Much is being said about freedom of religion and separation of church and state.

In addition, it seems necessary that to avoid offending anybody, we must be politically correct to a fault.  In other words, tiptoe on eggshells around everyone. 

Somewhere along the way we have moved to an uneasy place in history where religion has come to be verboten.  It appears to have occurred around 9/11/2001 and, more so, with our determination to bring peace and freedom to a nation whose landscape is sadly the resting place of thousands of victims of mass murder at the hands of a dictatorial tyrant.  Those victims were, not incidentally, of a religious faith not concurring with that of the dictator. 

It appears that in the effort to be politically correct, we have become blind to our own history and to our founding fathers’ remarkable intelligence and foresight.

One such founding father, Patrick Henry, described the place of religion in this country, using reason and intelligence common in our country’s long-forgotten beginnings, but all too uncommon in history being made today. Patrick Henry stated: 

 “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” 

We are free, by the Grace of God and the intelligence and courage of our forefathers, and by American men and women who have over the ages fought and died for that freedom. 

Because of that freedom, we are under no obligation to bow to a religion whose followers consider non-believers of their faith to be “infidels,” and many of whose followers are blindly and foolishly committed to our untimely demise.

We must not allow ourselves to be conquered by those whose only hope is “martyrdom.” 

We must not allow ourselves to be conquered simply by our country's choice of friendly nations.  We must not allow ourselves to be conquered by a peculiar minority who appear collectively to have a death wish.  We must not allow the minority to rule. 

We must not fear standing upright and fighting, by free speech and independence, a very small but rowdy minority who wish to see Americans groveling. 

In America the minority does not rule.  Why must we need to be reminded of this simple fact?

I have written a couple of blogs along these same lines.  It appears that their content must be repeated until reasonable minds converge and reasonable people begin to screech to be heard over the cacophony of dimwits. 

Those dimwits have every right to express their opinions, but their opinions, simply by virtue of the fact that they are pronounced justified, do not make them the law of the land.

What a waste of time and what little brain power was represented by the New/Old Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight. 

What in the name of common sense are we all waiting for?  For Iran to send a calling card to the West Coast?  To Israel?  To anyone else expressing the teeniest bit of regard for the U.S. or Israel? 

My personal opinion is that preemptive strikes are called for.  And I don't mean by Iran.  And I do hope we can shoot what we aim for. 

I still cannot comprehend what these old has-beens (has been what, pray tell?) are actually proposing.  That we attempt to reason with someone clearly deranged beyond redemption?  How in the name of time is anyone supposed to reason with madness? 

I have likened fanatical muslims to rabid dogs.  I have also said that to my knowledge reason never trumped rabies. 

The iron's hot.  But it's cooling fast, while we rock back and forth on our heels and toes waiting for the deranged to magically appear reasonable.  It's apparent the Old Gang thinks we should wait while we're struck when someone else's iron is hot. 

It is to be hoped that the strong in body and spirit in Israel take the reins of true reason and prove its right to be.  The same goes for us.

Regarding Ellison and taking the oath of office on what he believes to be a holy book: 

Our country was founded on Christian beliefs.

Patrick Henry wrote,

• "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."

It would be difficult to misinterpret that quote.

If Keith Ellison cannot understand that, he should not be permitted to take any oath at all. If he does not or cannot take the oath of tradition, for whatever reason, he should not serve. Period.

He should feel privileged to take the time-honored oath, especially in view of the fact that his own "holy" book requires him to destroy "infidels," which to him and those like him comprise all who do not believe as he does. 

Frankly, I could not care less what the ACLU or any other knee-jerk outfit may think of me and my opinion. I could not care less what anybody anywhere in the universe may think of me and my opinion.

They can like it or they can lump it. I am an American.

This blog is a result of reading the blog by Sam:  http://theweedpatchgazette.townhall.com/g/9e0793b7-1336-408a-9cef-f9161fcb35fb

This was entitled:  "The Greater Good:  Often the Resort of Scoundrels." 

My blog follows:

Profits? That's the name of the game in a free enterprise system. A good game it is, too, were it not for the fact that some of those profits are in the form of ill-gotten gains. To-wit: these profits have been made with the unknowing assistance of taxpayer subsidization. This equates the profits to taxpayer-subsidized self-destruction – perhaps akin to "suicide by cop."

Security? How many of us feel truly secure -- even though we have a shiny new department called "Department of Homeland Security"? The latter, in my opinion, is about as effective as one junkyard dog.

Interlopers? As for the thousands-turned-millions of illegal aliens who have breached or are breaching our borders at will, they do indeed multiply. As they multiply, the American citizens' quality of life diminishes. One need not be a brain surgeon to understand the reason why.

Self-defense against the enemy: For the first time I have contemplated the possibility of this necessity. Why? Because I fear my own government may fail at this obligation. As a matter of fact, the government should issue each law-abiding family a weapon with which to protect itself. We could subsidize the weapons manufacturers. I see nothing unreasonable about that.  No American family left behind.

The justice system? Our justice system has failed too many times to separate felons from victims and prospective victims. Some may cry that sentences are too harsh. I shriek that they are too lenient, making it altogether too convenient for a parolee -- or someone waiting to be tried -- to continue in the twisted paths already chosen.

In particular, the laws regarding child molesters, child murderers, child stalkers, child perverts, child nightmare creators, those mutants who mangle the minds and bodies of children, have no place on earth unless that place is a prison for life without possibility of parole. That is justice.

If organizations such as the ACLU wring their hands because of those of us who believe in true justice, they need to get accustomed to it. There will come a time when the nation stands up on its hind legs, stops worshiping at the altar of political correctness, and begins profiling because it is a sound, reasonable, conscionable and just thing to do. Only then will we recapture our country’s inherent national integrity.

It may even begin the overdue act of a preemptive strike against those who need it most, when it is least expected.

 In November 2003 I began hounding Congress not to pass the Medicare "Modernization" Act.  I always put that word in quotes. 

In December 2003 I began hounding Congress to repeal the Medicare "Modernization Act," particularly with its egregious Medicare Prescription Drug Plan. 

During the next 2 years or so I wrote up to 30 letters each to my Senators and to my Representative; I wrote 30 letters to the editor (30 printed; some not) attempting to light fires under wood apparently not cured yet -- perhaps they were and still are incurable. 

There seemingly was nobody carrying a torch directed at the MMA and the PDPs but me.  I lost. 

I ultimately decided that if I couldn't beat 'em, I'd join 'em.  Therefore, I signed up with a PDP and wrote a letter to the editor (printed) directed at all taxpayers thanking them in advance.  I also thanked all their offspring and their offsprings' offspring.  That's how long it will take to pay the dues on prescription drugs for people like me -- and I'm not even entitled to "extra" assistance.

Now the Democrats want Medicare to negotiate prices for Medicare PDP participants, much like the VA does on behalf of veterans. 

An interesting point here is that some of Wal-Mart's new generic prices are less than that of the VA.  That is an example of free trade at its best -- rather simplified here, of course. 

The fact is that the Republicans in recent years have spent money like drunken sailors.  I hate saying that, but it is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 

Lord help us if the Dems and Republicans get together and decide to do the same thing to us for the next several years. 

We've been bruised and bloodied enough.

The Truth shall set you free.

I continue to be amazed and delighted at your knowledge and the way in which you express your opinions and, more important, the truth.

It could cause so much envy, but, rather, I have only admiration.

As you may have seen in my bio, I was a legal secretary for years. My admiration for good writing knows no bounds.

One of the attorneys for whom I worked years ago, an antitrust litigator, worked very hard for days and weeks on a post-trial brief. This meant I worked just as hard at my own tasks -- before the days of computers or word processors.

When the brief was completed, he held the finished product in his hands and said to me, simply, "A thing of beauty is a joy forever." We were both filled with admiration and, yes, joy.

That was a strong compliment coming from him, for he was a nitpicking taskmaster. Ever after, I was grateful for having had the privilege of working for him.

We had parted ways, technically, just because of that nitpicking. I "quit" once but offered, graciously I thought, to stay until a replacement was found. You see, I had made an error. I found the error in his absence and made arrangements to correct the error. When he learned of the error, but not the correction thereof, I was "read out" in the presence of my fellow workers. He raved so that he could not, would not, hear my explanation or that the error had already been corrected.

The next thing I did, after I quit squalling in the ladies' room, was to march down to "Personnel" and say that I could not work for him anymore. The reason was that he needed someone who was perfect, and I was making room so that he could find that someone.

When he learned of this, from "Personnel," not from me, he was quite cool for a number of days; however, eventually he called me into his office, closed the door and apologized, asking me to continue to work for him. I had one condition: that he understand I was not perfect, and that I was human, and that as long as I lived I would make mistakes. I had no desire to make mistakes, but I knew that, being human, mistakes would be made. I may also have asked him to make his criticisms in private, but my memory of this is imperfect. Imperfect!

All this simply to say that even a legal brief (written in English) can be a thing of beauty, a joy forever.

I like these comments so much that I shall copy this and place it in my blog.

AND TO SPARE!

Mr. Kerry surely did it to himself this time, didn't he? 

If I were Kerry, I would steer clear of the military for a while.  Wear a flak jacket.  Helmet.  Body armor.  The whole shootin' match.  There are a lot of American veterans home from that place where a noble job is trying to be done by some of the bravest -- and smartest -- people on earth. 

They may not care much for the implication that because they were in Iraq, they lack intelligence or are not "smart."  In addition, there may be a few mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, kissing cousins, friends, etc., who may not appreciate Kerry's implication that their loved ones in Iraq are somehow lacking in intelligence. 

Here's a question to ponder: 

With Kerry's intelligence and education and "smarts," how in tarnation did he ever wind up in Viet Nam?  He must really have been stupid. 

Sadly, his homecoming apparently did nothing to correct that defect.  It surely did nothing for his tact or plain old good manners.  The guy made a gaffe.  He knows it.  He's just not man enough to admit it.

And one more thing -- he belongs to the party whose symbol is a donkey.  He must be bringing up the rear.  And he has room for all four feet. 

With more time, I could write about how I really feel. 

Reading Townhall.com news article entitled "Man Gets 508 Years in Sex Assault Case" (10/30/06) made me want to cheer.

And I did, silently. For a while.

Then I read the last paragraph, which stated that "In 1998, ... was charged with 23 counts of criminal sexual contact with a minor. He served 321 days in jail after pleading guilty to contributing to the delinquency of a minor" (emphasis mine).

Will somebody please tell me why it is, how it is, that someone charged with 23 counts of criminal sexual contact with a minor gets to plead guilty to "contributing to the delinquency of a minor," and spend not even a year in prison?

It sounds to me very much as though the prosecution in that 1998 case had been so eager to get a guilty plea that it might have been satisfactory merely to obtain a guilty plea for jaywalking or littering.

Does anybody reading that story realize what has happened here? Since approximately 1999 -- almost seven years now -- that creep had been free to molest and savage "18 boys and one girl between ages 13 and 15.... He was convicted in August of 63 counts, including sexual assault on a child with a pattern of abuse...."

The travesty is that this subhuman was not sentenced in 1999 to 508 years in prison. I do believe that if such a sentence had been handed down then, those 19 children may have been just a little safer. We let them down. All of us.

What is wrong with a system that allows convicted child sexual predators to get out of prison – ever? Is there no reckoning?

The referenced column is as follows:

This blog results from a reading of Townhall's 10-29-06 "Emily Post Pushes Modern Manners."

From the time I began to know my grandfather, back about a hundred years ago (well, not quite), one of my most vivid memories of him is his pouring hot coffee into his saucer and sipping carefully therefrom.

It became problematic, unfortunately, when he developed a tremor. Problematic was a word unheard of then, and he overcame these difficulties somehow. I never saw him drink from a cup.

It is my understanding that in those days drinking coffee from a saucers was not considered bad form. I wanted to follow suit but such was not allowed. Presumably it was the sole privilege of adults.

My etiquette is far, far from perfect. However, this column resonated with me in many ways. No matter how casual dinner may be for two of us, the knife is never placed so that the "sharp" side faces outward. Other utensils are similarly correctly placed.  It's just one of those things that truly matters to me -- along with making sure the folds of napkins face outward. 

When I was growing up, the sing-song "Mabel, Mabel, if you're able, keep your elbows off the table!" was heard frequently. Now, when we are dining out, sometimes the refrain returns to my consciousness. Sometimes I listen.

Some people believe incorrectly that the Constitution is a "living document" that can be changed by the bench (the courts) at will. Etiquette must, in contrast, be a "living practice," changing as necessity requires.

Perhaps some day sipping coffee from a saucer will be completely acceptable.  Again.  

Be politically correct, but only if you are part of the majority. Translated: the minority rules. In religious matters, if you are a member of a litigious nonbelieving or even believing minority, the law will stand on its head to hear you out -- and usually rule in your favor. Especially if you have the inimitable ACLU or any other such groups on your side.

If you are in such a minority:

• Demand that all cities whose names begin with "Saint" be renamed to expunge the offending word. Demand that no religion be discussed in a public school. Repeat: demand that no religion be discussed in a public school.
• With respect to the above demand, frequent exceptions may be made with regard to the Muslim religion, but of course that is perfectly reasonable inasmuch as the minority rules.
• Do not tolerate a cross on a piece of public property, even if it has been there for decades, harming no one, not even you.
• Forget about the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights.
• Forget our founding fathers.

Getting your way is all that matters.

Well, here is a flash, in the brilliant words of Patrick Henry:

It would be difficult to misinterpret that quote.

To litigious minorities: while you are aiming your sights on getting your way at any cost, imagine what life would be like for you in North Korea, China, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, or any other such freedom-loving nations you can dream of. And then go there. Find your dream. End some of our nightmares.

When you get there, demand your rights, for example, free speech and freedom of religion, along with all of the other freedoms Americans take for granted. Or, perhaps I should say, all the freedoms that Americans have hitherto counted on to be a fact of life in this nation.

And let us not forget there is a rabid militant fanatical extremist religious group spread out all over the planet whose stated goal is to kill all Americans and Jews. Even Patrick Henry might be reluctant to afford this group "asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here...."

To get back to where this started: be politically correct -- or else!

Me? Forget about it!  Anyone want to join me?

After reading Kathleen Parker's column (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/KathleenParker/2006/10/27/dying_to_win), I remembered a letter I have sent a couple of times to "Letters to the Editor" of my local paper.

It was rather long, probably rambling, and probably incomprehensible to all but myself. It was never published. I surrendered to reality and admitted to myself that it was not the stuff of Letters to the Editor that gets published. However, it contained a quote which is not at all rambling or incomprehensible. That is, it is not incomprehensible until one truly begins thinking about all its implications. The quote follows:

Thomas Paine, in his Dissertation on First Principles of Government, December 23, 1791, wrote that "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

It seems to me that Thomas Paine understood something that a number of us plain folk would find incomprehensible. If we are to comport with the high ideals of Thomas Paine, we would of necessity have to guard our enemies from oppression. The problem is that our enemies are so many. Where to begin? And if they all decide to gang up on us, what then? Join them?

Would we begin with Hezbollah? Would we guard Hezbollah from, say, the Israelis? Would we begin with North Korea, guarding it from the sinister South? Would we guard North Korea from China? Would we guard Iran against Iraq? Would we guard Iran against China? Would we guard North Korea against China?

It was right and proper that we protected Kuwait against the plunder of S. Hussein. Thomas Paine would also have believed it right and proper.

It was right and proper that we protected Iraq from its own heavy-handed dictator, hoping that democracy would spring up like dandelions in May. 

I still have that hope; however, I am attempting patience and tunnel-vision single-mindedness for a successful Iraq, rather than stomping my foot and demanding that our mission be accomplished yesterday. 

I believe that in Mr. Paine's age, it was inconceivable that our United States could ever have so many enemies.

This is a puzzle.  What did Thomas Paine mean? Is Thomas Paine obsolete today? I do not want to believe so.  I want us to be a country that would "guard even [its] enemy from oppression...."

Who will guard us? Will any other country adopt the high ideals of Thomas Paine?

I wish I had answers.

There was a list of banned books in the 9/10/06 Chicago Tribune "Parade" section; it reports that "... The American Library Association says each book below has been pulled from some libraries or schools. You’ll be surprised by the list.... Visit parade.com."

Among the ten books were these five: 

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn – racist language

Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl – sexually explicit

Little Red Riding Hood – bottle of wine in basket for Grandma

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary – offensive language

To Kill a Mockingbird – offensive language

Banning those books from any public library or school is morally offensive to me.

Who in the name of common sense could possibly choose those five books to be banned?  And just incidentally, it seems to me that banning the dictionary is tantamount to banning all books. 

When one looks around at some of the "entertainment" on various media, one can conclude only that the person or group making the decision to get these books banned has been looking up too many words in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary  -- and finding them! 

And they should stop immediately -- they're learning too much.  Or they think they are.

     When apathy takes over, it leaves just a little more wiggle room for madmen like Ahmadinejad and his little friend Hugo Chavez and his little friend Kim Jong Il (I always pronounce that "ill" or "eel":  who cares which is correct?). 

    These madmen do not need any more wiggle room.  They're slippery enough already. 

    There are those who want diplomacy.  My contention is that diplomacy won't work on rabid dogs.  As I've said before, I have never heard of reason triumphing over rabies. 

    That being said, however, it is to be hoped that we have the decency to confirm John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.  We need all the persuasiveness and creativity we can muster to persuade nations such as Iran, North Korea and Venezuela to work for the common good of the world rather than for their own transient wants (e.g., nuclear weapons).  And, by the way, let us hope that these wants are indeed transient.  

    First there needs to be reason -- something sorely lacking in the little minds of the little trio mentioned above.  

    If reason is absent, alternative methods of persuasiveness need to be used generously. 

There is only one comment this writer could add regarding Suzanne Fields' moving column (October 12, 2006) on the story of Daniel Pearl in an upcoming HBO documentary ("The Journalist and the Jihadi: The Murder of Daniel Pearl").  That is that, even though Omar Sheikh, "the jihadi who conspired in his murder," may have been educated, that does not necessarily mean he was civilized. In my opinion it merely means that he had the honor of having obtained an education.

Omar was obviously not just any everyday, ordinary, ignorant, poverty-stricken, illiterate jihadi butcher-in-training who eagerly looked forward to the day he could martyr himself.