Pro Rege Papers

Joe Lieberman, the recently reelected Senator from Connecticut, was forced to run as an Independent after he lost the Democratic Primary to radical Ned Lamont in August. He is a moderate Democrat, and had the gall to actually admit that the war in Iraq is winnable. He was isolated and reviled by many Democrats for this, and establishment Democrats cast their support for the radical Ned Lamont. Radical bloggers on the left put him in blackface and railed at him, while composing post after post in adulation of Ned Lamont. (Wait a second, who are the people who keep on rambling about bipartisanship?) But Lieberman won, and now Democrats are forced to depend upon him to support their tottering 51-49 majority in the Senate. Joe Lieberman has refused to eliminate the option of becoming another Republican like John McCain. If he did switch, that would put the balance of the Senate into a tie, with Vice President Dick Cheney as the tiebreaker.

So, we have Joe Lieberman who is a moderate and sometimes votes Republican as the keystone that holds the Democratic Senate majority together. This could be interesting.

WORLD Magazine has a quotable on this.

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.

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…

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.

I just got the heads up from Michael Prescott that two FOX News reporters were kidnapped in Gaza. That shows the persistent violence of the terrorists there, despite all international treaties and agreements.

Even though that is horrible, it is not so surprising. What is so surprising is the response from some of the liberal left. In an entry on a liberal site that recorded the incident, they posted comments that make me doubt why they are allowed to be citizens. The outpouring of hatred against fellow-Americans is so horrible to read, I’m not going to put it up here. Just go to the link above. The leftists wonder whether the FOX News reporters are human, and say that they deserve being abducted for their acts. They go on to make what amounts to death threats against Bill O’Reily and other FOX anchors. Of course the usual appellations of Nazi are repeated over and over again. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

The moderator of the string didn’t shut it down till more hateful comments than you can read had been posted. He also deleted some of the comments, so there’s no telling what some of those contained.

These are the peace mongers we’re talking about here. The anti-violence and anti-war protesters are saying this stuff. I guess hate and intolerance only apply to other people, not them.

Two of the favorite appellations leftist liberals use to describe conservatives are “NAZI!” and “FASCIST!” In doing this, liberals show that they don’t want to pay attention to history. They just blurt out what sounds interesting and incriminating against Bush and Republicans. They don’t examine the sharp contrasts between Nazis and Conservatives, Hitler and Bush, Germany in the 1930s and America in 2006. The fact that they (and the MSM) are even permitted to rant and rave about this is proof in itself that we are not equal to the Nazis. We are far from the condition Germany was in under Hitler.

Fascists, Nazis, and practically every other totalitarian dictatorship stifle all dissent to their regimes. They take control of all media outlets and sources of information. They take over and/or direct the companies to do their will. They carry out their agenda with brutal force and intimidation. They use the military for operations on the people, as well as to expand their domain. They consolidate all control of government in a central location. They create a one-party system with fake, staged elections.

Does any of this sound like the Bush administration or conservativism? Just because they tapped phone calls and Internet records (which is not very kosher, I’ll admit) looking for terrorists doesn’t mean that they are Nazis. It means that they overstepped their authority. The New York Times and all the leftist bloggers are free to criticize Bush as much as they want. The Bush administration has not imposed military rule over the country; they have not instituted a secret police; they have not gotten rid of the Democratic Party, they still acknowledge state and local governments.

We have a Constitution that is designed to keep people from taking totalitarian power. But liberals are doing all they can to ignore or “interpret” away those restrains on a central, broad government. One of the main points of conservativism is limited government. Liberals today are working toward socialism, which takes more of our freedoms away and resembles Fascism much more than conservativism. But we don’t call them Nazis, because that would not be completely accurate. (It is also considered and insult, as well. No one who is interested in a sensible discussion should insult the other side wrongly.)

If you disagree with the President, disagree with the President, (so do I on some issues) don’t slander him or characterize him as something he is not. Articulate your thoughts and pay attention to history as you make comparisons. Remember, he is our President, and he deserves respect as such.