Good News!

You aren't likely to hear it from the MSM but there is good news about Iraq.

Tom over at The Redhunter has a great post featuring several good sources. Go read it here.

In addition to the reduction in violence and the greater cooperation of tribal leaders with our forces, there are signs that Al Qeda is suffering internal division. The recent Bin Laden tape was covered by Al Jazeera in such a way that now extremists are upset with the TV network for airing the thing.

Family Security Matters has a good analysis:

Osama’s message was more the expression of a frustrated (self-appointed) “Caliph” trying to reign in his emirs gone wild in the deserts of the Middle East. The “Lord” is upset with how al Qaeda Iraq has administered the struggle, the people and the image.

At the end of the day, this taped show [sic] - as I have argued since last summer – proves that al Qaeda central feels their strategic initiative in Iraq is lagging behind. Two things went wrong for al Qaeda: one was the misbehavior of its own barons on the ground, and two - one can see it clearer now - the (US-led) surge has worked so far. The Jihadi combat machine is flying low and is going through turbulence. Any major decision in Washington can accentuate this direction down or release it up.

Bin Ladin has taken the risk of exposing this reality to his foes. It should be read thoroughly and responsibly inside the Beltway.

Just how weak the insurgency is may be guessed from extremist anger over Al Jazeera letting the world know about it by broadcasting the tape. As this story details; AQ supporters are upset with the network for airing bin Laden's criticism of the insurgency's failings and so they are now directing their hate toward their best propoganda tool.

Indeed. The Democrats need to come around to understanding that they need to get on the right side of this thing. We have a chance to deal a defeat to a movement that has been growing in power and influence for decades. This is not about GW Bush or the next election. It matters not who is in power in the United States. This threat is real regardless of which party we elect. To them, we are all targets. There are no good Americans in the minds of the jihadists. Should the Democrats regain the White House, they will have to deal with this same enemy, and it won't matter if we send Nancy Pelosi to Damascus in a head scarf or not. If not for the good of America, the Dems should support this war to make it easier for their next President when he/she takes office. I am sure that President would rather fight a divided and weak Al Qeda than one that has emerged victorious in Iraq because we cut and ran.

Death of Innocence II

It is incredibly sad to me when children can't find adults who will be responsible enough to hold them to high standards. Tonight while driving in the car I heard a news story that nearly broke my heart and made me wonder where the grown ups have gone.

A school board in Maine has voted to offer through it's student health service, contraception, including the pill to Middle School Students. Read more here. That would be students as young as 10 years old!

Consider every argument you've heard about offering birth control to high schoolers. All the arguments like "they are going to do it anyway, we should help them be healthy and safe." Well, you know what, 10 year olds won't be doing it anyway. That logic never ends, and as the valueless left in our society continues to sexualize children, the age will continue to drop.

Even worse, the stage is set to remove the parental consent. Notice the story's final sentences:

Chairman John Coynie voted no, saying he feels providing the birth control is a parent's responsibility. The other no vote came from Ben Meiklejohn, who said the consent form for the services is unclear.

Opponents who spoke at the meeting cited religious and health objections to the plan. Supporters said it's not enough to depend on parents to protect their children because there may be students who can't discuss things with their parents

So, while this current measure supposedly requires consent of the parents, the supporters of this have already floated the notion that some kids just can't depend on their parents. The next obvious step is eliminating the consent provision for the sake of those kids whose parents can't discuss this with them.

Where are the adults? You can't make a sexual relationship healthy for kids of this age. A healthy sexual relationship at this age just doesn't exist! We tell them don't do drugs because it will hurt you. We tell them stop eating trans fats, it's not healthy. But we tell them its OK to give away your virginity at an obscenely young age and get involved in something they do not have the emotional maturity to handle. Good lord, I've seen kids this age become emotional basket cases over not being invited to someone's birthday, how are they supposed to handle all that is involved in sexual intimacy?

Sex has a powerful emotional basis-it is not all about disease and pregnancy. We often discuss the health and pregnancy risks of teen sex, but we need to help them understand that sex is an emotional issue as well. Even if unwanted pregnancy and STD's could be totally eliminated through safe sex practices, the emotions associated with sex are hard for teens to handle. Early sexual activity in an immature and uncommitted relationship can bring with it serious depression, isolation and other consequences. (source

Or how about this report.

Depression may be the result rather than the cause of risky teen behaviors.

A new study shows that teen sex or drug use raised the risk of depression a year later.

Researchers say the results challenge the notion that teens become sexually active or engage in drug use to "self-medicate" their own depression.

"Findings from the study show depression came after substance and sexual activity, not the other way around," says researcher Denise Dion Hallfors of the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, in a news release.

The report continues:

Girls who had experimented with drugs and sex were two to three times more likely to become depressed than those who abstained

In taking this action, the supposed adults on this school board may have helped prevent some pregnancies, but they are abdicating their responsibility as grown ups to tell these kids that certain behaviors are wrong and unhealthy. So a girl may avoid pregnancy but we have emotionally crippled her by encouraging sexual behavior and made it less likely that she will be able to have a healthy relationship when she is older. Consider how this damage can multiply in terms of future risky behavior, future involvement in unhealthy relationships, future problems as a parent. There should be some way to hold such board members accountable and liable for the damage they are heaping on these innocent kids.

Well, I believe they will pay eventually: "But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!" Matthew 18:6,7.

As I said in an earlier post, "our culture as a whole is constantly pushing sexuality on our children." The consequences will be dire. I dread the world my grandchildren will be raised in. I have no answer for this because it seems that far too many adults have not just given up on holding up morality, it seems they are actively opposed to it. For some reason, they want to see our kids engage in risky behavior. The only way to describe it is "Child Endangerment."

God?

When it all comes down to it, there is no more important issue than God. Is He real? How do we find Him? What does His existence mean for me? I would encourage you to check out the sermon series by Jim Nicodem of Christ Community Church. His current series is The God Questions in which Nicodem answers the following: Is God Real? Can the Bible Be Trusted? Why Does God Allow Suffering? You can listen to the sermon, download it for your MP3 or even watch video of the message from each week. Take the time to listen or watch.

A Dhimmicratic Future

Earlier this morning I posted about the Dems systematic sabotage of our war effort and our soldiers, the latest evidence of which is the Armenian Genocide resolution and its likely impact on supply lines through Turkey.

Clearly the Dems value political power more than doing what is in the nation's best interest. They have repeatedly ridiculed our military, lied about abuse and torture, threatened to cut funding, supported the defamation of a worthy general and now are actively seeking to drive a wedge between the US and a key ally, an ally that is already tottering on the edge of a slide toward Islamofascism.

Clearly they seek to attack the Bush Administration on every front, even if that means seeing the terrorists gain a victory. This, they seem to think, will improve their chances of electoral success in the next election, and they may be right. The constant harping of the left may indeed help them gain power. But what then?

Assume it is a Democrat who is inaugurated in 2009 and a Democrat majority grows in Congress what will our nation face?

The Islamofascists will still hate us. Furthermore, they will feel strength anew that their war on America has caused American political will to crumble and put the "peace party" in power. Just as they forced Spain out of the war, they will have succeeded in forcing out the American government, which stood up to them and their quest for global jihad. The dhimmi left is fond of saying that the war in Iraq is a recruiting tool for the terrorists. Just think what the Islamofascist claim, indeed proof, of victory will do for their recruiting efforts!

The Dems will have to please the MoveOn.org types who helped propel them to power and begin pulling out of Iraq. It is likely that Iran and Turkey will move in as will more terrorists and the sectarian civil war that we prevented will erupt and constitutional government will fall. The Dems will shake their heads and blame Bush. They will, however, decide its too rash to pass a resolution condemning the Kurdish genocide taking place, "call us next century," they will say.

Iran, having driven the US out of Iraq will move forward even more briskly and boldly toward nuclear weapons and the region will be further destabilized, driving oil prices to unprecedented levels as more oil reserves fall under the control of radical Islamist powers. The Dems will all agree that it is Bush who left us this mess.

With the US weakened and unable to respond because the Dems dance at the end of Code Pink's strings; Syria and Iran and others will increase their support for Palestinian terrorist organizaitons and Syria will once again openly control Lebanon as a base for terrorism against Israel. We will see terror attacks in Israel increase and Americans will often be the targets. The dems will caution that the Israelis need to make concessions and say it's so sad that Bush didn't do more to help the peace process. Secretary of State Pelosi will go to Damascus in a Burqa and declare Syria a true friend to America and isn't it so great that we are mending the fences with nations that Bush alienated with his "cowboy diplomacy."

In the name of civil liberties we will take away from our intelligence agencies the ability to keep tabs on known terrorists in the United States and perhaps rebuild the infamous wall between various agencies. Terror cells will have more freedom to plot against us from within. Perhaps they will succeed in killing and maiming thousands of innocents, to which the left will say "if only Bush hadn't made them angry. We just need more understanding and compassion."

With the US retreating into isolationism in the War on Terror, other nations will follow our lead. Australia, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, the Philippines and others will all ease up on their own terror groups. Londonistan will rise again and the terrorists in Gitmo will return to the Mideast as celebrated victors of the Jihad against the west. Demands will be made for us to release others we have in custody and the dems will acquiesce. Madrassas will sprout up and radical Imams will continue to demand concessions from non-Islamic nations and the Taliban will return to power. The dems will look us in the eye and tell us that we can't blame them, after all they inherited this mess from Bush.

CAIR and other backers of Islamic extremism will also feel emboldened and we could see dhimmi laws passed in the United States, forcing non-Muslims to behave in a manner that is deferential to Islamic customs and practices in public accomodations and in schools and communities where Muslims form a significant voting block. More foot washing stations, pork should only be sold out of back rooms, no dogs in Taxi cabs, restaurants should close during daylight hours in observance of Ramadan. We will be told that if we don't make such concessions there will be "consequences," and to avoid unpleasantness we will tuck tail and cower. The dems will say Islam is a relgion of peace but it was Bush's policies that increased the strength of the radicals, and isn't that so sad.

Eventually, though, the ability to blame Bush will fade. People will see that America is indeed weaker and that our interests are under attack. They will know that radicalism is on the march and we will either be forced to confront it or succumb to it. Unfortunately, in the years since the 2009 Innauguration, that force has only gained in strength and our allies feel even less willing to stand against it. So, the cost of fighting it will be even higher in terms of both blood and treasure.

In other words, as the dhimmicrats don head scarves and genuflect before tyrants like Assad, cheer for Ahmadinejad, meet with the Muslim Brotherhood, call terrorists "the resistance," put at risk our soldiers' supply lines, hamper recruiters, threaten our intelligence gathering apparatus, accuse our troops of cold-blooded murder, compare them to Nazis and Pol Pot, seek audiences at CAIR functions, ridicule an honorable General, support and accept the support of extreme left groups, and do all manner of things that weaken this nation and strengthen the Islamist ideology that attacked us on 9/11; they may very well be setting themselves up for control of all branches of the US government.

But, in the process they are creating a monster. And the day will come when they, along with the rest of us, will have to face that monster. This monster could have been killed when it was weaker, but the dems had bigger fish to fry. Now, in power they realize the monster won't stop with getting the US out of Iraq, it won't be satisfied with a two-state solution in Israel. It wants domination and after it gains strength it will turn on those useful idiots who helped it grow.

Of course, the good news is, all those maimed in the next major terrorist attack will have universal health care coverage under the dems' new plan. "Just wait 10 months and we will get you right in to treat that radiation sickness. And pick up all that hair that is falling out, don't you care about the environment?"

Stabbing Our Soldiers In The Back

So, the Democratic leadership in Congress wants to take up the vital issue of an attrocity that happened nearly a century ago in the Ottoman Empire. Apparently it is absolutely crucial that we pass a resolution labeling the Armenian Genocide as genocide, thereby angering our Turkish allies.

Turkey, which is preparing for a military incursion into Kurdish Iraq has said such a resolution would harm US-Turkish relations. The fact is, we need Turkey as a base and route of supply for our troops battling Al Qaeda in Iraq. Democrats know that this resolution will put that supply line at risk. Fact is, they don't care!

Thomas Sowell addresses the Democrats' motives in this excellent editorial.

Sowell asks:

But why are politicians suddenly trying to pass Congressional resolutions about these events, long after all those involved are dead and after the Ottoman Empire in which all these things happened no longer exists?

The short answer is irresponsible politics.

That's a hefty charge, but Sowell backs it up.

If Congress has gone nearly a century without passing a resolution accusing the Turks of genocide, why now, in the midst of the Iraq war?

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this resolution is just the latest in a series of Congressional efforts to sabotage the conduct of that war.

Turkey, as already noted, allows us to ship vitally needed military supplies to our troops who are in battle inside Iraq. Causing a rift in relations with Turkey could cause them to deny us the supply routes we need and push Turkey towards intervention against Kurdish rebels in Northern Iraq. Clearly, this will put our troops in danger, but the Dems persist.

All this, in spite of the fact that the Democrats constantly berate Bush for harming our reputation in the World. Fact is, when it comes to losing the respect of Syria, Iran, or lefties in Europe, I don't care one iota what they think of us. But, when it is a nation that actively supports our fighting men and women in a warzone by providing a base of supply I care very much. And so should all Americans.

Al Qaeda got Spain to back down by blowing up innocent people on a train, now the dhimmicrats want to force Turkey out with a Congressional resolution. The tactic may be more humane, but the damage to our foreign policy and our soldiers is the same. Even worse, Turkey has long been an ally, a rarity for us in the Islamic world. This is treasonous and open alliance with our enemies!

Sowell reveals the Democrats' method and their purpose:

Too many Democrats in Congress have gotten into the habit of treating the Iraq war as President Bush's war -- and therefore fair game for political tactics making it harder for him to conduct that war.

In a rare but revealing slip, Democratic Congressman James Clyburn said that an American victory in Iraq "would be a real big problem for us" in the 2008 elections.

Unwilling to take responsibility for ending the war by cutting off the money to fight it, as many of their supporters want them to, Congressional Democrats have instead tried to sabotage the prospects of victory by seeking to micro-manage the deployment of troops, delaying the passing of appropriations -- and now this genocide resolution that is the latest, and perhaps lowest, of these tactics.

This is utterly disgusting. At a time when we have AQ on the run and the surge has clearly succeeded in giving us the initiative over the terrorists (don't believe it, check out this from the Washington Post) congressional Dems want to pull the rug out from under our troops and give AQI some room to regroup and come back to kill more American Soldiers. As Tom over at The Redhunter has asked Can We Question Their Patriotism Now?

The Dems have done NOTHING to help our soldiers fight this enemy, and at every turn seem to side with the foe. Dick Durbin compares US soldiers to Nazis, Nancy Pelosi bows at the feet of the Syrian Dictator, Stenny Hoyer meets with members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Dems showed their loyalty to CAIR by killing the John Doe ammendment, they try continually to hog-tie our intelligence aparatus (much as they did prior to 9/11), and now they are actively trying to destroy a vital source of support for our troops DURING A WAR!

I have a suggestion for the Dems, let's not rush to judgement on the Armenian Genocide issue. I think we should appoint a panel of investigators to look into it, perhaps a UN panel. Ask them to report back in one year with their reccomendations. I think at the end of the year we should pass a resolution giving the investigators more time to complete their work before taking any rash actions. Then, after they've been given sufficient time, we can pass a UN resolution expressing our concern and calling for more in-depth inspections.

After that maybe the Democrats can take up other vital issues, such as "The Assyrian Empire, Good or Bad?"

The sad conclusion is this, "don't ever trust Democrats with national security."

Death of Innocence

de·mean –verb (used with object) to lower in dignity, honor, or standing; debase. (source: dictionary.com)


This past week, a whole lot of seemingly unrelated incidents coalesced to create some pretty strong feelings in me as a husband and a father trying to navigate the foul waters of our present day culture. The incidents included a men's Bible study, a homecoming parade, reading blogs, and an ad for Halloween costumes. This post will meander through that thought process. As I said, it seems at first a series of unrelated incidents, but all of them pointed, I think, to an important truth.

Last week at my men's Bible study we grappled with I Timothy 2:9-15, a passage that is often viewed in our world as demeaning of women. After all, it is in this particular passage that Paul writes: "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man but to be in silence." (vs.11-12). Taken out of context, and taken with the feminist-influenced view that positions of authority and power are what matter most, this could indeed be viewed as demeaning.

But, taken as part of the whole of Paul's writings and the rest of Scripture the Bible speaks of those in positions of authority as loving servants. Indeed, as the men looked for practical application of this passage we were convicted with the need to strive to meet the heavy burden scripture places on men in their relationships with women both in the church, as this passage addresses, but especially with our wives, which Paul most directly addresses in Ephesians 5:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her...In this same way husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies.

I can still recall attending a marriage conference with my wife in which Joe Stowell was one of the speakers. As he spoke of the husband's responsibility as given in this passage he asked "Husbands, are you willing, every day, to go to the cross for your wives?" I was struck then, and every time I think about it, of the awesome burden of that. If I am to love my wife "in this same way" that Christ loves the church, I must be willing to give up as much for her as He gave up for us.

Now, what does this have to do with my opening paragraph? Just this, in our men's group our conversation over the I Timothy passage focused on the women in our lives, primarily our wives and daughters. If we love and live as the Bible commands, there can be no demeaning of these women. In fact, one of the men had a profound insight as we discussed the culture's opinion that the church demeans women. As he pointed out the styles of clothing and the types of behavior which our culture teaches girls by granting celebrity status to the likes of Anna Nicole, Britney Spears, Bratz dolls, etc. how can the culture dare say it is the church that demeans women? After all, it is the Word of God that tells us that men should treat women with dignity, respect and out of a desire to serve them, not objectify and use them.

to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. IN THIS SAME WAY, husbands ought to love their wives...

Now, all of that leads into some other events of the past week. First we have the Folsom Street Fair which, as was reported at Michelle Malkin's blog, included toddlers dressed in studded dog collars exposed to the most vile and deviant behavior. Then there was the homecoming parade at the high school attended by our two oldest boys. In the midst of a fun event, a girl paraded past my two youngest (who were seated on the curb to view the parade) screaming about lesbianism. This was the parade contribution of our school's chapter of the Gay Straight Alliance.

Then, there was the Party City Halloween Costume ad, which a co-worker brought to my attention after we had discussed the prior events of the week and bemoaned the fact that children today, especially the girls, are denied their chance of innocence in this world and are exposed to too much sexualization.

If you haven't seen the ad, it is basically a catalogue of costumes divided by age categories. For the boys, there is the usual assortment of super heroes, pirates, sports costumes, etc. But for the girls, the selection is virtually an ad for a business serving the fetish market. In looking at the girls costumes, it is best to work backward from what is promoted to adult women to what is peddled to young girls. Both the costumes themselves, and the names given to them are clearly designed with sexual overtones.



So for the grown up girls, party city offers such gems as: "Sponge Bath Betty," "Playboy Sexy Scholar," "Playboy Racy Referee," and "Playboy Bootcamp Babe." Other pages of the ad feature "Corrupt Cop" with faux leather and "Mile High Captain." It ain't the church that demeans women folks!

But flip back to earlier pages in the ad and you see costumes for teens and girls, in other words children. This is where this topic merged into my men's group discussion. As fathers we all worried about raising our children in a culture that is depraved, especially with regard to our daughters. We need to raise our daughters to know that their self worth comes from the fact that they are created in God's image, and that they are His children. But our culture seems to tell girls that their self worth is based on physical beauty, which has now been thoroughly corrupted into sleaziness. Corrupted so much so that Party City is peddling virtually identical, fetish-style costumes to both adults and children.

For teens:



Notice the similarity between the teen costume "Fashion Police" (second row, second from right) and the adult "Corrupt Cop" (bottom row, first from left). Or how about the "You Sexy Witch" costume for your teenager (fourth row, second from left). Again I say it ain't the church that demeans women!
Then we page back to selections for girls (i.e. younger than 13).



Party City's corporate officers apparently think girls (little girls) would look great as "Major Flirt" a sized down version of the teen "Army Girl" and the adult "Playboy Bootcamp Babe." Or perhaps you want to dress you pre-teen daughter as "Devilicious," "Devil Grrrl," or "Red Hot." All of which makes me wonder just who is running this company and if they are registered in their home state as sex offenders.

Can you honestly say you still think the church is doing the demeaning?

But, as a father I can tell you that the sad fact is that our culture as a whole is constantly pushing sexuality on our children. After all, Miller Brewing sponsored the Folsom Street Fair and I've heard a number of men say they feel like they can't enjoy a football game on TV with their kids because of the ads. This Party City ad just happened to come to my attention at a time when I was particularly focused on the issue of how the culture demeans and enslaves women and our daughters.

As a husband and father I must constantly be on guard against the foul influences of this culture and strive to raise my daughter to know that true freedom comes not from the world's definition but from the God who created her and knew her before she was born, who gave her talents and gifts and abilities, and the Savior who left heaven's throne to suffer and die for her. And, I must try to instill in my sons a respect for women as created in God's image. A respect that will grow to the point that they will someday love their wives as Christ loved the church.

It is a high calling, and it is getting more and more difficult to fulfill as our world sinks lower into depravity. I feel especially sorry for the younger fathers who will likely raise their daughters in an even worse environment. The goal is to raise them as Paul writes in Philippians 2:15&16 "...so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe as you hold out the word of life..."

One thing is clear, if I want to protect the women I care about from being demeaned the church is great ally.