THE FOUNDATION

“Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.” — Benjamin Franklin

INSIGHT

“Before there can be much character and courage in Congress, there must be a great deal of it in the American people. We shall look in vain for these treasures in Washington if they are not scattered widely everywhere from Boston to San Diego… Our national character will determine whether our legislators will be courageous or cowardly, and our politics good or bad.” —Allan Nevins

ICHTHUS IMPRIMIS

“The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.” —Proverbs 16:4

FAMILY

“Why is Song of Solomon in the canon of Scripture?… It tells of how King Solomon discovered a beautiful woman and fell in love with her…[T]he open expression of sensuality makes some uncomfortable, wondering if such words should even be published in our holy book. Jewish and Christian scholars generally agree that Song of Solomon is part of Scripture for two reasons. First, it upholds a picture of marital love as it was intended. Here is a glimpse of what God desired when He joined man and wife in the Garden of Eden and told them to ‘be fruitful and multiply.’ For centuries marriages have occurred for many reasons—for economic or political benefits, because the families got along, because the man needed an heir, because it was convenient and that’s what young people did. But marriage primarily for reasons of love has become commonplace only in the last couple of centuries, and not in all parts of the world. Is that what God really wanted marriage to be—an expression of passionate love? In the Song of Solomon we glimpse the possibilities: Man and woman can thoroughly enjoy each other for life within the confines of marriage. Whether marriage emerges from a romance or is arranged, God’s intention is that every married couple experience the fullness of romantic love for each other.” —Al Janssen

CULTURE

“You can tell a lot about an educational system by its vocabulary. When Calvinistic terms like grace and works are replaced by educantisms like self-esteem, you know the system’s in trouble. Or is even to think on grace and works now considered a violation of the separation of church and state? The mere mention of a religious idea in public has been known to make some of our more advanced thinkers break out in hives and litigation. As for those of us inclined to sneak a biblical allusion into our prose now and then, we need not fear; our ‘educated’ classes may no longer recognize it. The theory behind the Cult of Self-Esteem is simple: First get the cart, then put it before the horse. Just feel good about yourself and achievement will follow automatically. It would be too much to call this approach instant gratification; it’s really more like pre-gratification… Want to build real self-esteem, the kind that is the fruit of self-respect and not just an inadequate substitute for it? Expect, even insist on, competence. Don’t pretend it’s there when it isn’t. If that sounds too hard, that’s the catch with self-respect—it has to be earned. Self-esteem, on the other hand, costs little or nothing. And it’s worth just what you pay for it.” —Paul Greenberg

LIBERTY

“We are in the midst of a criminal trial concerning the leaking of CIA covert operative Valerie Plame’s name to the press. The man on trial did not do the leaking. The man who did the leaking is not on trial. The woman who is the subject of the fictional leak was probably not covert. The person who leaked her name did so in the course of gossip and almost certainly did not, as the law requires, ‘know that the government had taken affirmative measures to conceal’ her identity (because if she wasn’t covert, the government would have taken no such steps). Accordingly, there was no crime. And yet, a prosecutor presents evidence, a jury lobs questions and ‘Scooter’ Libby may go to jail for 30 years… Libby’s crime, according to [Independent Counsel, Patrick] Fitzgerald, is perjury and obstruction of justice. The grounds? People’s memories of who said what to whom more than three years ago differ. Good Lord, may I never be subject to a grand jury inquest, as I forget appointments, names, faces, passwords, jokes, what I told my husband yesterday and whether or not I paid the phone bill last month. Where, I wonder, are all the folks who worry about attracting good people to government service? Libby gave up a lucrative private practice to serve his country and now may lose everything, including his liberty, for the trouble. This trial is a farce and an outrage.” —Mona Charen

THE GIPPER

“General Douglas MacArthur, a leader I deeply respected, is said to have written that no man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation and vigorous in its defense. Well, it’s all up to us now. We are the heirs of MacArthur, Pershing, Jefferson, and Washington—and of those Americans who put their lives on the line from Bunker Hill to Belleau Wood, from Normandy to Khe Sanh. We will be vigilant in the preservation of freedom and vigorous in its defense because we will not let down those who came before us or those who will follow.” —Ronald Reagan

OPINION IN BRIEF

“It is the great irony of our time that even as our stone-age enemies seek to inflict as many civilian casualties as possible, we in the postmodern West seek to inflict none. Which is extremely nice, but what is it they say about nice guys? And how nice, really, is it? Citizens of the 21st century, we pat ourselves on the back for an elevated morality even as we expect our brave volunteers to risk life and limb to protect both ourselves and, in effect, our enemies also. This does nothing but prolong the state of war and the suffering that goes with it, which is surely neither nice, nor morally uplifting. Maybe such a mindset is relatively new to the American identity, but the limbo of unresolved conflict it consigns us to promises to be with us for a long time.” —Diana West

GOVERNMENT

“Religious conservatives have taken a disproportionate amount of the blame for the Republican Party’s growing tolerance for big government. These arguments are mostly bogus. In fact, social conservatives have been among the strongest supporters of smaller government within the GOP while moderates have frequently been as squishy on tax rates and spending as on abortion. But religious conservatives haven’t been immune from the increasing statism on the right. Many are shifting their political emphasis away from defensive action—preventing government encroachment against churches, Christian homeschoolers, religious charities, and civil society more generally—toward an overly ambitious public moralism… The new religious right that Republicans like [Mike] Huckabee and [Sam] Brownback are trying to build is in many respects admirable and appealing. The moral implications of the Christian faith are obviously broader than single-issue politics and sex, something an older breed of organized religious conservatives sometimes seemed to forget. But four decades of activist government have taught us the pitfalls of effecting social change from Washington; those consequences won’t be ameliorated simply by putting more faithful bureaucrats in charge. It would be a shame if religious conservatives tried to correct their own mistakes by repeating the Great Society liberals’.” —W. James Antle III

RE: THE LEFT

“Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton had a party at her house the other night for an elite group: about 70 fundraisers who agreed to raise at least $250,000—and some as much as $1 million—for her presidential campaign… Will she meet the standard of disclosure set by President Bush and every 2004 Democratic presidential contender except John Edwards and make the fundraisers’ identities available? So far—though we’ve been putting this question to the Clinton campaign since last Friday by telephone and by e-mail—we haven’t gotten an answer.” —The Washington Post

POLITICAL FUTURES

“[O]n Iraq, [Hillary] Clinton stands resolutely on the side of public opinion, whichever side that may be in any given year. On Iran, about which public opinion is unformed, she is maddeningly noncommittal. This is fine for a senator, who merely casts one vote among 100. But the president—especially in times of international peril—needs to be able to make decisions in the national interest. Sometimes that means shaping public opinion, as President Bush did when he persuaded the public and Congress to support the war in Iraq. Sometimes it means defying public opinion, as Bush has done lately by resisting pressure to flee. Were these decisions bad ones? History will judge, but at the moment most Americans seem to think so. Mrs. Clinton is seeking to become President Bush’s successor by countering his dangerous boldness with extreme caution. She is presenting herself as the candidate who won’t make bad decisions because she won’t make decisions—who won’t lead us astray because she will not lead. But an excess of caution is itself a form of recklessness. Someone who won’t make decisions won’t make good or necessary decisions either. Therein lies the peril of a Hillary Clinton presidency.” —James Taranto

FOR THE RECORD

“The President is right to propose that the status of illegal immigrants currently in the United States should be resolved ‘without animosity and without amnesty.’ But any measure that would allow millions of illegal immigrants who have broken U.S. immigration laws to remain in the United States is, by definition, an amnesty. Indeed, previous Administration proposals (and legislation approved last year by the U.S. Senate) are very similar to the failed amnesty policy of 1986. As was the case then, amnesty now would only encourage further law-breaking. Amnesty is troubling not only because it undercuts the rule of law and is unfair to those immigrants who respect our laws, but also because it would undermine efforts to control the nation’s borders, decrease the illegal population, and discourage the employment of undocumented workers. As such, amnesty violates core principles of immigration policy. Congress should debate, consider, and pass comprehensive immigration reform. But any such reform must be comprehensive in theory and in practice. Lawmakers must be confident that it includes principled and practical measures that enhance security, serve the economy, and respect the rule of law. Anything less will not work and would not be ‘an immigration system worthy of America’.” —Heritage Foundation scholars Matthew Spalding & James J. Carafano

SELECT READER COMMENTS

(Our servers automatically delete “Reply” messages to this e-mail. To submit comments for publication or to view reader comments, link to http://PatriotPost.US/comments.asp Join the debate at the Patriot Blog.)

“Regarding your essay concerning William Arkin, John Stuart Mill penned his thoughts with prophetic brilliance: ‘War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.’ Arkin should give thanks to and for the ‘Better Men’ for his personal freedom write his tripe filth. He quips, ‘I am part of the all powerful, self-congratulatory, far-left, Bush-bashing, fifth-column mainstream. It isn’t so much what I say… it is more that I sit in my safe little cubicle in front of a keyboard sipping lattes, giving aid and comfort to the enemy while our boys and girls die. In other words, I’m comfortable while others suffer.’ I would love to see him on the front line, patrolling the streets of Baghdad with our Soldiers, putting his life on the line for our great nation. But I know that he does not possess the backbone!” —Army Major, Baghdad

“Great article! I just returned from Iraq about 3-4 months ago after serving with the SEALS as an intel analyst. I lived with the Iraqi Army and helped train them and they are grateful for us being over there. The Colonel I lived with over there when I first arrived asked me, ”You’re not going to leave this time are you¿‘ referring back to ‘91. I can tell from first-hand experience that what is being reported here by the Leftmedia is utterly ridiculous. I am a faithful reader of The Patriot—thanks for all you do.” —Annapolis, Maryland

“It’s interesting that Mr. Arkin is referring to the Christian right in his ‘The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out’ article. If he thinks Christians are ‘arrogant and intolerant,’ that must mean that fundamentalist Muslims (a.k.a. terrorists) must be so far off the charts that they elude accurate description. Poor William is just another Lefty that’s more concerned with not hurting someone’s feelings (unless it’s the Christian right) than he is with the actual pain that is routinely inflicted by Islamic ‘law’.” —Rio Rancho, New Mexico

THE LAST WORD

“Here’s irony for you. Last spring, focus-group guru Frank Luntz said that Sen. Joseph Biden should be considered a front-runner in the Democratic presidential primaries because so many Democrats in New Hampshire and Iowa judged him to be—wait for it—‘articulate.’ I should back up. Biden is famous for his brain’s chronic inability to hold brake fluid. Once he revs his engines, the motormouth can’t be stopped, and he just keeps talking and talking and talking. My theory is that those constant smiles where he displays his shiny fake teeth are the facial equivalent of flashing your brights while driving, signaling to those in Biden’s path, ‘I can’t stop this thing!”’ —Jonah Goldberg

Veritas vos Liberabit—Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for The Patriot’s editors and staff. (Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families—especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who have died in defense of American liberty, while prosecuting the war with Jihadistan.)