In a particularly loud and often vicious rash of evangelical revivalism, Atheists like Christopher Hitchens have been on a tear at the bookstores. While reading such delusional rants, mostly void of reasoned, logical, case-building argumentation, is as pleasurable as a long-overdue trip to the dentist, it is healthy to have this opportunity to underscore the vapid, anti-intellectual nature of Atheism.

But what really is the problem with Atheism? The Bible says, "the fool hath said in his heart there is no God." That verse hints at the core of Atheism's unforgivable sin: its pretense of intellectual openness, while really being the exact opposite. I call it "unforgivable" only because it is a mental trap that allows its victim no opportunity to escape.

Atheism is nothing more than faith with something other than God as its object. If the Atheistic faithful could only take one step back and view their creed with more objective eyes, they would begin to see that the supposed irrationality and emotionalism they so deride in Theists is at the heartless core of their own world view.

Note: I am calling Atheism heartless, not its hapless victim, the Atheist. Just the opposite is true. Atheists tend to be large-but-broken-hearted folk. They feel injured or perhaps abandoned by God, and lacking any other course for reciprocation, they simply shake their empty fist at the blameless heavens and declare, "YOU ARE DEAD TO ME."

This feckless exercise has all the intellectual heft of a Tom & Jerry cartoon. Yet it passes as reasoned and intelligent empiricism. To say, " I can't see it. Therefore it doesn't exist," is neither reasonable nor intelligent.

But the emotional heft is still there, which is why Atheists, especially the brand who are smart enough to observe how badly they are losing the intellectual debate, are becoming so frothingly evangelical and aggressive. Some of them become like the soul-sellers on Youtube, who are just big versions of small brats shouting curse words at the dinner table, hoping to draw adult attention to themselves.

Others, like Hitchens, are actually believers who really want to convert the thinking of this world. Misguided or not, at least their intentions are not without some honor. But if honor and integrity are truly important to him, Hitchens may want to consider upgrading to Agnostic, where at least there is some intellectual integrity.

WHY THEY HATE US 

For the dullards who blame Muslim hatred of America on U.S. mid-east policies, may I refer you to the 1300 years of ACTUAL history before our country even existed. It is mostly a history of aggressive military expansion.

I know, I know. I've heard the mantras. Crusades blah blah blah. Muslim tolerance of other religions yada yada yada. If you care to honestly study and confront your history, you'll find that the Crusades began only after three hundred years of aggressive and hostile expansions by Theocracy-powered Islamic forces. They were bent then, as they are today, on world conquest in the name of Allah.

Our infant nation had run-ins with the Muslims long before she could be accused of having ANY mid-east aspirations, presence, or policies. Take a few minutes to read the Tripoli Treaties. It's almost eerily prophetic if you can mentally separate it from a context of 1600 plus years of pre-existing Muslim history.

No reasonable person can deny that many modern troubles stemmed from rather hamfisted treatment of the region after WWI, and there have been a number of blunders since. But you make a major error by continuing to insist that the Jihadists have targeted us because of our policies. They are bent on global conquest, and we are a chief obstacle to that goal. To deny this fact is foolish and blind.

With regard to the claims of Pat's anti-Semitism: can anyone provide one shred of evidence for this ugly claim? For years I've asked for evidence. It never comes. The closest these race baiters ever get is to cite PJB's stance against a conflation of U.S.-Isreli interests.

He does not see the modern nation of Israel as identical with Judaism or Jewishness, and he certainly does not see it as coterminous with American ends. But he rails against U.S. involvement anywhere that does not directly impinge upon American interests. This position is uniform, with no special dislike of Hebrew things. Hey, even the Bible, written mostly by Jews, calls Jerusalem a perpetual burdensome stone and a cup of trembling. Is Pat anti-Semitic for observing the same truth.

Pat is mistaken in this regard. We are in a war driven by Jihad, and the Israel issue is nothing but a shell account opened by Jihadists to give their actual cause an ethical currency to spend among their prospective base. Unfortunately, many far left and far right Westerners have started accepting that fraudulent tender.

 Dubai and Doubts about Dubya

 This President seems to have largely abdicated leadership. As I’ve written elsewhere, leadership requires the leader to show himself to the people, to be seen even more than heard. A poor leader ensconces himself in the edifices of power, hiding from the people like a frightened pariah. This is what Bush has done.

For me, it really began with the Ports of Dubai debacle. After 9-11, the President moved us all by enlisting our willing aid in the "War on Terror" by telling us that we were the nations eyes, ears, noses, and feelers. We were to sound the alert if we sensed anything suspicious. The President called, and his people answered.

So, when the Dubai Ports deal became public knowledge, the American people sounded the alarm. We said this smelled, felt, sounded, and looked wrong. What was the President’s response? The gist of it was: "Shut up, sit down, and if you try to block me, I’ll cram it down your throats anyway."

The President lost that round. But he lost much more. He lost much of the credibility he had gained since 9-11. He became just another politician, angling for the interests of cronies who, it appears, may have played a behind-the-scenes role in terrorism and even 9-11. Those of us who had offered Dubya the benefit of the doubt found that the benefit had fled. All that was left were doubts.

Since that time, he has faltered on immigration, spending, and trade issues, among others. Even in the War in Iraq, the one remaining pillar of his tenure, he has chosen to run silent, run deep. Instead of bringing the case to the American people in formal, weekly messages (ala Churchill), he retreated to Crawford, letting his remaining spokespeople in the media and on Capitol Hill try to make the case for him.

His Library chat, meant to explain his planned surge in Iraq, might have been a worthwhile effort, if it had been one in an ongoing series of such case-building messages to edify and stoke America’s confidence. In that address, the President appeared diffident and tenuous, as though he lacked the courage of his convictions.

This is not the picture of leadership. To see a picture of leadership, you look at Washington crossing the Delaware. You look at Jesus on the Cross. You look at Teddy Roosevelt at San Juan Hill. This is leadership: one man, an icon of confidence, a beacon of bravery, a symbol of strength.

Bush once presented such a picture. But that man - a man standing amidst ash, smoke, rubble, and dust - has fled. He seems to have wearied of the fight, crawled off to Crawford. He has retreated into himself. But we need him now more than ever, that man from 9-12.

While he continues to fulfill certain obligatory official functions, like the State of the Union Address, he has mostly stolen from the scene and become a mere inhabitant of the White House instead of its head. A man has lost his will, and a nation has lost its leader.

The Obama phenomenon currently gripping our nation is not really all that new. It is just the most recent manifestation of an already-abominable reality of American politics. It is the abomination of style over substance.

As of this writing, the U.S.A. is still the world’s foremost superpower. And, paraphrasing Stan "The Man" Lee in the pages of Spider-Man: with super-power comes super-responsibility. And yet, we still seem to favor style over substance in choosing our leaders and representatives.

Obama is not the first or last to benefit from this rather childish political habit of ours. We have long ago decided that image is more important than meaning. When was the last time a presidential candidate with glasses was a serious contender? When was the last time we had a real contender who was shorter than average height? Dukakis was short, and he paid HE!! for it. So did Carter (never mind the fact that they were ineffectual dweebs, head to toe). And we don’t even want to consider the possibility of a bald nominee for one of the major parties. Can’t happen. It will never happen. It hasn’t happened since the 1950's, so why should we expect it now?

Perhaps I’m alone in thinking that we may rob ourselves of troves of experience, talent, and abilities by taking such superficial, shortsighted view of our potential leaders, placing undue emphasis on physical attributes? Does a man’s imperfect eyesight hinder his ability to lead? Does his paucity of follicles render him inept? Does the distance between his feet and his forehead make a man a mouse?

In such a culture as this, is it surprising that an insubstantial hack like Barrack Obama would be considered a big time player? He has all the bona fides that matter. He’s youngish, a stylish dresser, ethnic, and (in the words of Joe Biden) clean and articulate. Obama is the real deal in our Paris Hilton-obsessed, American Idol-watching, Oprah-worshiping culture.

All Barrack needs now is a catchy compound name (ala Tom-Kat or Brangelina) to link him to some other beloved media icon. I have it! I have it! OPRAHMA!!! To heck with the election. Let’s just crown him right now.

The world renowned name of M.I.T. is an acronym standing for Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  Well, now MASS has yet another, similar sounding acronym:  M.I.T.T.  It stands for  Mostly Incapable of Telling the Truth. I trust him as far as I could throw his very talented team of hairstylists.

Romney is obviously a talented campaigner. His looks and suave demeanor will enchant many. And he's a talented executive.

I just have one problem: I have no idea where the guy really stands. Now, I can't bury him for having evolved in his worldviews. I was a flaming lib 10-12 years ago. My views have completely shifted since then. I'm practically a new person, and I'd hate to think that my foolishness as an 18-20 year old would be used to discredit me or my more evolved views. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt.

But the problem with Romney is the way these changes have occurred (over and over again). I just do not trust him.  He comes across as a much less profligate Clinton.  And to say he's less profligate than Bill is not saying much.

 

Don't Let Good Militate Against Better.

"Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." While just slightly too unwieldy to make a good bumber sticker, it's a cliche I have come to revile almost as much as "No blood for oil." It's meaningless drivel. Perfect is never the enemy of the good. Perfect is the guidepost that reminds us what the good is and where it should aim. And although we rarely find "perfect" in our real life experience, we must remember that we can always do better. We should at least strive for the better. But we don't do this anymore. Instead, we lull ourselves into complacency with bromides and by accepting the mildly-less-repugnant. This pretty much covers the current offering of name brand contenders for the Republican nomination. McCain and Giuliani are nothing but donkeys in elephant's clothing. Romney (probably the best of the bunch) will have an uphill battle for acceptance among many Evangelicals, and, more importantly, is too polished (not to say "slick") for his own good. Tancredo would get my vote, but the "mainstream" Republicans have disowned him. This proves one thing. We have waged a war of the so-called good which militates against the closer-to-perfect. We have sided with the former every time. This is what killed Republicans in 2006, and the effect will be even greater in 2008. Observe the "Tancredo effect". He tells the truth about terrroism and illegal immigration, and he's invited to leave the party. Face it. We're hosed because the Republican party has been taken over by sissies, corporatists, and globalists. The sissy-boys who are running this party (into the ground) think they can garner the support and affection of the left by striking a more "moderate" pose and being soft on illegals. Think again. When a Republican candidate is nominated, the long-whetted claws of the left-owned media will bare and the fangs will run red. And when this happens, you're gonna want the support of conservatives like me...and we won't be there because we have a bumper sticker of our own:" Don't let the marginally better be the enemy of the best available."

 

 With the whispery anticipation of a golf announcer calling a Tiger Woods putt on the 18^th hole at Augusta, CNN reporter Michael Ware calls the shot as an "insurgent" sniper picks off an American soldier. Congratulations to Mr. Ware, Anderson Cooper, and the execs at CNN. Quite the scoop! It seems that CNN, in the name of "unvarnished truth", is perfectly content to see the Iraqi earth varnished with American blood.

But I have a question for Anderson, Michael, and the CNN executives. As you eagerly published your big scoop, did you ever reflect on the fallen one’s brothers-in-arms as they bent to scoop up the victim’s ruined remains? Did you think of the aging mother or the young widow as she scoops up the victim’s forever-empty favorite shirt, holds it tenderly to her tear wetted cheek, and breathes deep, trying to capture one last time the scent of that brave one who will never breath again?

I confess that the news media’s use of terms like "insurgent" when referring to a murderous terrorist makes me want to refer to the news media as traitors. I will admit that I am tempted to regard people like Michael and Anderson as nothing more than feces with feet. I freely disclose that I think CNN really stands for Cannibalistic Nothing Network. And I will declare that this event only proves me right.

Again, congratulations, CNN. You’ve outdone yourselves.

 

We all recognize some of the liabilities Hillary Clinton brings to the table as a potential presidential candidate in 2008. Her shrill and pretentious attempts to emulate JFK’s stentorian oratory may be the best emetic known to man. Her attempts to triangulate messages for various audiences ( i.e. flip-flop) is enough to dizzy even John Kerry. Her “progressive” ideas about government and culture repel every normal, freethinking person in America. And those are just some of her weaknesses as a potential nominee.

While these issues, strangely, do not seem to be enough to dislodge Hillary from the collective hopes and imaginations of the left (and Dick Morris), they pale in comparison to her most fatal flaw as a presidential candidate: her last name (or one of them, at least). This has not so much to do with attitudes towards her husband as with the fact that Bill Clinton is her husband. She belongs to one half of an ongoing dynastic family feud whose battlefield seems to be nothing less than the White House.

As Americans, we rightly pride ourselves on the relative openness and meritocratic nature of our political system. Our body politic repels like a foreign body any notions or even the appearance of dynasty. It’s one thing if a senator or congressman becomes a permanent cog in the Washington machinery. A Ted Kennedy can ensconce and entrench himself in his little bailiwick for decades without it raising a national furor because, as a member of Congress, he is only one of 535. Such an entrenchment in the White House is something Americans have rejected, as evidenced by the explicit and implicit contents of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.

Think about it this way. If Hillary is elected in 2008, and if she serves a full two terms, by 2016 we will have endured an unbroken 36 year period with either a Bush or a Clinton in the Administration. Twenty-eight of these years will have seen one of these two families in the Oval Office itself. This seems to violate the very sacred principle of America’s open electoral system, opting instead for a de facto dynastic power struggle between the Bushes and the Clintons. And it prompts the astute political observer to reflect on the possibility of each side readying its reserves for 2016. Chelsea Clinton, born in 1980 when this dynastic tit-for-tat began, will have reached her 36^th year, and Jeb, at 63, will still be young enough to run.

Republicans, in the main, seem to understand this inherent limitation on an instinctive level. Jeb’s name rarely comes up as a viable nominee for 2008. We usually don’t speak about Jeb’s liabilities in terms of dynasty, but it’s always there as a subtextual undercurrent. Perhaps this Republican discretion stems from the fact that the GOP has been the chief beneficiary of dynasty thus far, and it will remain so for the next two years. But neither side will fare well when honest commentators begin to loudly discuss this disturbing pattern

If (and this is a big IF ) the Democrats can somehow extract themselves from the inexplicable grip the Clintons seem to have on their collective psyche, and if they reject Hillary as their next presidential nominee, they might have a real shot at the White House. But if, as recent history seems to indicate, they choose the lemming path blazed by the pied piper from Hope (please excuse the mixed rodent metaphors), they have no hope to win in 2008.

If Republicans are smart - which they occasionally are - they will BEG for Hillary’s nomination, key on this most inexcusable of her weaknesses, and then sit back and wait for the American body politic to reject Hillary’s dynastic aspirations like a viral infection.

For this reason, it's all uphill for Hillary in 2008.