Pro Rege Papers

I have a question. Why is it that every time I go away the world explodes and/or does something really cool? I was away the past couple days at an undisclosed location, and I get back and find out that Saddam Hussein was finally executed. Justice has finally been served. That’s one less dictator to trouble the planet. I wonder what the anti-capital punishment people say what Saddam should have gotten? They don’t make any sense.

Anyway, Saddam was executed on the morning of December 29, 2006 by hanging. He was executed in the chamber where he murdered so many others. As he was lead to the gallows, he was reciting “Allah is great” and “Death to America”, etc.,etc., blah, blah, blah. He will now find out that his Allah is not so powerful as he had hoped, and will now face an all-powerful God without any covering for his sin. I also wonder what the people who say everyone goes to heaven would say about this. They don’t make any sense.

So that’s a bigger victory in the war in Iraq. He will not be able to be restored to power any more. He has been executed to satisfy justice for the murders of countless other human beings. He will go to Hell for his sin and his crimes, and will not see the light of day for what he has done on earth. That makes sense.

UPDATE: A new cell-phone taped video has come out that shows the entire execution. WARNING: Graphic content of him hanging there, his neck snapped. He was yelling out Islamic prayers and taunts to onlookers just before the floor gave way with a bang. It’s funny how those two, Islamic prayers and taunts, always seem to come together in one package. Hmm.

World Net Daily interviewed several terrorist leaders this past week, and their comments to WND are insightful in terms who is on which side in the War on Terrorism. World Net Daily interviewed Jihad Jaara, Muhammad Saadi, Abu Abdullah, an Abu Ayman; all leaders of terrorist groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and others. They said that they hoped America would vote for the Democrats in the upcoming election, because of that party’s now well-known stance on pulling out of Iraq. This would insure victory for the “resistance” in Iraq (and global jihad), according to the terrorists, apparently trying to draw some type of parallel between the coalition occupation of Iraq and the Nazi occupation of Europe during the ‘40s. They mocked certain Democrats, such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who think that as soon as the United States pulls out, the insurgency will stop fighting and everything will become peaceful again.

Leading Democrats in office are not answering any calls from the press that are asking for an explanation or comment on the terrorists’ remarks.

But the terrorists and political pundits obviously don’t know United States government too well. Even if the Democrats win Congress, they wouldn’t be able to just order a withdrawal from Iraq on the spot. Those orders have to come from the White House.

Radical Muslims protested yesterday in Iraq at the killing of innocent civilians in an air strike against a terror suspect. Apparently they don’t have a problem with strapping up their young girls with bombs and sending them off to murder innocent Israelis on a bus (killing themselves in the act as well). But when a few innocent Iraqi Muslim civilians accidentally die in an air strike that aimed for a terrorist (who was probably being harbored in the area), they are up in arms protesting with all their might and calling it a war crime (as if they had any sense of international law themselves). That’s just another case of hypocrisy in an irrational religion.

John Kerry made some remarks that I’m sure you’re all aware of, further proving his disloyalty to America, and improving the chances of a Democratic loss on November 7. If you didn’t catch the news, he said that if you don’t do well in school, you end up “stuck” in Iraq. He implied that all or most of our soldiers are uneducated hobos who have nothing else to do because they’re so stupid. He obviously doesn’t realize the fact of the voluntary nature of our military today, along with fact that some people are designed for military career, and have made that choice because they want to serve their country. Kerry, of course, made the fake apology of “I’m sorry that some of you were offended;” and excused his remarks as a “misunderstood joke”. Question: Why does Trent Lott get sacked for making a positive statement at a person’s funeral, but John Kerry gets off free when he insults the entire military service in front of a crowd of bright young students?

America has a clear choice on Tuesday: They can vote for a party that is praised by terrorists and hypocritical fanatics, or they can vote for a party that is constantly vilified by those terrorists and takes its patriotism seriously. Make your choice carefully.

This is a topic that I’ve been wanting to write on for a while, and never got around to it. But some prodding came from an anonymous person’s comments on my previous post. He questioned the wisdom of getting involved in the North Korea situation, and apparently holds to isolationist views. You can see his three whole comments on my previous post, along with my complete resonse. I’m only going to post one of his statements that really brought up the question, with my answer (with the latter being larger of course):

I sincerely believe it is not the United State’s job to solve world affairs.

Nor do I. But this state of affairs has been forced upon us by the conditions that we live in today. I firmly believe that the United States should not go around as a police state in the world. However, there are certain cases nowadays (like the nuclear threat from North Korea) where we have to come in and make a stand, whether it’s diplomatically or militarily. Here are a few reasons why:

We were forced into WWII by Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, and the threat of terrible Nazi domination of the world. After that, we were forced into the resulting Cold War because of the power vacuum in Europe and the USSR’s constant threat to blow everyone up, including us. Now that the USSR has fallen, we are left as the only superpower in the world, which leaves us with responsibilities and liabilities that we would not otherwise have if the above events did not happen.

You also have to consider the fact that in the world today we have nukes, long-range missiles and warships, massive armies that can be deployed quickly, and rogue nations with crazy leaders that can do serious damage to many nations, including us.

These two things, history and current technology, inhibit us from pursuing an isolationist policy in the world today.

our getting into other people’s affairs is a direct violation of the Monroe Doctrine

The Monroe Doctrine was just that: the doctrine of a President that he followed that worked well in his day. I believe it is a good idea, but it is impractical in the world today, as I stated above. It is also just a certain foreign policy, not a law.

I think we should do something about North Korea before they become an even more serious threat, which is happening very fast. Not to mention that they already are a fairly serious threat.

I’d really appreciate feedback on these views.

I feel very sorry for the people of South Korea. They are sitting on the other side of the border from a communist rogue state, and their government seems to think that they can support that state unboundedly without consequences. The people are protesting, but they need to do something quickly if they want to keep their national sovereignty. You’ll notice that there is fairly high rate of suicide in South Korea.

The UN isn’t doing anything about the situation. They didn’t do anything when the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea (DPRK) kicked out the UN inspectors prior to their finishing of the nuclear weapon. They haven’t done anything when DPRK has repeatedly been absent at key UN meetings, and if you think that this new resolution that they finally passed is going to do anything, you’re wrong. This resolution comes as a response to North Korea’s recent testing of a nuclear bomb underground. However, it still implies no serious consequences to North Korea for its blatant defiance of international demands, treaties, and regulations. Apparently the UN feels perfectly content to impose on our national sovereignty, but cringes at the prospect of actually laying down the law on rogue nations. This resolution that passed would still be helpful though, if it was actually enforced. But it isn’t.

China is still supplying weapons, technology, food, and other aid to North Korea. This further proves the suspicion that some people have that DPRK is just the proxy of China to see how the Western world responds to a threat. However, you can expect a communist country like China to do that; what you don’t expect is South Korea, the nation most endangered by DPRK, to go easy on them. They are still pouring economic aid into North Korea in the name of friendly steps toward reunification (difference here between Germany and Korea: common people abolishing the divide themselves; and a free government trying to compromise with a rogue state that wants to kill everybody). South Korea continues to operate a resort inside DPRK for their government employees. Both these nations are refusing to abide by the rules set down in the UN resolution. Japan seems to be the only involved country that is actually implementing sanctions in punishment against North Korea. Japan has banned all trade with DPRK, and is stepping up surveillance on the country. However, they did this before the UN resolution was even passed, so it’s not like they are following the UN’s lead.

We need to toughen up on North Korea for its recent threats against the Western world, and show them that they can’t just threaten us and push us around without consequences. It’s not as if they can nuke the USA or possibly even Japan or South Korea currently, and if we take measures now, it will avoid the trap that we will be in when they get more technologically advanced. In the world today, and with the policy that we have already followed, we need to take affirmative action (in foreign relations, not racial matters, mind you).

*Image from World Magazine

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.

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…