Friday, March 30, 2007

Government Favoritism In Our Schools - Mar 30

True, high school is still 3 years away for my eldest daughter, but as a mom I want to be prepared. Most of her friends will graduate grade 8 and start grade 9 in a huge (and poorly rated) secular high school. They'll be taught the theory of evolution as fact. They'll be taught how to put a condom on, how to protect yourself from STDs, how having a homosexual relationship is okay and even acceptable forms of birth control. As a matter of fact, those kids will be taught every form of birth control with one exception: Abstinence. Apparently it's unrealistic. Young Christian teens will have to wade through all kinds of unbelievers in hopes of finding someone to date who loves the Lord like they do. This is why secular school is NOT an option for me.

Catholic School. There's one close by. I can only assume they will not be exposed to so much in their Health classes, and it is paid for by the government..... but we aren't Roman Catholic. I called the school and was amazed to learn that not all the students were Catholic. Turns out they didn't need to be. "Great!" I thought as I hung up the phone, "Kind of defeats the purpose of Catholic school." Since the government decided to give the Catholic school board public funding, their numbers have gone up dramatically. Parents with troubled teens seem to think that 'A good Catholic school will straighten them out.' Okay, so now Catholic school is out too.

Homeschooling? Well I'll be honest, that's about as far as that idea went.

Last choice: Christian school. I called the principal. Nice guy who loves God and teaches abstinence as the only acceptable form of birth control. The school was full of Christian kids, Christian teachers and a Christian principal. It offered a good group of kids for my girls to interact with. I hung up the phone and smiled to myself. "At last, a choice I could live with." That was until I looked up the fees on the internet. Long story short, I'm looking at around $12, 000.00 a year to send my daughter to a Christian high school.

Here's my beef: Why are Catholic schools paid for by the government and not Christian ones? Are they really so different? Where does the issue of equality fit into all this? My taxes go to the two schools that don't represent my beliefs, and then I have to pay to a third school (Christian) on top of all the taxes in order to find one that does.

I guess the irony of it all is that if the government DID pay for the Christian high school, it wouldn't be full of exclusively Christian kids. It would be very much like the Catholic schools have become.

I can only assume that this is yet another example of government favoritism.

Monday, March 26, 2007

Unsportsmanlike Conduct - Mar 26

It must be the silly season already. There can be no other explanation for what I'm seeing out there. I mean, I have so many examples that I don't even know where to begin! So in no particular order here are some individuals who have earned my ridicule and contempt:

This may be slightly off topic but I'm going to go ahead with it anyways. What the hell, it's my blog, right? Y'know, there are a few people out there who really grate on my nerves. Not just merely annoying or a nuisance, the mere sight of them makes you want to put a fist right through your TV. NHL Commisioner Gary Bettman is one of those people. So smug and smarmy, so slick and insincere that you want to rip your own arm off just so you can hit him over the head with it. In other words, it's a special kind of hatred reserved for a select few. So what's gotten a burr under my saddle you ask? In a word, it's fighting in the NHL. Here's my take on this: I love hockey. I love its toughness, its scrappiness and the emotions it brings out in its fans. What I fail to understand is why do guys like Wade Belak (Toronto Maple Leafs), Cam Janssen (New Jersey Devils), the recently suspended Chris Simon (New York Islanders) and Donald Brashear (Washington Capitals) still have a job in the NHL? I'm sorry, but I think the NHL has dropped the ball on this. My main point (and I do have one) is that there should be no place on any NHL team for a guy that plays only two or three shifts a game, has more penalty minutes than ice time and contributes nothing offensively to his team. If you can't skate, pass, shoot or score an occasional goal in today's NHL you have no business being out on the ice. Period. Look, if a guy wants to drop the gloves on occasion then so be it. However, if he can't play sound defensive hockey and maybe score 10-15 goals a season (or 25 points or higher), then fuhgeddaboutit. This to me sounds eminently reasonable. Do the knuckle-dragging Neanderthals at the NHL understand this? Noooo, of course not. Actually, I think Neanderthals were probably kinder and better looking than Donald Brashear but that is beside the point. Guys like Colin Campbell and Ron MacLean understand what's at stake here. But not Gary. No sir, because he is just so much smarter than you and I. Nothing but contempt for the fans collective intelligience he has. After all, he is a lawyer. Oooooh! What tripe. What nonsense.

Another loser that's gotten my attention is Aussie turncoat David Hicks who was seen openly and freely fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan. I wonder if David can play hockey for Gary? Ah, maybe not. Sorry, no sympathy for this one. You make your bed, you lie in it.

OK, so here's another one that shares the same spotlight as Mr. Bettman and that's 'America's Sweetheart', Katie Couric. She's another one that's also superficial and mean-spirited. You know Katie wouldn't even hesitate to stab you in the back if it meant a career advancement. Here's an excerpt from this article on her mindless fawning over Al Gore to show you what I mean:

For her part, Dr. Couric sort of showed her lack of objectivity when she opined that a special session of congress should be convened to evict George W. Bush and install Al Gore as president.
Calling for Al Gore to be sworn in by April 22, 2007, which is also Earth Day, placed an additional strain on Couric's vanishing credibility.

Please note that Katie Couric is not an accredited doctor. That's just part of the satirical nature of the article.

Here's another group that would fit right in with Gary and Katie and that's the Liberal Party of Canada. Positively reeking of insincerity over their superfluous support of our troops, they play mind games as Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor makes a legitimate gaffe in the House of Commons. Fortunately, Stephen Harper is not a man that rattles easily. Actually, he sees right through them and isn't afraid to call their bluff. To give you an example, in the recent federal budget both the Grits and the NDP knew that the budget had enough votes to pass because of the Bloc's support of the gov't. So they play this ridiculous game of saying, "Well we can't endorse this budget because it doesn't give enough to blah, blah, blah ....." knowing full well the budget was a done deal. Listen, only a moron takes seriously the claims these guys make. Another full-out assault on Canadian's intelligience in other words.

What is going on with the Holy Land nowadays? The madness is spreading I tell you. Why else would a woman strap on live crocodiles while trying to cross from the Gaza Strip to Egypt? When I think of stupidity in Israel is usually think of Ehud Olmert or one of Condi's breathless announcements of some meaningless 'peace' proposal but this one takes the cake.

Speaking of Israel, did you know that Hooters is opening a restaurant in Tel Aviv? Gosh, what could go wrong with that? I mean doesn't Hamas and its murderous militias have enough reason to kill Jews and other assorted fat and bloated tourists? Pure nuttiness.

Lastly, here's an article on why it's good to believe in a God who cares for us. Man, I just couldn't be an atheist. Looks too much like hard work to me.

Johnny Cash

Saturday, March 24, 2007

Intolerance - Mar 24

There is no doubt in my mind as to the general breakdown of etiquette in our society today. Rational debate is an impossibility and political correctness reigns supreme. And who do you think gets the 'short end of the stick' as it were? Those of the Christian faith and those who uphold conservatism (often one and the same). Let's face it, we are the new Jews in 2007. Take the example of Ruth Malhotra, an Indian Christian conservative facing death threats at Georgia Tech. This is what so called civil debate has come to. I mean just think about the supreme irony of the whole situation. In the name of (one-sided) 'tolerance', those who dispute the PC version of facts and reality must be forcefully suppressed. Utter fascists the lot of them.

It goes beyond anti-Christian sentiment as well. I'm sorry, but I'm not a big fan of radical feminism's disdain of men and marriage either. In radical feminist orthodoxy, gender is considered a 'social construct'. That is that how women think, talk and act is strictly determined by a patriarchial system of dominance. So it's all the fault of mean-spirited men in other words. Now the Biblical view (along with psychology, biology and neuroscience) is that men and women are fundamentally 'hard-wired' a certain way. Understand that this is very important, especially when it comes to marriage and raising kids. Feminism is purely antagonistic to the idea that the husband be the head of the family. A cowed husband who does not take the lead (or is not allowed to take the lead) in disciplining the children has shown to be a disaster. By all means the woman should take part in the discipline of her kids. However, doing so in a fashion that emasculates the husband does create out-of-control children who become out-of-control adults. It therefore goes without saying that these adults who are the product of this dysfunctional marriage make lousy leaders, be it in the secular, religious or political arena. It is one thing for an unmarried and childless 20 year-old female to believe in radical feminism's claims. But when that 20 year-old gets married and starts having children, the paradigm does change (Of course it does. How could it not?). The idea of gender as a social construct has left many an angry and unhappy child and failed (or failing) marriages in its wake. Anyways, that's my two cents. Feel free to leave a comment or e-mail me directly with all your lovely hate mail if you so desire. Just remember, it's my blog and I reserve the right to get in the last word. So there.

Of course you cannot mention intolerance without including that 'Religion of Peace', right? As I've ascertained countless times before, Islam is something that is unreformable. So long as the Prophet Mohammed is seen as the 'golden standard' of Islamic conduct and the Koran as the immutable word of Allah (who is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) then any attempt to morph Islam into something more agreeable is destined to fail. If I'm wrong on this then so be it. But I don't think so. In Canada, Farzana Hassan and Tarek Fatah of the Muslim Canadian Congress have been given death threats over their attempts to re-interpret Islam. In the Land Down Under, Tom Zreika of the Lebanese Muslim Association is also being intimidated after calling for Aussie Muslims to integrate themselves into Australian society. See what I mean? It is impossible for a moderate Muslim to refute Islamic terrorists under Islamic jurisprudence without deconstructing the Koran, Hadith and/or the Sunna. Pray for the safety of these three people and that they may come see the light of salvation through Jesus Christ.

Let's put a capper on this line of thought. You are not a 'racist' or an 'Islamophobe' if you don't trust Islam's peaceful claims! It's OK to dislike Islam! Nor are you being defeatist if you think that this whole 'Light Unto The Muslim Nations' is destined to be a colossal failure. A free, educated, literate and politically sophisticated workforce will never take place under Islam. This is the case in Iraq as it is in Afghanistan. Why the gloomy outlook? It is because of Islam's disdain of all that is touched and nurtured by infidels (meaning you and me). Nothing will change so long as the hatred remains within Islam's teachings. The heart of the matter has always been the heart of man, a point that Mr. Bush and Mr. Harper consistently miss in their foreign policy assessments.

I think that's it for this post. I'll have some more stuff later on so do check back regularly. I've also included two new links for your pleasure: Andrew Whitehead's Anti-CAIR blog and Revelation Outline. Do visit Anti-CAIR and sign up for his e-mails as I've done. Revelation Outline gives a concise description of all of twenty-two chapters in this mysterious last book of the Bible. A must-have link if you want to study Bible prophecy.

All for Him,
Johnny Cash

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

An Inconvenient Al Gore - Mar 20

Of course Al Gore is making it up as he goes along. Does that surprise you? Gosh, a politician who lies to gain the advantage. What is the world coming to? Watch this YouTube video (runs 75 minutes) on the Great Global Warming Swindle. It will open your eyes. And before you ask, yes I did see Al's movie. Tragically it's ninety minutes of my life that I'll never get back.

Enjoy the video,
Johnny Cash

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Am I Being Too Harsh? - Mar 18

To the point, I am rather harshly critical of Islam. Am I being too hard on this religion whose adherents number in the billions? I think not. Truth be told I will always find myself in opposition to this ideology that enslaves minds and destroys bodies. It is good from time to time to make sure that you are being fair and accurate in your reporting. It's a legitimate question for anyone who freely offers up their critical opinion in the blogosphere. When I see journalists, scholars, celebrities and other bloggers take a stance, I notice a certain meanness, a kind of petty vindictiveness in their vitrol, the very thing I want to avoid.

Look, I love discussing politics and religion with other people. But my God some people are soooo hypersensitive when it comes to their pet beliefs that it's like stepping in a minefield when you talk to them. The way I see it is this: There can be no maturing in your political and religious beliefs if you don't examine them from time to time. My political views are vastly different today than what they were ten or twenty years ago. It is also likely that some of my views will change again in the next ten years or so. But like I said, you come across some people and your jaw drops. Their spiritual immaturity becomes painfully obvious as you come away with the conclusion that they will never accept any other postion other than their own. It would be more productive running into a brick wall at top speed than to argue with someone with a closed mind. It is a nightmare arguing with a proud person. They are physically unable to shut their mouths, never once taking the time to actually listen. On and on they rant, bullying and intimidating anyone who dares question them.

And so it is with Islam. Raising so much as a peep of protest to question them brings them to a rabid state. Like these Indian Muslims who threatened to behead Taslima Nasreen. In a civilized society any accusation of slander is brought before the courts. Not so with Islam! Nope, beheading is the way to go! Mohammed said so after all. I think when you examine fascist beliefs such as National Socialism, Communism, White Supremacism and yes, that 'Religion of Peace', there will always be those who gravitate towards it. If it didn't have that glossy sheen to begin with nobody would even bother. As Serge Trifkovic notes here:

It was exactly during Stalin's show trials that the Western intelligentsia was most outspokenly pro-Communist. Some people are drawn to the amoral exercise of raw power (emphasis mine) rather than repulsed. It is the basic appeal of fascism and one of Islam's greatest strengths.

Read your history and find out for yourself. The prophet Mohammed and Adolf Hitler worshipped war and having power over their enemies. The only difference between the two is that German National Socialism has been forever discredited whereas Islam's 'glossy sheen' is still very much in play. Power corrupts, whether it be the Council of American Islamic Relations, the United Nations or even such bona fide scoundrels as Pete Rose (Sorry Pete, no Hall of Fame entry for you until you truly repent of your sins).

So make no mistake, there is a coming war with Islam whether you like it or not. Totalitarianism in any form is an abortive policy. So what then do we do to defeat this threat to our freedoms? Here are a few ideas from your humble correspondent:

1) Europe must support Israel and the Jewish claim to the land. I believe it's called Zionism. Despite all the Europessimism, I still think they can pull back from the precipice from which it finds itself. However it must come from the grassroots, not from the dhimmified politicians. Europe must rediscover its democratic and Judeo-Christian traditions or move towards civil war. Time for 'Eurabia' is running out.

2) Emotional and materiel support for the U.S. military is crucial. Like it or not, the Americans are the sole guaranteeor of stability in the ME. Our politicians have to get serious about the spiritual nature of this battle and stop wasting men, materiel, money and morale to bring democracy to those who soundly reject it. (Note: I know how 'material' is spelt. The use of the word 'materiel' here is I believe the correct one.)

3) Support for the emerging global church in places like India are crucial. The West should dedicate a great deal of money and resources in helping bringing the Gospel to the unreached in the ME and Asia. Let's put all this PC in the garbage. Islam is not compatible with human rights. Islam is NOT an Abrahamic faith! Why is this moral equivalence so hard to shake?

That's it for now. Like I said, we got our work cut out for us. God's glory awaits all those that have their hope in Him.

Johnny Cash

Sunday, March 11, 2007

Walking by Faith - Mar 11

It was Daylight Savings Time this weekend and so we here in Ontario lost an hour's sleep. I celebrated by sleeping in an extra hour causing me to miss church, a rarity for me. Oh well, I'll be there next week with bells on. Anyway, for my penitence I've decided to make a post on walking by faith. Very difficult to do as I think we instinctively want to trust what our senses tell us and our own understanding of things. The Bible tells us that God's ways are not our ways and so to walk by faith is to trust something that you won't understand in all its fullness. False religion lurks in the background, luring us from the path of life. Sin does have an attractiveness to it, if it didn't we wouldn't keep falling into it. A straight and narrow path is the way for those who put their lot in with Jesus. I hope you are on that lovely path of redemption as I am.

First off I have some bad news. It seems CottShop of Sacred Scoop is packing up his old kit bag and has signed off on his blog. That's too bad as I rather enjoyed his commentary a great deal. You can read his penultimate post here about that whole 'Tomb of Jesus' thingy. Sacred Scoop didn't even make it to its first anniversary as it was started in July of 2006. Like I said before, it is very rare for a blog to be maintained for one full calendar year or even beyond that, a point that I stressed on my Feb 12 post. The link above will still be good for a little while yet and I'll still maintain the link to SS until it's no longer functional. So long CottShop my friend and I'll hope to see you again somewhere in the blogosphere.

As CottShop so rightly notes, Christianity is under attack by those who will use anything to discredit it. From a rational standpoint it strikes me as bizarre to attack the one institution that can halt jihad which is the church. I'm sorry, but would Rosie O'Donnell prefer to live under Sharia law as opposed to Judeo-Christian law? If you listen to all these daft gay activists and other assorted moonbats in the leftist media, the answer is a resounding YES! Does Rosie seriously believe that the barbarism of Islam (a nightmare for women, gay or straight) is better for her? Very odd, but once you consider how Satan has easy access to the minds of those who aren't filled with the Holy Spirit you begin to understand the things we're seeing. The blindness we see here is not just PC or multiculturalism running amok, but a supernatural one. Satan is a busy one. He also happens to be running out of time, a fact I joyously remind him of every day.

Nevertheless, God's army is growing in strength and numbers despite all the billions (and I do mean BILLIONS) of money being poured in to stop the good news from being preached. Unlikely places too, such as South Korea (!). It appears that a full one-third of the population is now Christian, compared to a few hundred that existed in the late 19th century. You can also read about the wonderful influence of the Baptist churches in the Holy Land at length.

Speaking of things Israeli, I really do feel for the Palestinians. No really I do! My problem has always been that Islam is always held blameless for all their troubles. It's always the Jews or the West or it's this or it's that. But never Islam. That of course will never do. Should it surprise anyone that young Gazans have had enough and want to leave? The heart apart from the love of Jesus Christ will always have an insatiable lust for power. Seeing a wholesale change of heart is what has to happen before we lift them out of their misery. It is a waste of time, money and effort to try and make peace with a violent people. Much like the Taliban in Afghanistan where Canadian troops are stationed. Sigh.

The bottom line is this: People of faith infuriate the media. Actually, I'm glad that abolitionists such as William Wilberforce didn't have to deal with the MSM (except maybe FOX News). Women such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali openly slaying PC sacred cows terrify the Left as well. A person of faith is the proverbial 'fly in the ointment' of godless humanism - the idea that you can still be just as good apart from God. Plain old-fashioned immaturity coupled with pouting because the spotlight isn't on them. Understand this my good reader: The MSM will never report a story of advancing Christian faith. Ever. A bunch of sucks and sore losers the lot of them.

Johnny Cash

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

To Bubble Wrap Or Not To Bubble Wrap - Mar 7

I'm back! I haven't posted in a few weeks. Time seems to slip away so quickly some weeks. I was watching an interesting program on CTS last week and it really made me think. It was about how we 'bubble wrap' our kids. The man was comparing how we lived as kids to how we let our kids live now. Children simply aren't allowed to take the risks we did as children - and for the record, I just turned 32, so we're not talking all that long ago. He said that this is one of the reasons that children are experimenting with drugs and other dangerous activities as teens. They want to feel that sense of adventure, the rush of adrenaline that they were sheltered from as children.

I turned off the TV and thought about it. I live in the same house I did as a child. We have 11 acres and a forest behind our house that is in all honesty no more dangerous than it was 25 years ago. When I was 10 - maybe even younger - my younger brother and I would play for hours back there - all alone. We'd climb trees, build forts, catch frogs in the pond, I can even remember getting lost and finding my way home on more than one occasion. We'd walk a quarter mile down the road - alone - to a friend's house. We'd ride our bikes around the sideroads for hours - alone. My brother was once given a pocket knife when he was 9 or 10. He got cut and needed stitches but he learned to treat it carefully after that. There would be bumps and falls and sometimes - in retrospect - dangerous situations, but parents didn't worry unless you weren't home for suppertime. Were they bad, irresponsible parents? No. It was just the way most kids were raised at the time.

Then I had to ask myself why there wasn't a single thing on that list that I would allow my 10 year old to do. Some I could justify. "There are some bad people out there who could abduct my girls if I let them near the road alone. Times are different." Okay, so I convinced myself that kids on roads are less safe. But there's no way my 10 year old would be allowed in my forest for hours without a grown up. Why? The forest is not near the road and is simply NOT more dangerous now than it was 25 years ago. Am I guilty of 'bubble wrapping' my children? Have I doomed them to a future of adventure seeking activities? Where do you draw the line, and what makes you an overprotective parent as compared to an irresponsible parent?

Any one from my generation and before me, I'd love some input. I know God's hand is over them, but He's given me a responsibility too.

Faith Girl

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

The New Logic For BMD - Mar 6

It seems the good-old, bad-old days of the Cold War never really went away after all. A wee bit dodgy this high-stakes game the Americans and Russians are playing. It isn't overt brinkmanship yet but everybody involved is definitely playing with fire. In the meantime, sign yourself up for these free e-mails just by clicking on the '' link neatly provided in the sidebar.

Johnny Cash

The New Logic for Ballistic Missile Defense
By Peter Zeihan

The commander of Russia's strategic bomber force, Lt. Gen. Igor Khvorov, said March 5 that his forces could easily disrupt or destroy any missile defense infrastructure in Poland and the Czech Republic -- where the United States is preparing to set up parts of a ballistic missile defense (BMD) system. Khvorov was hardly the first Russian official to make such a threat: On Feb. 19, statements by Strategic Rocket Forces commander Col. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov left little doubt that Moscow would target U.S. BMD sites with its nuclear arsenal if Washington pushes ahead with its plans.

Exactly why missile defense -- a technology that has received little publicity since the Cold War -- should be a source of increasingly obvious tension between the United States and Russia is an interesting question. An equally interesting question: Why are the Russians threatening once again to target NATO countries -- a tactic Moscow abandoned 15 years ago?

The answer is rooted not only in the history of BMD, but in the myriad ways the European theater has changed -- from both the U.S. and European points of view -- since the end of the Cold War.

BMD and the Cold War

When Ronald Reagan introduced the Star Wars system in the 1980s, his logic was much more political than military. It was apparent that, even with extremely aggressive funding, the United States was decades away from being able to establish a missile shield capable of deflecting a significant Soviet nuclear strike. Rhetoric aside, the argument for a BMD system was not really about establishing an impregnable bubble around the United States, but rather about shifting the strategic balance away from mutually assured destruction and into a venue that catered to the Americans' economic advantage.

In the minds of Politburo members, the United States not only was moving into a realm in which the Americans already enjoyed substantial technological and economic advantages, but in which the costs of development also threatened to overturn Soviet military doctrine. As of the early 1980s, the United States was spending only 6 percent of its gross domestic product on defense, whereas the Soviets are thought to have been expending more than one-quarter of theirs. The Soviets recognized that they could not win a space race involving defensive weaponry. Reagan's insistence on keeping the BMD issue on the table, therefore, gave him enormous bargaining power against the Soviets and contributed heavily to the subsequent arms-control and disarmament treaties that ultimately heralded the Cold War's end.

European leaders, however, viewed BMD issues in much the same light as the Soviets did. Though few Europeans were comfortable with the idea of the Americans and Soviets being locked into a Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) structure that would consume their homelands if anything should go awry, it was impossible to ignore the fact that MAD had brought about 50 years of relatively stable Great Power relations. Reagan's BMD was viewed as an extremely aggressive effort to overturn that system and disrupt the stability that went with it. European states were terrified of BMD at both the political and strategic levels.

But the arguments and alignments in favor of BMD have changed drastically in the post-Cold War era.

The New American Logic

As the Russian missile arsenal has declined in quantity and quality, U.S. desires for a BMD protective net have only strengthened. Though most American strategic planners in the 1980s were well aware that the system being envisioned was merely drawing-board material, strategic and technological realities today are starkly different. U.S. strategic thought now is fixating on two ideas.

First and most obvious is that, though it would not be foolproof by any stretch, it is possible that within a few years, an American-installed BMD network in certain parts of the world could protect against secondary threats such as Iran and North Korea. Given that the human and financial costs involved in rebuilding a major U.S. city (should one be hit by a nuclear weapon) are well above even the most aggressive price estimates for a global BMD network, the original vision of BMD as an effective defensive weapon now could be within reach.

The second idea dovetails with long-standing U.S. strategic doctrine -- a philosophy that long predates the Cold War. That doctrine has always aimed to push threats away from the continental United States -- initially by securing U.S. sovereignty over the North American land mass, achieving strategic depth and controlling sea approaches. Ultimately, the doctrine calls for the United States to project power into Eurasia itself, establishing as much stand-off distance as possible. In the early 20th century, naval power allowed the United States to do this just fine. But in the early 21st century, with the proliferation of intercontinental ballistic missile technology, naval power is only one leg of such a strategy.

Having forward-based BMD facilities not only is becoming important for Washington, but is moving to the core of U.S. defense logic.

From Washington's perspective, establishing a BMD system is not about taking advantage of Russia's relative military weakness, but instead about adapting to a new strategic reality. The foes and threats facing the United States have changed. No one is pretending that Russia's decline as a global power has not opened the door to a U.S. BMD system in the first place, or that the system could not be expanded and upgraded in the future as a potential counter to Russia's nuclear arsenal. Rather, it means simply that in the current strategic picture, the Russians really are not at the heart of U.S. defense planning -- and certainly not so far as BMD is concerned.

The technological considerations are not unimportant here. With current technology, any system would be twitchy at best -- so for best results, the United States is seeking a layered network. The first layer of defense -- which most likely would include airborne lasers at some point -- would be sited as close to the launching states as possible, allowing the system to target any missile launches during the boost phase. The second layer would involve missile interceptors or AEGIS systems to strike during the midcourse of the missile's flight, followed by terminal phase engagement with anti-missile systems, such as the PAC-3 (the newest incarnation of the Patriot).

The polar projection of an ICBM is also key to understanding Washington's logic. Any missile launched from Iran and bound for the continental United States would have to fly over Central Europe -- which is why the United States has pending agreements to set up an interceptor base in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic. Similarly, any North Korean missile would have to fly over Alaska, the other major BMD interceptor locale. A nuclear strike out of Russia, however, would travel over the North Pole. BMD installations in Europe and Alaska would cover only the peripheries of that attack corridor -- and with vastly insufficient numbers of interceptors.

In short, the U.S. rationale for BMD has evolved. In the 1980s, it was about breaking out of the MAD impasse and wringing concessions out of the Soviets. Today, BMD has the potential to be something that was never seriously considered in the 1980s: a viable defensive weapon. Put another way, BMD once was wielded as a political tool to avoid a future war; now, it is coming to be viewed as a defensive weapon to be used in a future conflict.

The New European Logic

The Czech Republic and Poland are not the only European states to have changed their thinking about BMD either. A number of countries not only are responding warmly to U.S. overtures regarding facilities, but in some cases actually are initiating the siting requests.

For central European states, the benefits of such deals are obvious. Most of the political elites in these states fear a future conflict with the Russians, and anything they can do to solidify a military arrangement with Washington is, to their thinking, a benefit in and of itself. But even in Western Europe, further removed from the Russian periphery, opposition to the United States' BMD programs seems to have relaxed considerably. The United Kingdom has specifically requested inclusion in the system (though Washington so far has declined), and the German government has called for the United States to address the issue of BMD in the context of NATO.

There are several reasons for this change.

First and foremost, BMD technology -- while still unproven -- has advanced considerably since the Reagan era, and thus is now far more likely to work. When BMD was only a political tool and could offer no real protection, the Europeans were understandably squeamish about participating in the system. But if the system is actually functional, the calculus shifts.

Second, a weak BMD system designed to guard against Iran theoretically could evolve into a stronger system that helps to protect Europeans against Russia in the future. Of course, the system is not designed to target Russia at the present time, but if Russia's military capabilities should decay further over time, the technological argument -- that the system might actually work -- weighs heavily in the European mind. And at a time when Moscow is growing more aggressive in economic and political terms, laying the groundwork for a military hedge makes sense.

Third, it is becoming increasingly difficult for Europeans to define their security interests as separate from Washington's. Moscow's new energy strategy is a tool for exerting influence over Europe, making European states more willing to view Russia through American goggles. Moreover, Iran regularly bites its thumb at the United Nations and its nuclear watchdog, inducing the Europeans (little by little) to morph from being apologists for Tehran to quiet, if still primarily unofficial, enforcers of sanctions. BMD fits into the U.S. strategic doctrine, and that logic, by association, is now taking hold in Europe.

Fourth, there is a desire to rope the United States into a multilateral defense stratagem. Many Western Europeans begrudge U.S. efforts to dominate the NATO alliance and regularly try to persuade Washington to more seriously consider European points of view. But the United States' ability to make bilateral defense deals cuts the Europeans out completely. For countries like Germany, which considers itself a key driver of European policy, the only way to counter unilateral American moves is to make it worth Washington's while to discuss issues like BMD within the framework of NATO -- which means taking BMD well beyond committee meetings and talk shops. It means actually deploying assets. To do otherwise would only encourage Washington to impose a security policy upon Europe without consulting the Europeans.

Finally, there is the "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" logic: Bilateral U.S. security agreements with Central European states are forging BMD into reality. If is going to happen anyway, the logic goes, you might as well jump on the bandwagon and reap some of the benefits.

Russian Repercussions

The Russians, of course, are not blind to the emergence of a potential threat near their borders -- even recognizing the limitations of the BMD system as currently envisioned.

The United States certainly does not want to trigger a war with Moscow, but that does not mean that Washington is oozing with warm feelings toward all things Russian. Throughout American history, only three countries have seriously threatened the United States: Britain, which ultimately was forced into the role of ally; Mexico, which was occupied and half its territory annexed; and Russia/Soviet Union -- the only foe still remaining. Traditionally, the United States does not defeat its enemies so much as crush them until either they switch sides or are incapable of posing more than a negligible threat.

Though the days of Russian-American military parity are long past, the United States is not yet finished with Moscow from a strategic perspective. Washington wants to pressure Russia until its will, as well as its ability, to pose a viable threat completely disintegrates. Therefore, while it is true that Russia is not an explicit target of the BMD system being established in the Czech Republic and Poland, it would be ridiculous to believe that BMD facilities in Europe would not trigger evolutions in Russian policy. Washington realizes that. In fact, the Americans are betting on it.

Establishing a BMD system on Russia's doorstep would indeed pose a potential long-term threat for Moscow -- but more importantly, it creates a political irritant that will generate a steady stream of bellicose Russian rhetoric. And that serves American purposes. The more aggressive Russia sounds, the more willing Europeans will be to see strategic U.S. policy in general -- and BMD policy specifically -- from Washington's point of view.

Which brings us back to the recent statements by the men who manage Russia's warheads. Their direct threats against European targets must have thrilled American strategic planners. With but a few words, the Russian generals not only supplied a fresh rationale for the BMD system, but also tilted the debate in Europe over the entire system toward the Americans' logic.

Monday, March 05, 2007

Yadda, Yadda, Yadda - Mar 5

OK, so not exactly the most awe-inspiring title of a post I've come up with. I think yadda, yadda, yadda is how the Jews say etcetera, etcetera. You'd certainly be familiar with the phrase if you were remotely familiar about Jerry Seinfeld's work. I'd like to thank dizzyfatplonka for his word of encouragement and I wanted to add the following:

1) I never created the X-Def to be popular. Desiring righteousness and holiness will never make you popular. In fact, being one of many God's representatives here on Earth will probably make you more enemies than friends.

2) With that being said, it's nice to know that some of you are paying attention. I'm always grateful for a kind word here and there. Hopefully Year 2 of the X-Def will bring in even greater numbers of those who view (and comment on) my efforts. Blogging in isolation always sucks.

I had some bookmarks that's been burning a hole in my pocket so I decided to post them here. Minus the fancy-shmancy (is that another Jewish saying?) lead in of course.

Russians Being Russians Dep't: None of you should have been fooled by the post-Cold War Russia of the late eighties and nineties. Russia was in a profound state of weakness the Russian bear had gone into hibernation. Well, guess what? That Russian bear has come out of hibernation and is looking awfully hungry for some meat. More to the point, Israeli and American meat seem to be the most appealing. Arab nations have been on a arms buying frenzy and the seller of those arms increasingly has a Russian name attached. A very dangerous predicament yet also a very Biblical prophetic outlook.

I really do like Condi Rice. She seems a genuinely nice person with a tough exterior and intelligience to match. I think it would be a hoot if her and Peter MacKay somehow hooked up after both their political careers were finished. But mein Gott she is a ditz when it comes to Islam and the Palestinians. Thankfully that time of endlessly playing footsie with Mahmoud Abbas appears to be coming to an end. And none too soon I might add.

It should surprise no-one that Hezbollah is once more rearming (compliments of Syria and Iran) just north of the Litani river away from prying Israeli eyes. That's not the part that really kills me actually. Remember the '06 summer war where the Useless Nations trampled Israeli sovereignty and declared a premature end to the war? So they have these UNIFIL soldiers there who only patrol during the day! So what naturally happens? Hezbollah gets their arms at night when those UNIFIL peacekeepers are safely tucked away in their sleeping bags. In other words, it's a complete farce. Truth be told, Kofi Annan is probably smiling at this little tidbit of information. He always hated the Jews anyway.

Did you know that since the 9/11 attacks that our 'ally' Pakistan has received $27.5bn in jizya taxes (aka foreign aid)? What have we got to show for this ungodly waste of money? Absolutely nothing. Islamic terrorists including al-Qaida seem just as home as when this war started. Pakistan is still a haven for terrorists. Islam ruins lives and entire countries, be it in the ME or in Europe. Do we understand this? No. Will we ever understand? I seriously doubt it. So long as any meaningful debate on Islam is avoided and PC reigns supreme, I doubt we'll ever get it.

I haven't had a Bill O'Reilly link here for awhile so what better time than now to break that shut-out? You may know that he is a big crusader for protecting children against pedophile predators. Bill takes issue with the fact that the liberal media gave blanket coverage on the Ted Haggard case yet buried the child porn charges against Charles Rust-Tierney. Who is CR-T you may ask? He happens to be the president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU (Anti-Christ Legion of Unbelievers). The ACLU (not unlike CAIR) is a terrorist organization dedicated to America's destruction and its leaders should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. They are traitors and should be treated as such.

Got a comment on an old post from Dean Berry Ministries. Don't quite know what to make of his 'ministry' as it seems to be a strange mix of Bible prophecy, wild conspiracy leanings and liberal ramblings. By all means go ahead and visit his site. Just don't say that I didn't warn you.

Johnny Cash

Saturday, March 03, 2007

Seven Secrets To Happy Blogging - Mar 3

I've noticed in the last few posts that I'm getting a steady stream of comments. Which of course is a good thing. I read certain comments and wonder to myself, "How on Earth did you find me?". Whether it's just coincidence, pure dumb luck or even Divine Providence the X-Def is moving on up. I even got someone from CTV to drop me a line! Remarkable and exciting stuff. So I decided to share some of my trade secrets with you on how to have a successful blog. In no particular order here are seven rules of thumb if you really want to reach out and touch someone.

Be Positive!

It is no accident that popular people are positive people. They are encouragers, optimists, leaders and doers. As you may know, I follow politics passionately. You look at those politicians who have that knack with people and they all share one thing in common: They make people feel good about themselves without using inane flattery. Ronald Reagan understood this. I think Mr. Harper has a clue about this too. When it comes to being a Christian blogger, this should be an easy task. Jesus was a positive person. I think that's why He attracted huge crowds wherever He went. Ask yourself: Why then are so many still attracted to this person called Jesus the Messiah? God the Father gave the ultimate expression of His love for us when He became flesh through His Son and walked amongst us. Being a Christian and having a positive attitude should automatically go hand in hand. The message Christianity brings to the world is one of hope and redemption. It's a mystery to me why I don't see more of this in the public sphere.

It's OK To Love Your Country!

Listen, I suffer no illusions about Canada and it's politics. Quebec is forever threatening to leave the confederation and many whine and cry about their 'rights'. Let's face it, Canada is not about to become a utopia anytime soon. I think this fits in with my first point yet it's much more specific. People don't like it when you say all manner of bad things about your own country. It's not that they don't know that some things need fixing, it just strikes some that continuously running down your country is, well, unpatriotic. Being a dissatisfied patriot is one thing. Out and out hating your country and all of its institutions is another. Do me a favor and visit Dizzyfatplonka or Sandmonkey's blog and you quickly get the idea that they do love their country even if it's completely messed up. I would hope that I give off that love of country as well.

Lurn 2 Rite Gud

My friend, there's no shame in being a bad speller. If you have problems with spelling or grammar, get a dictionary or use the spell-check that blogger provides to oversee your efforts. Short of that, get a friend to edit your posts. You'll have to let him or her have administrator status in order to accomplish this. For me, I am my own toughest critic. It's not uncommon for me to edit a post two, three or more times before I'm happy with it. The surest way to turn others away in droves is to write like an immature and insecure child. Don't be afraid to take a little bit more time and do the job right.

1% Inspiration, 99% Perspiration

When I first started this humble little blog, it was apparent early on that probably the only person who knew that I posted that day was me. And yes, that is as pathetic as it sounds. I didn't quit and here I am a year later. I think the thing that kept me going was this belief that I had a positive message to offer this world. You look at people like Donald Trump and other successful people and they all share the same characteristic: They love to work hard over and above where most would be packing it in for the day. Working hard for your own glory is a burden and a chore. Working hard to glorify the King of Kings is an honor. See the difference?

It's Not About You!

This may come as a shock, but the world does not hang on your every word. Just as people hate pessimists, it should come as no surprise that egoism is a major turn-off. How does this fatal error occur? By believing in your own infallibility. YOU ARE NOT GOD. Heck, you're not even the bloody Pope! As one-time Israeli PM Golda Meir once said, "Don't be so humble, you're not that great". Sounds like sage advice if you ask me.

It's OK To Laugh!

I'm a big fan of conservative commentary as you might well know. Along with the hard-hitting journalism that they do I also enjoy the good humor that these journos bring to their work. Take some time and see Bill O'Reilly on Fox News. Read Ann Coulter. Take a look at the body of work that Robert Spencer does for Jihad Watch. The one thing that these three share is a willingness to engage people with a dry sense of humor. You see, people love to laugh. It disarms them and gives them a chance to open up to you. Show some vulnerability and others will reciprocate. Godless individuals who are uber-serious about everything are a tremendous pet peeve of mine. Have faith in God and learn to laugh at yourself. Not only will you have a successful blog, you might actually live longer.

Give God The Glory

I saved this point for last and for good reason. For me, giving God the glory is the very reason I founded the Christian Defender. Loving the Lord your God sounds like a simple commandment and it is. Why then are so few willing to do this? Do they think they can love their neighbor without knowing the love of Jesus Christ? No they cannot. Loving Jesus ought to be the highest priority on every Christian's to do list. The second priority is to share that love with others. Yes, I know this is difficult! Many are apathetic, hostile or are just too comfortable with their lives to even bother to contemplate things like religion and eternity. Understand that evangelism is not something we have to do, it is something we get to do. So always give God the glory. Trust me on this.

Well I hope that helps. I realize that many of these points overlap with one another but nevertheless these seven will do for now. Bonne Chance and happy blogging y'all!

Johnny Cash