the Greeks wanted - Socrates' transmigration of souls, nor the shadow existence of Homer's dead heroes in Hades. That is an unreasonable demand if ever there was one.

Before the Bible was written, the Babylonian hero Gilgamesh learned that his quest for immortality was futile. The demigods of Greece, mortals favored by Olympians, suffered a tedious sort of immortal life as stars, trees or rivers. The gods of the heathens are not in any case eternal, only immortal. They were born and they will die, like the Norse gods at the Ragnorak, and their vulnerability projects the people's presentiment of its own death. To whom, precisely, have the gods offered eternal life prior to the appearance of revealed religion? Eternal life and a deathless mortality are quite different things.

But what is it that God demands of us in response to our demand for eternal life? We know the answer ourselves. To partake of life in another world we first must detach ourselves from this world in order to desire the next. In plain language, we must sacrifice ourselves. There is no concept of immortality without some concept of sacrifice, not in any culture or in any religion. That is a demand shared by the Catholic bishops and the Kalahari Bushmen.

God's covenant with Abraham is unique and singular in world history. A single universal and eternal god makes an eternal pact with a mortal that can be fulfilled only if Abraham's tribe becomes an eternal people. But the price of this pact is self-sacrifice. That is an existential mortal act beyond all ethics, as Soren Kierkegaard tells us in Fear and Trembling. The sacraments of revealed religion are sublimated human sacrifice, for the revealed god in his love for humankind spares the victim, just as God provided a ram in place of the bound Isaac on Mount Moriah. Among Jews the covenant must be renewed in each male child through a substitute form of human sacrifice, namely circumcision. [4] Christians believe that a single human sacrifice spared the rest of humankind.

Jihad also is a form of human sacrifice. He who serves Allah so faithfully as to die in the violent propagation of Islam goes straight to paradise, there to enjoy virgins or raisins, depending on the translation. But Allah is not the revealed god of loving kindness, or agape, but - pace Benedict - a god of reason, that is, of cold calculation. Islam admits no expiatory sacrifice. Everyone must carry his own spear.

We are too comfortable, too clean, too squeamish, too modern to descend into the terrible space where birth, death and immortality are decided. We forget that we cannot have eternal life unless we are ready to give up this one - and this the Muslim knows only through what we should call the sacrament of jihad. Through jihad, the Muslim does almost precisely what the Christian does at the Lord's Supper. It is the sacrifice of Jesus that grants immortal life to all Christians, that is, those who become one with Jesus by eating his flesh and drinking his blood so that the sacrifice also is theirs, at least in Catholic terms. Protestants substitute empathy identification with the crucified Christ for the trans-substantiated blood and flesh of Jesus.

Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross to give all men eternal life, on condition that they take part in his sacrifice, either through the physical communion of the Catholic Church or the empathetic Communion of Protestantism. From a Muslim vantage point, the extreme of divine humility embodied in Jesus' sacrifice is beyond reason. Allah, by contrast, deals with those who submit to him after the calculation of an earthly despot. He demands that all Muslims sacrifice themselves by becoming warriors and, if necessary, laying their lives down in the perpetual war against the enemies of Islam.

These are parallel acts, in which different peoples do different things, in the service of different deities, but for the same reason: for eternal life.

Why is self-sacrifice always and everywhere the cost of eternal life? It is not because a vengeful and sanguineous God demands his due before issuing us a visa to heaven. Quite the contrary: we must sacrifice our earthly self, our attachment to the pleasures and petty victories of our short mortal life if we really are to gain the eternal life that we desire. The animal led to the altar, indeed Jesus on the cross, is ourselves: we die along with the sacrifice and yet live, by the grace of God. YHWH did not want Isaac to die, but without taking Abraham to Mount Moriah, Abraham himself could not have been transformed into the man desirous and deserving of immortal life. Jesus died and took upon him the sins of the world, in Christian terms, precisely so that a vicarious sacrifice would redeem those who come to him.

What distinguishes Allah from YHWH and (in Christian belief) his son Jesus is love. God gives Jews and Christians a path that their foot can tread, one that is not too hard for mortals, to secure the unobtainable, namely immortal life, as if by miracle. Out of love God gives the Torah to the Jews, not because God is a stickler for the execution of 613 commandments, but because it is a path upon which the Jew may sacrifice and yet live, and receive his portion of the World to Come. The most important sacrifice in Judaism is the Sabbath - "our offering of rest", says the congregation in the Sabbath prayers - a day of inactivity that acknowledges that the Earth is the Lord's. It is a sacrifice, as it were, of ego. In this framework, incidentally, it is pointless to distinguish Judaism as a "religion of works" as opposed to Christianity as a "religion of faith".

To Christians, God offers the vicarious participation in his sacrifice of himself through his only son.

That is Grace: a free gift by God to men such that they may obtain eternal life. By a miracle, the human soul responds to the offer of Grace with a leap, a leap away from the attachments that hold us to this world, and a foretaste of the World to Come.

There is no Grace in Islam, no miracle, no expiatory sacrifice, no expression of love for mankind such that each Muslim need not be a sacrifice. On the contrary, the concept of jihad, in which the congregation of Islam is also the army, states that every single Muslim must sacrifice himself personally. Jihad is the precise equivalent of the Lord's Supper in Christianity and the Jewish Sabbath, the defining expression of sacrifice that opens the prospect of eternity to the mortal believer. To ask Islam to become moderate, to reform, to become a peaceful religion of personal conscience is the precise equivalent of asking Catholics to abolish Mass.

Islam, I have argued for years, faces an existential crisis in the modern world, which has ripped its adherents out of their traditional existence and thrust them into deadly conflicts. What was always latent in Islam has now come to the surface: the practice of Islam now expresses itself uniquely in jihad. Benedict XVI has had the courage to call things by their true names. Everything else is hypocrisy and self-delusion.

Postscript
Regarding Benedict XVI's statement that the characterization of the Prophet Mohammed did not reflect his "personal opinion": In 1938, at the peak of Stalin's terror, a Muscovite called the KGB to report that his parrot had escaped. The KGB officer said, "Why are you calling us?" The Muscovite averred, "I want to state for the record that I do not share the parrot's political opinions."


(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved)

Never forget. How could I? How could any American erase those horrific images from their mind? Surprisingly, it seems as though some in this nation have forgotten. We are in a long and arduous war on terror. It is a difficult war against terror, against radical Islam and against those who dream of and plot the day that they may attack us again. Let no American ever forget the pain felt by our Nation on that day.  Remember what these killers did to our brothers and sisters and know that these evil radicals live to see another 9/11.

As the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks approaches, I find that I am compelled to share my thoughts of that day and ask my friends and readers to share theirs. I know that it can be painful for some, but please share. This is the fuel that keeps us focused against our enemies.

My wife calls me into the bedroom where she is watching the morning news. I am getting ready for me day and dressing for work. As I looked at the television, she fills me in on the story to this point and tells me that a small plane crashed into the World Trade Center.

I recall thinking that the hole it left was too small for a private plane. Being an amateur pilot, I didn't think that a small plane could do that much damage. I kept asking her, "Was it a prop or a small jet?" She didnt know. Of course, no one knew then. The news reports were sketchy at best.

As I am scratching my head trying to figure out how that building could have been hit by a small plane, the thought starts to occur to me that something is not right. Planes just dont fly into buildings! The second jetliner then slams into the south tower with such speed and force that I nearly felt it through the TV. I certainly felt it in my heart. In a moment, there was no doubt that this was an intentional attack. I was confused. I was shocked. I remember asking my wife, "Who would want to fly planes into buildings?"

I think I knew right away that this was a terror attack. I always knew that it was just a matter of time before the same terror that we have seen throughout the middle-east would be visited upon us. I just always thought that the terrorist would use bombs in busses or buildings. Never did I imagine that they would fly kamikaze missions into our most significant national landmarks. Once the Pentagon was hit, my beliefs were again confirmed.

We will be going to war hon. The Pentagon does not get hit without us responding with war. Simple as that! I tell my wife. I was certain that this was the beginning of a long and difficult war. My feelings about radical Islam were already well formed after serving in the Gulf war and having visited much of the middle-east. I didnt need to hear about Bin Laden. I knew this was much more than just one man and a band of terrorist. This was much bigger. This event changed would change the world. I knew in an instant that if the United States and other willing nations did not respond to eliminate this threat, that we would continue to witness events like 9/11.

We must never again allow ourselves to be vulnerable to another attack. We must defeat these Islamic extremists in their homelands and on our terms. We all must make sacrifice and do whatever we can to support our brave men and women, fighting to keep us free and safe. We must remember those brave souls of the NYPD and the NYFD, as well as all the support personnel and civilians, who risked and their lives to save innocent life that dreadful day. We must never forget the those lost in the towers, in the aircrafts, and in the pentagon.We must remember that day and never forget how we felt when our nation was attacked and our resolve grew. How could we forget?

The lesbian couple who sparked the nations latest debate on gay marriage have themselves "proved" that gay marriage is NOT an institution (see article below). At the heart of the issue is the child. Yet another child of an irresponsible parent, emotionally scarred, not only by gay marriage but now "gay divorce". They have proved that gays in this country do not understand nor respect the sancitity of this holy union. By it's very nature a gay marriage is destined to fail.

This cuts to the quick, the very center of what is at issue. If we allow gay marriages as a matter of law, precident is thereby set, thus making it possible for gays to adopt children as easily as a heterosexual couple. We can clearly see in the example set by these two self indulgent homosexuals that thier child was the least of thier concern when they entered thier "marriage". Now this child, and others subject to laws allowing gay marriage, will suffer.

Homosexuality is a selfish way of life. It is more about sexual promiscuity, deviancy, fetishism, and self satisfaction than it is about true love and companionship. The type of love found between a man and a woman.

People may do as they wish (to an extent) in the privacy of thier own homes. My neighbors sex life is none of my business, and it not my child's business either! For such a vocal minority to be grated leagal protections is outrageous and is call for alarm. Mark my words, this is only the first battle. Allow gay marraiges, and we will be allowing pedophiles and paligamist the same protections 20 years from now. Don't think so? Look at the dutch. They acknowledge a political party that supprorts pedophilia and beastiality. Don't think it can happen here? We never thought we would be talking about gay marriage 20 yrs ago either.

BOSTON - The lesbian couple whose landmark lawsuit helped Massachusetts become the only state in America where same-sex couples can marry legally have split up, a spokeswoman said Friday.

Julie and Hillary Goodridge and six other gay and lesbian couples sued Massachusetts for the right to marry and won when the states highest court ruled narrowly for them in 2003.
Their suit helped spark a nationwide debate on gay marriage.

The women are amicably living apart, Mary Breslauer, a spokeswoman for the couple said. As always their number one priority is raising their daughter, and like the other plaintiff couples in this case, they made an enormous contribution toward equal marriage. But they are no longer in the public eye, and request that their privacy be respected.

Julie and Hillary Goodridge married on May 17, 2004, the first day same-sex couples were allowed to wed, in a festive ceremony attended by dozens of journalists.

Their daughter, Annie, accompanied the women down the aisle serving as ring bearer and flower girl while guests hummed Here Come the Brides.

News of their split upset many who had supported their quest for same-sex marriage. We are very sad for them, said Carisa Cunningham, a spokeswoman for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

Two states Connecticut and Vermont have legalized same-sex civil unions. California, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., offer gay and lesbian couples some legal rights as partners.

The debate over gay marriage recently has heated up again in Massachusetts after the states Supreme Judicial Court last week ruled that voters can decide whether to ban same-sex unions.

If enough lawmakers in the states legislature approve the measure, it will be put on the 2008 ballot for a popular vote.

With North Korea launching 7 mid-range and long-range missiles and times to coincide with our National holiday and Shuttle launch, it is clear to me that this is more than mere saber rattling and attention grabbing by PyongYang. Despite strong condemnation and protests from the international community, North Korea continues to fire her missiles in a defiant manner designed to do nothing more than provoke the US and our allies in the region.

Kim Jong Il and his stalinist regime are obviously attempting to goat the US into war. PyongYang recently threatened the US directly by stating that they would respond to a pre-emptive strike with "a relentless annihilating strike and a nuclear war with a mighty nuclear deterrent".

North Korea's tests are clearly an attempt to force the US to make good on our promise that the US would respond to a missile test. Any military action that the US would take would undoubtedly be claimed by the North Koreans to be "pre-emptive" and used for justification for an attack on our allies in the region, even though the missile tests are inteded to provocate.

"Should North Korea take the provocative action of launching a missile the U.S. would respond appropriately, including by taking the necessary measures to protect ourselves," Julie Reside, a State Department spokeswoman, said.

Our next action must be to follow up on our promise, to respond and take military action against North Korea's missile sites. Our allies and economic partners in the international community must place strict sanctions on North Korea immediately. China must take a more aggressive stance and prove to the rest of the world that they understand the threat, and are willing to contain this tyranical regime.

The world is outraged by North Korea's threatening acts and rhetoric. The time is now to starve her, cut off all support, and indeed use our military might to deter this significant threat to our security.

A medium-range separating target missile is seen seconds after lift-off from the Pacific Missile Range Facility

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The Delclaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:

New Hampshire
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton