Pro Rege Papers

The media keep up the constant reminders of how bad the Iraq war is going. They incessantly talk about it, even though we’ve heard it over and over again. They constantly bash President Bush (that’s right, he’s the President; remember that) for being a stupid idiot with a horrible administration. It gets nauseating after six years. However, the complaints are petty.

The media have been keeping up a campaign to fire Donald Rumsfeld from being Secretary of Defense for the past three years. They say he’s administering the war wrong (as if they could do a better job) and hasn’t done good enough of a job handling our defense. They say he’s been “running roughshod” over his officers, and for that matter, Mr. Bush has been “running roughshod” over his administration officials. They obviously don’t consider the fact that it’s hard running an administration. When you are an administrator, you have many people who disagree with one another and are lobbying to get their ideas chosen. You have to take initiative to be able to lead an organization like that if you want anything to get done. It’s the same way in any other large organization such as a company or foundation. Bill Clinton had the same problems. The degree that you notice the problems of administering government depends on how much the media want to highlight the faults of an administration. In this case, they definitely want to, and are pursuing that goal incessantly. There have always been problems in government, and there are more of them now that government is so big. But wait, that’s one of the liberal causes.

Yet, more soldiers keep coming back from Iraq who say that most of what is going on there is positive, and the general trend is headed toward progress. The media just focus on the extra-ordinary. They focus on the bad news, so that the Bush administration will look as bad as possible.

On a completely unrelated note, there is a shocking quote in WORLD Magazine this week that really says something about the moral values of this country and the influence of Pelagianism. Here it is:

“He’s a good kid. He just has a problem with stealing cars.”

This was said by a Riviera Beach, Fla., woman on her 15-year-old brother, unidentified by police because of his age, who has been convicted four times for car theft and also for cocaine distribution, marijuana possession, and larceny.

Just a little, tiny, itty bitty problem.

Bill Clinton in an interview with Peter Jennings back in 2004 was incredible in his logical and moral incapabilities. Allahpundit just posted a video flashback of Clinton’s interview with Jennings with commentary in light of the former President’s recent remarks to FOX News.

Clinton doesn’t even care about what the American people think, apparently. He also thinks that his main mistake was not committing adultery, but coming under investigation and having someone who would expose him for what he was. Notice he says, Kenneth Starr “leaked” his secrets. That means that it was true, it just wasn’t supposed to be leaked. Then he goes on a guilt trip, reminiscing about how many Democrats were “carted off and put in jail because they refused to lie”. Does that mean that if they did lie, they would not have been jailed and that would be a good thing? Does that mean that they should not have been jailed because they told the truth, no matter if what they did was wrong? We’re supposed to feel sorry for him then. Clinton says they showed “a lot of moral fiber” to withstand investigation. What about the moral fiber of not committing adultery? All “moral fiber” means is that they lied their way out of every situation. Man, this guy loves twisting words. Apparently he cares more about what the rest of the world thinks than what his constituents, the American people, think.

And some people think Pres. George W. Bush should be impeached…

Here is the Quote of the Month for September 2006:

The best government is that which governs least. No human depositories [of power] can, with safety, be trusted with the power of legislation upon the general interests of society so as to operate directly or indirectly upon the industry and property of the community.

From the first issue of The Democratic Review, 1837

Yes, the Muslims need to think before they speak. In their attempt to prove that Islam is non-violent, they have burnt effigies, yelled hateful slogans, [yes, hateful, Percival] and done other such actions as to prompt the Pakistani police to guard Papist churches from the protesters. This comes as a response to the pope’s remarks a few days ago.
BBC has a nice photo compilation of the protests at this address. Here is one of the photos, with a beautiful caption:

“Some Indian Muslims burnt an effigy of the world’s Roman Catholic leader who quoted remarks which linked Islam to violence.”

But it gets better. They accuse the pope of being hypocritical:

Just funny. But the pope has surrendered, saying he’s sorry, asking for forgiveness, and making a beautiful universalist statement that they both worship the same god.

Well at least that clears it up. It’s a good thing that I don’t worship the god of either of them.

Pope Benedict XVI made some comments in Germany that drew much criticism from Muslims today. He quoted (notice the word “quoted”, he did not compose this particular statement himself) a 14th century Byzantine Emperor, who said,

Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.

Remember that the Emperor was speaking in a time when Islam was a serious force in the world. He was feeling the effects of this himself, being under siege several times from the Muslim Ottomans.

Anyway, the Muslims are all angry because he insulted “the Prophet” for what Muhammad truly stood for in the 14th century. Then they say that the pope doesn’t even understand Islam, even though

a. The pope didn’t say those words; he was quoting someone else.

b. He was addressing Muhammad, not Islam per se as a system, which contains some admirable things, such as morality laws.

c. The pope quoted a historical person who was critiquing Muhammad because he sought to spread his religion by violence (which was commonly known and felt in Manuel II’s time).

Despite these realities, Muslims are all angry over the pope making this statement. Hey, at least it shows some firmness; compared to this photo. Ohhh boy, watch out for another Crusade…

Today is September 11, 2006; five years after the terrorist attacks on the United States. We must remember this day always to assure us of what we have resolved to do. We must remember what the terrorists with horrific pride did and do without any type of regret or apology. We must be determined in our fight against these horrible people, and never give up until they are killed. These cold-blooded murderers must come to justice.

Allahpundit has posted a video remembrance of the events of 9/11 as they happened on Hot Air. It’s just stunning when you watch it again. You can see President Bush’s stirring speech to a joint session of Congress here, or hear it.

I remember I had just gotten back from New Jersey a couple weeks before. On the visit I had seen the World Trade Center. I was feeling kind of down that day, though I don’t know why, and didn’t hear about the attacks until after both towers had collapsed. It was horrifying to see the New York skyline with the Twin Towers absent. That’s it. Just absent. Not there. Missing. It looked so empty and devoid of a key part. We prayed and prayed.

My uncle had an appointment in one of the towers later that day. He was still doing other business at the time of the attack. Everyone there in the New York area lost some friend or co-worker. Every school had some parent that was missing. Everyone was just in shock.

Then you saw the images of Muslim people out in the streets of the Middle East waving V on their fingers and shouting, “Victory!” and other such cries. All of America was maddened. It is hard not to hate people like that. A religion of peace would never do anything like that.

Then you have maniacs who deny reality. They deny that it was a plane that crashed into the Pentagon, and say that it was CIA-planted bombs that blew up the World Trade Center. It’s just despicable. I’m not even going to go into it. If you believe such things, you’re beyond hope of any kind of reasonable debate. Yet, that leftist blindness has been there from the very beginning. I remember that my local FOX station was having a live call-in time right after the attacks, and I heard some whacked-out woman calling in saying that it was Bush’s fault. “Everything has gone wrong since Bush got in office, and this is just another thing. It’s Bush’s fault somehow.”

Just insanity.

In case you were wondering, the origin of Labor Day does in fact go back to the labor unions. On Tuesday, Sept 5, 1882, The Central Labor Union of New York City put on a parade and a subsequent festival for its union members. This was the blossoming of an idea that several people had for a holiday celebrating the achievements and contributions of the common working people.

The Central Labor Union did the same thing the next year, urging other labor unions to do so as well. By 1885, Labor Day was a common holiday in most industrial cities of America.

Oregon, in 1887, was the first state to formally recognize Labor Day. Other states followed suit until 1894, when Congress recognized it. Some of the governmental recognition was tied to a desire to take Americans’ attention away from May Day, a communistic holiday commemorating the Haymarket Riot of 1886. This holiday was (and is) commonly accompanied by rioting and violent demonstrations by communists, socialists, anarchists, and radicals in general. European nations and other countries were pushed to recognize the holiday, although the US and Canada held out.

Yes, while they riot and yell their hearts out, we sit down for a picnic. We need to celebrate the ideal of the work ethic that has made America great in the world. More info available here.