The phrase is in our Declaration of Independence – used to describe how our ancestors had resisted the attempts of King George to invade the rights of the people. Can you imagine anyone in America uttering such a phrase in 2008? And yet, there it is – in the primary American document. We are, in a sense, afraid to use the words our ancestors wrote and pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to defend. And, lets also understand that words like “sacred” and “honor” are, while not banned as completely as “manly”, are certainly rarely used. What has become of us?

This concern over words used has been turning over in my mind for some days now – I was reading a book by G. K. Chesterton where he discussed the issue of birth control. The thing is, he called it as it was, and although I am 43 years old and fairly well informed, I had never approached the issue from Chesterton’s angle – the correct angle, as it is. You see, it isn’t the control of birth which is desired by “birth control” advocates, but the prevention of birth. Birth Control would actually be the process whereby we control who is allowed to give birth and when – but, of course, that is not what is wanted. What is wanted, by the advocates, is a smaller number of births. But they call it birth control, and even we who are opposed to the basic concept call it birth control…we’ve all bought into a cowardly way of avoiding the real issue because to confront the real issue would require a great deal of courage and a sublime disdain of the modern pieties.

Our whole society has become unmanned, and this is revealed in the way we deal with issue after issue. If three men who live on the street are, respectively, insane, alchoholic and shiftless, we don’t call them what they are – they are all “homeless”. Abortion is a “choice”; men who suffer from the awesome mental and spiritual weight of battle suffer from “post-traumatic stress disorder”; rape is “sexual assault”; we can murder by degrees (he isn’t so bad, he only committed second degree murder…please un-remember that the person is first degree dead, all the same)…we can no longer, in America, oppose tyrants with manly firmness…we’re not allowed to. To be manly in our firmness is forbidden…blow up our citizens, rape our daughters, butcher our unborn children – we can’t be manly in our opposition. We are to ask politely if those oppressing us will please leave us alone.

The first step in the recovery of our society is going to have to be the recovery of our manliness – our ability, even amongst women (you ladies aren’t off the hook here, ya know?), to call things as they are and demand they stop in clear, ringing tones which leave no doubt as to where we stand. The late, great Pope John Paul II advised us early in his pontificate that we should be not afraid – and that is, indeed, what we must be. And JPII, by the way, resisted with manly firmness the depraved spirit of our current age. Politely and with love, he yet managed to make himself clear and stand firm for what is right – and that is the model we must take.

Take that first step – without being rude or seeking opportunities to stir up ill will, yet always state clearly and concisely exactly what you believe is happening. Let us start to be as manly as our ancestors, and make them proud we are their descendents.

Ed. Note: This first appeared over at Battle Born Politics last year.

…If we wish to be free — if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending — if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak — unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.

The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable — and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, “Peace! Peace!” — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death! – Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

These inspiring words are what it means to be an American. One can believe a lot of things, but unless one subscribes whole heartedly to every iota of our sublime Declaration, then one is not an American. Outside the bible, there are no words written by the hand of Man more valuable.

Matthew Rothschild over at The Progressive:

…those things that truly made us great—the system of checks and balances, the enshrinement of our individual rights and liberties—have all been systematically assaulted by Bush and Cheney.

From the Patriot Act to the Military Commissions Act to the new FISA Act, and all the signing statements in between, we are less great today.

From Abu Ghraib and Bagram Air Force Base and Guantanamo, we are less great today.

From National Security Presidential Directive 51 (giving the Executive responsibility for ensuring constitutional government in an emergency) to National Security Presidential Directive 59 (expanding the collection of our biometric data), we are less great today.

From the Joint Terrorism Task Forces to InfraGard and the Terrorist Liaison Officers, we are less great today.

Admit it. We don’t have a lot to brag about today.

It is time, it is long past time, to get over the American superiority complex.

It is time, it is long past time, to put patriotism back on the shelf—out of the reach of children and madmen.

The madmen would presumptively be Bush and Cheney – now, to be fair to Mr. Rothschild, he does list other American sins which are noy intrinsic to Bush/Cheney – our consumerism and other evils, real and imagined, which the left dredges up from time to time to prove that we’re a bunch of creeps…and if we’d only all become leftists, all would be made better. The curious thing about Mr. Rothschild’s article is that it starts out condemning nationalism – even saying that it is a worse killer than religion, and that is a great concession on the part of any leftist. After all, the whole point of religion – and especially Christianity, and most especially Catholicism – is to kill and destroy and hold down…so to say that nationalism is a bigger ill is astounding, and demonstrates the author’s sincerity in being the anti-patriot.

And yet, he ends his bit by lamenting the way Bush and Cheney have allegedly done away with the US Constitution – in other words, he’s distressed over the supposed demise of a national government. This would seem to indicate that it isn’t really nationalism which gets Mr. Rothschild upset, but a sort of nationalism he doesn’t like. He’s convinced himself that if only we could recover our old, hallowed Constitutional structure, we’d be a better nation…no reactionary ever said it better (side note: the curious thing about leftists is how very reactionary they actually are).

Earlier in the piece the author condemns another writer for pointing out that we love our nation the same way we love our family – because they are ours. Mr. Rothschild doesn’t like this concept at all – in fact, he’s of the opinion that there’s something inherently wrong with loving the nation you’re born in simply because it is your native land – such love is somehow imposed and thus false. For Mr. Rothschild, we should love what is lovable – which is true, in a very narrow sense, but the real test of human character is to love what is unlovely.

It is easy to love the sublime, much harder to find the love in the ridiculous. Given that most human actions tend towards the latter, however, if we are to really love at all, then we’re going to have to set our minds to loving those things which we find disagreeable. Its either that, or hardly have any love at all. The great hearted person looks upon America – warts and all – and still says, “I love you”. Just as a good man will say of his wife that she is beautiful, even if her prime was some time ago – just as a kindly person will observe the flawed, remember his own flaws, and then seek out what is wonderful amongst the flaws, and build on that. If we’re to suspend our love of country – our patriotism, that is – until such time as our country exactly suits us, then we will wait forever, and never get what we want. To hold to Mr. Rothschild’s view is to hold a view common to a petulant child, but not something a mature mind concerns itself with.

I, on the other than, do love America – even Mr. Rothschild, and those like him. I wouldn’t dream of having an America without them – they are mine, and so I love them, even as I hope they’ll eventually change their views. I love this land not because it is perfect, but because it has much good in it, and I’ll concentrate on that and seek to expand that, in order that this land I love becomes more lovable over time, even though it will never through human agency become entirely lovable.

From the Associated Press:

Obama, McCain’s Democratic rival in the race for the White House, also lists bipartisanship as a congressional credential. A recent Associated Press-Yahoo News poll showed about 40 percent of the electorate believes both men would work across party lines.

Even so, none of the examples cited by Obama’s aides, beginning with a bill to secure nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union, placed the Illinois lawmaker at odds with the leaders of his own party or gave significant offense to outside interest groups aligned with Democrats.

Not so, McCain.

The Arizona Republican “took on his own party’s leadership, and that takes enormous courage,” says former Rep. Martin Meehan of Massachusetts, a Democrat who worked closely with McCain for years on the campaign finance legislation that Bush reluctantly signed into law. He added that such defiance can often lead to retaliation by the leadership.

“He’s a tough adversary. He’s a very effective legislator,” Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said in an interview.

As a longtime member of his party’s leadership, McConnell has often borne the brunt of McCain’s bipartisanship, yet he said he has never seen him cross an imaginary line into foul territory.

There is one very good reason why Obama has not strayed from the leftwing base of the Democratic party: No Democrat who strays from the leftwing base in any serious way would ever be the Democratic nominee for President. Why is the feckless Obama the nominee while the very much more qualified Hillary forced to campaign for a man she is, apparently, convinced will lose in November? Because Hillary strayed from the left – she voted for the war and then, much worse, when the left demanded that all Democrats who so voted denounce their vote, she refused. Oh, she went as close to the wire as she could – but somewhere deep inside Hillary Clinton is someone who isn’t stupid enough to really believe (a) that the war is lost and (b) that its all a corrupt scheme by Bush and the PNAC/Neo-Con/Likud cabal. And so she wouldn’t say she was wrong for casting her vote for the liberation of Iraq. Obama, on the other hand, conveniently denounced the war in 2002, even more conveniently forgot his 2004 support for the war and all through 2006 and 2007 trumpeted the leftist, defeatist line. And so he’s the nominee.

While McCain from time to time angers movement conservatives, we should be happy to take a man who does what he thinks right even at political risk over a man who won’t risk anything. Obama wanted to be a State legislator; then we wanted to be a United States Senator; now he wants to be President and in each step of his rise he’s never – not even once – stuck his neck out beyond the leftwing worldview. There is nothing in Obama which isn’t entirely predictable – from defeatism in Iraq to “windfall profits” taxes on oil, each and every Obama opinion comes right out of central scripting at the leftwing wordshop. In any given situation, anyone with even a cursory knowledge of politics will be able to tell precisely what Obama will say and do – and this is why we conservatives know that the election of Obama means a disaster for the nation.

In these terribly dangerous times, we need a President – like McCain – who will tell it like it is and who will be willing to defy everyone in service of the right policy for the United States of America. We don’t need an Obama who will always seek the blessings of the left before he even opens his mouth.

I’m still pulling for Bobby Jindal to be with McCain, but Sarah Palin would do just fine, too.

Discuss the Veepstakes – will it make a difference? Who is best for Obama? For McCain?

Obama’s surrogates are out there on the hustings trying to say that Obama always said the “troop surge” would work – don’t believe it for a moment:

“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” (MSNBC’s “Response To The President’s Speech On Iraq,” 1/10/07)

“We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality — we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 1/14/07)

“But I did not see anything in the speech or anything in the run- up to the speech that provides evidence that an additional 15,000 to 20,000 more U.S. troops is going to make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that’s taking place there.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 1/10/07)

“But right now what we have is, I think by all accounts, a disaster unfolding in Iraq . We all have a responsibility, Democrats and Republicans, Congress and the White House, to make sure that we can come up with the best strategy. I don’t think the president’s strategy is going to work. We went through two weeks of hearings on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; experts from across the spectrum — military and civilian, conservative and liberal — expressed great skepticism about it. My suggestion to the president has been that the only way we’re going to change the dynamic in Iraq and start seeing political commendation is actually if we create a system of phased redeployment. And, frankly, the president, I think, has not been willing to consider that option, not because it’s not militarily sound but because he continues to cling to the belief that somehow military solutions are going to lead to victory in Iraq .” (MSNBC’s “Reaction To The State Of The Union Address,” 1/23/07)

“And what was striking to me in listening to all the testimony that was provided, was the almost near unanimity that the president’s strategy will not work. The almost near unanimity among experts on the Middle East and Iraq that the president’s strategy would not work. I was further struck by a consensus among the majority of witnesses that I heard — and, you know, I was not in every minute of every hearing — that we needed to, rather than escalate our troop levels, we actually needed to de-escalate; that, consistent with what the Iraq Study Group had stated, only by indicating in a strong fashion to the Iraqi government that we will not be there in perpetuity will we be able to change the dynamic and force the Shia, Sunni and Kurds to make the political accommodations that are required in order for us to bring some cessation to the violence that exists there. So, what’s striking to me is, at least, outside of politics, consensus seems to be building. It certainly is built among the American people. It is built among the experts in the area. And what remains, then, is the need for us to act.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Committee On Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 1/24/07)

Again and again and again Obama clearly and without qualification stated his view that the surge wouldn’t work and he backed up his view by citing alleged expert testimony stating that it wouldn’t work. There’s no two ways about it – Obama committed himself from the start to the position that the surge would not work. Now that it has worked and Obama is essentially being forced to acknowledge it he is choosing the standard Democratic tactic when faced with gross error – lie, lie and then lie some more. We can’t let Obama get away with this – he owns defeat in Iraq and can’t claim the slightest bit of credit for the fact that we are now winning.

Not only is it disgusting that Obama is trying to slither out of his 2007 defeatism but this attempt shows, if we needed more proof, that Obama is manifestly unfit to be President. A President is a person who must be willing to take the hard decision even if they are unpopular and who must be willing to endure the slings and arrows to ensure that the required things are done – Obama is proving himself a feather blown upon the winds of fashion and motivated entirely by a desire for personal power and prestige.

McCain advocated the surge even before President Bush did – heck, even when I thought the surge wouldn’t be necessary, McCain was out there saying it was. Kudos to McCain for perceiving correctly what needed to be done and more honor to him for staking out a position which was very unpopular at the time it was implemented. McCain, just in this alone, has shown that he has what it takes to be President – in the test of leadership, McCain has passed with flying colors, while Obama is still trying to copy the answers off the smart kid in the room.

Eventually, will even the kook left have to admit they were wrong about Iraq?

The streets of Baghdad are back in business. The teashops are busy. The shops and markets are bustling.

After years when there seemed to be no end to the city’s trauma, people are feeling more confident.

Why, even property prices in Baghdad are rising. According to one estate agent we spoke to, they have doubled in the past four months.

Yes, things are better in Baghdad.

But before we get too carried away, it is important to stress that the improvements, while real, are plainly very brittle.

As US officials readily concede, comments about “breakthroughs” and “corners being turned” are premature…

…it was not simply American force of arms which made the difference.

The US commander in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, adopted a new approach.

It is instructive to read the “Commander’s Counterinsurgency Guidance” which was issued recently to all US forces in Iraq.

These are some of the headings:

“Serve the population: give them respect: gain their support.”

“Live among the people: you can’t commute to this fight.”

“Walk: stop by, don’t drive by: patrol on foot and engage the population.”

“Promote reconciliation: we cannot kill our way out of this endeavour.”

By and large, that is what the Americans have attempted to do and, by and large, it appears to be working.

From a peak last summer, when security incidents were occurring at the rate of well over 1,000 a week, there has been a steady decline until now they are, according to the Americans, at their lowest point for four years.

Our magnificent troops under an inspired commander and working side by side with Iraqis who want a chance to live and build in a free Iraq have been doing what the left – led by Obama and his Democrats – said was impossible. In fact, Obama and his Democrats were assuring us 18 months ago not that things were bad, but that the game was up and the only thing for us to do was run out of Iraq with our tail between our legs…admit we were whipped by a ragged bunch of terrorists and run-of-the-mill criminal goons. Nothing doing said John McCain – we needed to double down and show what we can do when we set our mind and our magnificent military to the task. The rest, as they say, is history.

The cowardice, opportunism and rank defeatism of the Democrats since 2007 should convince everyone that they must be kept from the levers of power. While John McCain has his flaws – as we all do, being human – and while the GOP can (and must) improve itself mightily, the plain fact of the matter is that McCain and the GOP are far more capable of exercising American power than Obama and his Democrats are.

So says Gary McCullough:

Gary McCullough, director of Christian Newswire, has called Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama’s attack on Focus on the Family president James Dobson a “political blunder” that could have a significant impact on Evangelical swing voters who were otherwise lukewarm towards Obama’s opponent, Sen. John McCain.

Sen. McCain’s past ambivalence towards same-sex marriage and embryonic stem cell research, McCullough wrote, had not excited the hard core of evangelicals.

“The evangelical community had been fairly unimpressed by John McCain. But Obama has shown a grave lack of political wisdom: he did not let this sleeping dog lie,” McCullough said in an opinion piece published on Christian Newswire.

Dr. James Dobson’s June 24 radio show critiqued Obama’s use of Scripture in justifying his political policies and positions. The next day Obama responded to the evangelical leader’s critique by saying that Dobson was “making stuff up,” which McCullough said was “an indirect way of calling Dobson a liar.”

McCullough said Obama’s treatment of Dobson eliminated any sympathy Obama would have received for the attacks on his religious associations, such as his long relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Obama’s remarks also would be perceived as an insult towards “the single, most powerful influence on evangelicals,” he claimed.

Dr. James Dobson’s radio show reaches about 1.7 million listeners.

“His mistake could prove to make the difference in November — in favor of McCain,” McCullough wrote.

No doubt about it, my Evanglical brothers and sisters haven’t been lighting bonfires for McCain – but if Obama’s plan was to turn a so/so Evangelical vote for McCain into a Bush-like GOP blowout, then its working out splendidly. Obama does have this problem – outside the highly scripted and friendly venue, he’s apt to say uber-left things which sound outrageous to everyone who isn’t a leftist (“bitter”, eg). Victor Davis Hanson, observing the massive weaknesses of Obama, notes that one of Obama’s primary efforts will have to be insulating himself from the public, his past associations, Chicago Democratic corruption, his thin resume’ and, indeed, pretty much everything there is to Obama other than his puerile “hope and change” mantra…as long as Obama can keep it vague, he’s got a solid shot at winning. McCain’s job – and ours – is to make it crystal clear.

As I’ve said before, Obama is the “un-named Democrat” of 2004 made flesh – he’s boundlessly ambitious and has a smoothness about him most actors would envy, but there’s really nothing to him. He really is the empty suit – he’s done nothing, achieved nothing, which would indicate an ability to carry the massive weight of the Presidency. But this emptiness has its advantage – you can hang on him anything you like, and the left – being made up of people who believe feelings are as important as facts – feels that Obama is the answer to all their hopes and dreams. We’ve got Obama Wan Kenobi telling us to “trust our feelings” – ’cause the facts aren’t on our side. And so – facts are anethema…we’re supposed to feel it will be good and feel good about feeling that feeling…and thus elect Obama.

In our favor is a man who is deeply rooted in the some times harsh facts of life, regardless of what he might feel at the moment. John McCain is the antidote to Obamania…the cool gust of reality to clear out the hackneyed, suffocating, mealy-mouthed platitudes of Obama.

Just haven’t got time to put a good Monday AM thread together – so I’m relying on you, dear readers, to do it.