Blue America

"Red America" appreciates our founding documents, and our founding fathers. Many in "Blue America" do not. Here is the latest example:

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A California teacher has been barred by his school from giving students documents from American history that refer to God -- including the Declaration of Independence.

Steven Williams, a fifth-grade teacher at Stevens Creek School in the San Francisco Bay area suburb of Cupertino, sued for discrimination on Monday, claiming he had been singled out for censorship by principal Patricia Vidmar because he is a Christian.

"It's a fact of American history that our founders were religious men, and to hide this fact from young fifth-graders in the name of political correctness is outrageous and shameful," said Williams' attorney, Terry Thompson.

"Williams wants to teach his students the true history of our country," he said. "There is nothing in the Establishment Clause (of the U.S. Constitution) that prohibits a teacher from showing students the Declaration of Independence."

Vidmar could not be reached for comment on the lawsuit, which was filed on Monday in U.S. District Court in San Jose and claims violations of Williams rights to free speech under the First Amendment.

I'm sure that not all Democrats/liberals feel this way, but the problem they face is that a good number of patriotic Americans on both sides of the fence see this sort of view as a growing trend. Once a guarantee of freedom of religion (as in you can choose how to worship or to not worship at all), the Constitution is increasingly being stretched to deny any sort of public religious expression, and many religious Americans feel we are now on the verge of the criminalization of any and all public displays of religiosity.

The Establishment Clause mentioned in the article is part of the 1st Amendment, and reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

In other words, the federal legislature is prohibited from establishing an official religion, or barring free expression of religion.

For the liberal Democrats it means "Congress shall not establish a religion, and shall prohibit the free exercise thereof all the livelong day in any and all public arenas, especially schools. Of course, they don't accomplish this through legislation. As with gay marriage and abortion they go to the courts to accomplish what they cannot get done via democracy.

I wouldn't want my children to be forced to pray in school, but I wouldn't give a damn if my kid or any others engaged in voluntary prayer. But I do have a preference that my children be allowed to learn about and read the Declaration of Independence in school. What we are talking about is not indoctrination in a set of religious beliefs, it is simple exposure to those beliefs as expressed by our founders. It seems a strange leap to see a reading of the Declaration of Independence as congress establishing a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It is time we come to understand that exposure to religion does not abridge any religious freedom, but banning public exercise of religion does.

Chirac mocks Britain for backing US

Chirac told Blair that backing the US in Iraq has won them nothing. As if the point to standing next to your friends is winning something from them. Gaining some kind of concession. That's really how the French view everything. They are quasi-terrorist supporters because they think they can gain better oil deals, and safety. When some French people (I almost said Frenchmen before I realized the word itself is an oxy-moron) were captured in Iraq, there was no shortage of terrorists going to bat for the French government.

To call people like Chirac weasels is to insult weasels. Rumor has it that when the craven Prime Minister of Spain called Bush to congratulate him on re-election, Bush wouldn't take his call. I think it is time to shun Chirac the same way we shunned other terrorist cowards like Yasser Arafat.

Perhaps he didn't learn the first time, but Blair is now getting another healthy dose of French perfidy and intransigence. YOU CAN'T TRUST THE FRENCH!! It isn't that hard to figure out, so stop trying to make friends and play nice. Instead we should do all in our power to isolate them. They are culturally, economically, and militarily insignificant.

For that reason, part of the UN reforms should be the denial of a veto to the French.

Harvard should hire me

How much is Harvard paying this guy to figure out what I've known all along:

A John F. Kennedy School of Government researcher has cast doubt on the widely held belief that terrorism stems from poverty, finding instead that terrorist violence is related to a nation's level of political freedom.

As I've said before, if it were poverty, black Africans would be the number one source of world terrorism. Terrorism stems from some perceived grievance, and is always coupled with some kind of fundamentalist ideology, usually Islam.

International monitors a boon for Republicans

I was pissed off when the Democrats wanted the monitors as I saw it for what it was: a political move to back up their assertions of intimidation and disenfranchisement. When they try the disenfrachisement and intimidation scares in four years (as they no doubt will), that crap will be harder to shovel as now we can point to international monitors saying there were no real problems.

More on the reasons we won the election:

From Reuters:

OTTAWA (Reuters) - The number of U.S. citizens visiting Canada's main immigration Web site has shot up six-fold as Americans flirt with the idea of abandoning their homeland after President Bush's election win this week.

When Clinton won, Republicans didn't flee the nation. We didn't like Clinton, but we didn't over-react to his victory by abandoning our nation. I can only conclude that Republicans have a deeper love of America. I say good riddance and don't let the door hit you in the ass...

Wanna know why we won?

Read this tripe. The message is another "you are dumb and ignorant if you voted for Bush, and they just scared you into doing so." I guess erroneously telling seniors they'd lose their social security under Bush (Kerry and Gore both tried this trick) isn't a scare tactic? Or how about ,"They'll draft you" (nevermind that a draft would have been more likely under Kerry)? Then, in the ultimate scare tactic, which has finally convinced me that Democrats are oh so much more intelligent than, and superior to, Bush voters, There's the "vote or die" campaign. In the end, the target audience of that campaign evidently chose to die.

The great hope of the Democrats was to tell young people who couldn't give a shit about the election or current affairs to go vote for Kerry so they won't get drafted. But, it was the Republicans that pandered to ignorance and fear.

Yes, Democrats bank on mob mentality. Get enough people in enough large population centers to bemoan the terrible state of our nation, and demonize "the man" and hope for a nice turnout. So much more intelligent than us Bush voters...

Mob mentality

Elitists believe they lost the election because the uncultured hicks turned out and booted them. In their arrogance they believe they are superior, more cultured, and more intelligent than Bush voters. This arrogant elitism is actually part of why they continue to lose.

The county by county maps are in, and look just like 2000:



Here's the 2000 map for anyone who has forgotten:



My explanation for why those big cities go liberal would be mob mentality. It sure isn't because they are superior.

I actually did vote for John Kerry...before I voted against him!

Shamelessly ripped from The Corner (NRO weblog):

BEFORE AND AFTER [Jonah Goldberg]

From a reader:

J- The disparity between the initial exit polls favoring Kerry and his subsequent loss to W tells me one thing: Most people voted for Kerry.......before they voted against him.

BUSH WINS DECISIVELY

President Bush has won the election decisively, going beyond a plurality to win a majority of the popular vote (the first president in 16 years to do so). Clinton never won a majority. The American people have spoken and they've chosen to defeat terrorism, rather than surrender. They've chosen a leader with courage and conviction, rather than vacillation.

Tom Daschle has been defeated in South Dakota. He deserved to be defeated and can blame only himself for his obstructionism in the Senate.

Republicans will make gains in the Senate and the House and retain the White House. This is almost the worst possible outcome for the Democrats, and is a greater reflection of 2002 than 2000.

Kerry has yet to concede, but he should today.

The real allies want Bush, the fair-weather allies want Kerry

Why would Americans, in this very difficult time, vote for a man who panders ceaselessly to the "allies" that have been of little or no help in Iraq and denigrates those who have bled for us?

Poland's president Kwasniewski took offense to comments made by Kerry in the first debate. Kerry practically called Iraq's Prime Minister Allawi a liar just minutes after Allawi gave a speech to a joint session of congress (which Kerry couldn't be bothered to attend) in which he thanked America for the sacrifices in Iraq. Now, Kerry is evidently upset that Australia's recently re-elected Prime Minister, John Howard, desires a Bush victory. John Kerry has called those who went against popular opinion to do what they knew was right the coalition of the bribed and coerced. It should come as no surprise when members of a coalition that has stood with America through the toughest conflict since Vietnam don't want such a man to be the leader of America. Interestingly, John Kerry's great plan for Iraq is to bribe and coerce other nations to join us.

John Kerry has a history of stabbing the good guys in the back and siding with the evil. He did it when he returned from Vietnam, and he's doing it now by denigrating the nations with us in Iraq and favoring those who turned their backs on us when asked for help. He's a douche bag, and that's putting it nicely. He should be running for president of France.