The Issue of Arellano

Let's consider the issue of Elvira Arellano, an illegal immigrant-Mexican national who holed herself up in a Chicago church to avoid being deported, and therefore separated from a son she bore here in the states.

There's a simple understanding to this issue.

1. She came to this country illegally. (There's no aruging this point. It's the same as someone breaking into your own home.)
2. She had a child. (This is likely her attempt to gain a permanent foothold here, while illegally. And even if it wasn't, it should create no foothold for herself as giving your child a better life doesn't legally allow you to have one)
3. She defied American law and hid in a religious institution.

POINT: Bleeding-hearts are poor excuses for breaking the law.

The illegial immigrant lobby is banking on, firstly, one major point - people come here for a better life. That is true. But they're supposed to come here to be American, not make this a new Mexico.

Secondly, they say illegals are doing work Americans won't do. I say that Americans stopped doing that work because no one would hire them at a proper wage when others would do it for half. And to continue this madness on that point is further encouraging an elitist attitude of America, while simultaneously condemning it. That, in short, is little more than a two-sided attempt to denounce the current establishment in an attempt to raise an entirely new one.

In other words, they're attacking America. Period.

It's making someone out to be a bad guy, just so they're justified in attacking that someone.

And we're letting the bleeding hearts have their way with this country! It's sickening!

America was built on a strong can-do attitude. It was back-breaking work; work every American was willing to put in to get out. It was a common sense thing that working a good day's work for a good day's pay was how one slept at night and allowed people to look themselves in the mirror. It was the freedom to work hard for what you earned. It was following laws put in place for the greater good of all.

To break those laws, and then change those laws, just so the lawbreakers aren't lawbreaking anymore, isn't right, it's ... terrible. It's pathetic. It's telling your kid that it's okay to tell little white lies simply because you don't want to have to stop doing it yourself.

The dangers of the illegal immigrant discussion won't end anytime soon. It's going to take a very hard decision, and a very difficult action, to clean this up. Who will have the backbone to send them home? Then change the laws so that parental nationality determines child nationality? Being born here when humanity barely covered a collective .5 percent of the country was a great way to boost the economy and improve the quality of life for everyone.

Today, it's a boon of our society. We need to insulate what's good about our culture, instead of just leaving it open for chaotic change. Evolution will take it's own steps. To replace the culture entirely is paramount to suicide.

C'mon everyone, you bring the running shoes, I'll bring the scissors.

The Balance of Morality in Immigration

One massive element to this debate is the issue of depriving families desperate for a better life from coming to an obviously better country.

Many ask the question, "How can someone deny another person or family the right to be in a country that constantly claims to be the freest country in the world?"

In consideration of this matter, people have to realize one important thing - the word free has more than one meaning. This issue alone can reshape how people view this issue.

In simple terms, 'Free' means both 'without bondage' and 'at no cost.' Now, those two definitions can seem mighty similar, but when one puts both into perspective, its obvious they differ greatly.

As anyone who has studied slavery - whether American, British, Roman, Chinese, Egyptian - knows, the free was not 'at no cost.' There is always great cost to acquire one's freedom. People die, both the enslavers and the enslaved. A price must be paid continually so that those who seek to oppress cannot do just that. To hold the evil at bay, the righteous must rise and hold fast to their beliefs that each man is individually responsible for himself, and has the freedom to go where he pleases and do the job he pleases according to a greater system of rule and law, by which all who are free agree to follow so that all can live in harmony with each other. i.e "I won't steal your crops, you don't steal my cows. I won't kill your family, you don't set my house on fire."

The other form of free is used so often in society (i.e. Free Backrub when you buy a new Kia! or You can get a FREE new iPod if you sign up for this contest today!) While there often is some form of cost involved to get this kind of 'free,' it's not advertised as being so, and many people begin to confuse what each means.

This country is free, but by no means does it come at no cost. While compassion is often a good trait, to offer this country to all who seek it 'at no cost' are damaging the greater harmony and sense of unity that the rest of these 'free' people enjoy. We enjoy that 'free'dom because either we have, ourselves, or our fathers and their fathers have paid the very high cost so that we can have it. To give that 'free' away is an insult and a disservice to all of those who have died, or given up so much of their lives to that beautiful red, white and blue.

Be compassionate, but stand for our rights and rules of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as essential elements of what it means to be an American, which means all immigrants who wish to come to our fair country must abide and adopt those elements into themselves. They must become American.

What immigrant in their right mind would come to a country 'at no cost' and feel in any way obligated to adopt that lifestyle?

So save your morality speech if all you're looking at is one side of the picture. To give this country away 'at no cost' cheapens the country, devaluing it for my children and my children's children. How dare you claim I have no heart when you choose not to exercise your mind.

Shame on you all,

Johnathan Cross
Marietta

The Dangers of Limitless Altruism

I'll admit that I'm not the most altruistic person in the world. I grew up with a: you take care of yourself attitude until you honestly need help, and then I will honestly want to help you, kind of attitude.

I can't help but think that Democratic demagoguery is crippling to so many they claim are victims of rightist cruelty. "But they can't!" or "Life's hard on them!" or "They don't have the same opportunities you do, so we should help them reach the same level of success!"

Who are you kidding? Making anyone feel they're victims to life when they're really just at the bottom rung is not helping them. When someone reaches bottom, they need to learn to fight their way to the top, not wait for handouts.

This country was built on a "Do-It-Yourself" attitude. It's quickly becoming a "Do-It-For-Me" attitude, and if you don't, I'll find a legal way to make you suffer for it.

Altruism is noble, but only when it's honestly to help people. I'd honestly say that being altruistic for altruism's sake is still a disservice to yourself, because you're doing good because it either makes you feel good or because being right makes you feel good. Or the 'act' of helping someone else makes you feel good, rather than actually setting out to truly help people.

Often that means helping them through a hard time. Sometimes, it means Not helping them. It means letting people fight for themselves.

When a baby bird hatches, it must do it itself. It's a law of nature. It's a matter of primal strength required to overcome a hurdle to survival. While those living in the ghetto are not baby chickens, they are being treated with no respect by those claiming the altruism to help them, but instead use them, keeping them weak while saying they're helping them. It's no different than a human breaking the shell for the chicken. It cripples the chicken when life dictates that the chicken should do it for themselves.

I'm all for assistance, and I understand how a mindset can be so crippling that someone who is at the bottom rung sees no way up the ladder, but until that person is honestly willing to fight their way up, any and all help does little to actually help.

People living in ghettos and illegal immigrants, obviously at the bottom rung of America's ladder, are being treated like victims by the altruistic elite, who are quick to point out that anyone who doesn't think these people are victims are likely reason these people can't climb, and that such way of thinking is archaic.

This nation was very backward during the Civil Rights movement, when whites dominated blacks and allowed them no chance to rise. Guess what? That's changed. Sure, there's still racism, but that's the case from both blacks and whites, on both sides. Racism can never fully be eradicated, but we've done a fine job of it.

It's time to let the poor be poor and the rich be rich. We should focus on keeping the rich from taking advantage of the poor, but still allow them to be rich. We should allow the poor to get so tired of being poor that they fight to get out of it.

Anyone who thinks that poverty is a curable disease isn't considering the one factor that makes that possbility impossible: Humanity.

That says it all.

The Dangers of Political Fear

Everyone knows how faulty the situation was with intelligence and heated decisions in the days preceding the invasion of Iraq. America was still lusting for blood, especially since it had yet to capture the mastermind behind 9/11, and was hungry to kill something else.

Saddam Hussein was a perfectly legitimate target. He should have been taken out. While better planning should have occured, with a broader swath of intellectual opinion on possible outcomes accompanying those decisions, they didn't.

The clincher in all of this, however, is that people decry that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That's only partly right, as the network of terrorism does stretch throughout the Middle East, though attacking such targets may have only been undertaken by someone with the balls Osama Bin Laden obviously has.

I imagine, though, that the American people would have been more satisfied if President Bush had had a different standpoint on his invasion of Iraq, including a speech that may have gone something a bit more like this ...

My fellow Americans,

Today, American forces continue to scour the face of Afghanistan in search of the murderous radical terrorist Osama Bin Laden. We have not found him yet, but we will. The atroctities he incited from the September 11 attacks were tragic and abhorring. The young men and women of our great nation seek retribution for the blood spilt by Bin Laden and the crazed men who have served him, and are out there, destroying the Taliban and all who support it.

I come to you now, however, to discuss a new matter. While we yet scour Afghanistan, another, even more dangerous threat, looms at our doorsteps. This danger comes with threats of sponsoring further terrorism against the world, as we can already prove it has done within its own borders.

Saddam Hussein, in power for many years, has continually defied the greater world powers in nuclear armament and crimes against humanity, systematically slaughtering his own people time after time indiscriminately. We know what he has done. We know what he can do, and what he is willing to do.

Soon I will be sending more of our troops to invade a hostile country bent on our destruction. This is pre-emptive against a nation known for its state sponsoring of terrorism. We will do what wasn't done before - we will eliminate the threat on their ground, before it can come here again.

As a nation of freedom, to turn out heads from the threat this government poses to itself and those around it would be a tragedy of free thought and moral decency. Some of our young men and women will lose their lives, but the cost of freedom is never free, and to turn a blind eye to the tyranny here presents an evil greater than anything - the evil of apathy.

With your support, we can do what must be done as quickly as possible, but it will not be a short fight. What we do will be a long, hard road to walk, but in learning from our mistakes in Vietnam, we will not leave brothers behind, American or foreigner, and we will establish a hope of democracy and peace.

September 11th will never be forgotten, and should never be repeated.

Thank you, good night, and God Bless America.

We failed in Afghanistan. That should have been priority one, and I won't debate that. My point, however, is that President Bush would have been better off with the planned invasion of Iraq if he had 1) been blunt about the simple reasons we needed to go in and 2) taken more time to develop a proper strategy.

Iraq needed to be cut up, pure and simple. How, is a debate I don't have for you right now. I would leave that up to more intelligent strategists. But it was a danger and needed to be dealt with. Who can say if waiting would have been better? Patience is always a virtue, but we're beyond such discussions. We're there, now.

We need to finish the fight and finish it right, not just turn tail and run, leaving another post-Vietnam with killing fields. If we do, blood will certainly be on our hands.

It's time we owned up, turned blunt and did our moral and civic duty to the people of Iraq by finishing our mission, and then go home.

So what are the dangers of political fear? Soft resolve by your supporters. When leaders say what they mean, do what they say and demand the respect due for their solidity of choice, the public can't complain and will less prone to do so often. It's a matter of stark honesty about decisions and the steely resolve to live up to them.

And remember. It is OUR fault, we the American public, that the fiasco's continue today, because we're afraid to hear the truth, and don't demand our politicians to have balls.

Johnathan Cross
Marietta

Responsibility for the degradation of political honesty

Our entire country cringes from our politicians. It doesn't matter how political you might be, the nature of the word "politician" gives off a bad vibe.

A job designed to be one of compromise and consideration turns into a lobbyist free-for-all at the expense of the citizens, regardless of the level of government - city, county, district, state or nation.

Politicians, since the beginning of time, have all been the same. Even our founding fathers weren't politicians. They were leaders who worked in politics.

And THAT is our key lack, here. With good reason, of course. Most good leaders hate politics because of the Janus-like qualities they all seem to come with like fries to burgers - almost inseperable.

This year seems especially polarizing as we have an inordinate number of politicians running for office, and none of them invoke the confidence in citizenry we hope for. Instead, we're left shaking our heads wondering when our nation will end from the endless squabbling our politicans do for their own personal gain.

The problem of political integrity, however, does not fall on the politicians. The men and women of our federal government who never fail to fail us are there for one simple reason - we let them stay. Instead of demanding in a unified voice that we want politicans of real integrity, and that in one voice we will denounce those who do not fulfill their political promises, we shake our heads and do nothing.

It's our fault. It's our responsibility as citizens of a country that can elect our own leaders, and we're squandering it. We shake our heads, and do no thing; that's exactly what those two-faced civil abusers count on time and time again.

What began as a simple process for electing our government officials, with a series of proper checks-and-balances, has turned into a series of political loopholes and government-speak; something similar I'd associate with lawyers who can sound so smart when speaking about something so simple, that they make you feel you don't have the intelligence to make a proper decision about what's write for yourself.

We've let these men and women bamboozle us. And it's still our fault. A man committing a crime in a community is a tragedy. The community letting that man stay is absolutely horrific beyond words.

I don't want to elect another politican to office again. I want to elect a leader - a man who says what he means, means what he says, and will do exactly what he promises before entering office once in office. Is that too much to ask? Is there some meeting politicans have once they've 'joined the club' that says, "Okay, here's what you can do, and what you can't do. We don't care what you promised before hand because we're not going to help you fulfill any of them."

While society in general is not conducive to positive change, that is no excuse for a person willing to fight his way to the top. He, or she, should be adept at circumventing such opposition to change.

What would someone say is the best way to solve the problem of complicated and easily abused politics?

Simplify them.

Simplify politics. Create transparent government leadership while preserving the trust and integrity of the job. Destroy loopholes and complications. Call politicians to account for following their promises through that transparency, and when they fail, to be removed so improvement can progress.

This isn't an attempt to micromanage our leaders. Instead, it's simply to call them to account for what they say and what they do.

It's time for citizens to find a better way than politic-dependant news agencies (conservative or liberal) to see exactly what the government is doing without direct governmental influence, while preserving the nature of classified operations and national security issues.

The formation of such an agency is not the purpose of this commentary. The need for political integrity, is. While firing all politicians isn't realistic, finding greater ways to make them accountable is.

It's the responsibility of the citizenry of a nation to hold their leaders accountable. We aren't. We're depending on talking heads and biased news to tell us how well they're doing. Greater impact analysis is welcome if it's objective and nonpartisan.

We must fight, once more, to make politics more hands on and rid ourselves of the complications created by those in power, who desire to stay in power, at the cost of citizen benefit.

Otherwise, we're just waiting for the government to return itself into a tyranny. It happened in Greece and it happened it Rome. It will, eventually, happen here in the States. No nation has ever survived its own humanity. The best we can hope for is God to preserve us for as long as possible. But until that day comes, we must fight for the preservation of the integrity of our own government.

For ourselves and our children.

Johnathan Cross
Marietta

America's War

The War Against Terror (the politically correct name for the "War Against Radical Islam") truly began when America helped Israel recreate it's nation within its ancient borders, lost a thousand-plus years ago. Post-holocaust Israeli's from across the world congregated in the western Middle East and resettled, forcing the Palestinians out.

The Islamic world blames American for Israel's return, calling them Satan and us Satan (didn't know Satan had multiple-personality disorder) and that Allah wished us wiped from this world. Apparently the crusades weren't enough for them to hate us, but restoring Israel certainly stepped on their foot and called their mothers Candian.

The attacks on America (and the rest of the world) were largely sparse, though undeniable, and were hidden cleverly through a host of separate nations and political leans. The disbelievers of Radical Islamic aggression pawned off the true reason for attacks against the US on all reasons other than the America-helped-Satan-park-off-our-Mediterranean-coast reason that the Radical Islamic world has held against us for sometime.

We faced embassy bombings, ship bombings, plane hijackings, lengthy hostage situations and, eventually, successful bombings against nationally iconic and monetary structures within our very borders (9/11, folks). When, at any point, did Bush begin this war?

To assume that Osama Bin Laden was our only enemy after 9/11 is a terrible waste of a mind. To think that eradicating him would have solved our problem is the same reason that every American retaliatory action against terrorist perpetrators never actually solved anything. Sure, US forces hunted down and killed a number of aggressors involved in our bombings and hijackings, but it never solved the actual root of these problems.

Bush, while at times bumbling, took the war home to the root of the aggressors. The statistics that show a climbing number of terrorists is not a simple result of US forces occupying Iraq - it's a display of what had remained quiet for so long. Just because you kill an ant outside of an ant hill doesn't mean you took away the power of your enemy - it's all within the anthill. Kicking it doesn't not make more agressors, it simply shows them.

Bush has failed in killing Osama Bin Laden. He must dedicate our forces to finding him even moreso than in the past - but to leave Iraq thinking that leaving the anthill be is a mistake to be sure. It will just build itself up again.

This is not just Bush's war. It's not the Republican's war.

It's America's war. It's a war too many have denied we've been in since the first attacks against our citizens worldwide. The war didn't being in 2001, it began in the 1940's, when Israel was created.

This war won't end. At this point, there has to be a level of respect afforded by each nation/politick, and that won't happen without a lot of people dying on each side. If not now, it will be later - to be frank, even if now, it will still be later.

This is a war for the ages, since the ages. Until Israel is destroyed or radical Islam is ground to a very small number or completely irradicated, this will not go away.

Those who seek to end the war need to understand that putting off to tomorrow only endangers our children, not protects them.

This is America's War, and we need to treat it as such. Instead, politicans are afraid to support it because those too short-sighted only see the American dead - ignoring the hard, long-term truths that come with fighting this bloody, dirty, and very angry fight.

Lives are not just at stake, our souls are. This is a fight for the soul of peace and the soul of democracy. After thousands of years, a nation of true democracy, free from sovereign domination, arose from the tyranny of British rule. And without a fight, this glorious democracy we know as America will soon again be under the thumb of a power seeking to rule by an iron fist, rather than the purity of thought and communal agreement.

"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton said that. Let radicals have power, and be assured they will not have your welfare in mind. Keep power distributed equally among the populace - checks and balances with systems of self-repudiation and authentication.

Oh, wait. Democracy.

Johnathan Michael
Marietta

A Bigger Pictures

Let's make a quick summary of the situation.

> Abraham had two sons - one became the father of Israel, the other became the father of Islam (epso-facto-like)

> 1,000 years after Christ, Mohammed preaches a new salvation by the same god and sets a series of rules, returning a mindset of salvation-by-action, the same mindset Israel carried and surprassed with the arrival of Christ's "Way," but now with world domination in mind.
>> Both faiths of Christianity and Islam teach of their faith eventually ruling over the world peaceably, while radicalists in both parties (Islamic extremists now, obviously, a bit larger number than a couple of hard-core baptist rednecks from Oregon).

> America was a shining example of Christian triumph - a country of religious freedom (from the state-driven churches of it's mother country) and, in time, a place to equally accept religions from all nations, whether in agreement or tolerance.

> The Arab world is a shining (and really only) example of Islamist survival - a collective of religious unitarianism based on the principles of Mohammed (however you wish to spell his name) and his revelation from Allah, dedicated to the systematic infill of governmental power around the world and eventual acquisition of control.

A - Christianity, in its base, un-"enlightened" form (as many progressive Christians might refer to it), is the sunshine policy of world acquisition (refer to South Korean politics on Google if you like). Through a successive presentation of God's love and his desire to be with us, Christianity is dedicated to bringing the faith (repeat, faith) of Christianity across the world. It, in and of itself, is not dedicated to ruling the world until the supernatural return of its deity, namely, God - Jehovah (not Allah).

B - Islam, while in majore is dedicated to peace, seeks a more determined method of world acquisition. While this isn't to be compared with radicalism, it does involve more stringent measures of religious law once muslims in power can make it so. Technically, it's the peaceful way of controlling the world.
>> The issue with this is that faith should never be determined by a binding authority other than the Deity himself, should he choose to proliferate faith from his followers that way. To choose a faith based on a love for a spouse or an affinity for how well a pastor's robes look is a poor road to walk toward eternity.


America was the shining example of Christianity, and is now growing decidedly desperate to devoid itself of the God that created it (from the mouths of the very men who began the nation, never mind you). Leaders (and loud-mouths) in this nation are changing the social climate to a free-for-all of decadence and debauchery, based on short-term goals and near-sighted issues. While 'owies' should be treated short-term, ignoring the roots of social illnesses will cause civic gangrene.

It's politically incorrect to be morally good, because it bases itself on a system that makes someone feel bad when they do something wrong. (Duh, it's wrong.)

Yes, there are right and wrong. No you can't pretend otherwise.
>>Yes there are consequences for doing wrong.
>>Yes there are consequences for doing right.

Namely, Christianity, after thousands of years, is once again on a path downhill. A faith of love and 'sunshine' is on the chopping block of nations growing fatter on the decadence of self-adoration.

Who wants to be reminded how dirty you are? Obviously, you kick the clean guy out of the room so you can't tell the difference between yourself and everyone else. Then no-one is clean, no-one is dirty. No-one can be special because you're too lazy to be special, or self-content enough not to be.

Those in our legislatures and in our loudspeakers decry the value of morality in hopes our nation will lose so much definition, we won't hurt anyone's feelings.

Being afraid of feelings is not disease, it's pathetic. It's an addiction to the here-and-now, afraid of working through painful times because no-one can easily see the prosperity on the other side. America's prosperity today is the result ONLY of the hard work and sacrifice of our forefathers, from the Revolution to the Great War, both in peace and in conflict, home and abroad.

Whatever issues we get caught up in in today's political climate, it's important we remember the bigger issues our children will face, and it won't be as simple as global warming (meteorologically) or physical immigration (though these are important issues) - it's remembering that in the end, we all die, and we all go somewhere.

When people die, they don't thank Darwin, they ask for God. The question is: which God do you believe in? Do you want to believe in a God of love or a God of war? A god of cosmic mistakes (Big-Bang Theory) or a God of self-enlightenment (Buddha). A god of Karma (Hindu) or a god of ... well, no god at all (Atheism)?

When a major faith begins digging its way from its den and dedicatedly begins trying to force its faith on you through coercion or quiet revolution, should we really worry so much about who's going to be kicked off American Idol next?

I'm a Christian, and while my faith is a faith of love, I have every intention of fighting for its survival. Right now, nations around the world, and faiths around the world, are looking for ways to end my faith, because my faith is one of the intention of the heart, not simply action of the hand. It requires people truly believe, not simply act.

When Christ came, he said that it's not just what you do, (though doing is important), but what you believe. According to the previous faith (Judaism), you simply had to act. Now, you had to believe and fulfill yourself by your heart. Not sleeping with another man's wife wasn't enough anymore, not thinking about sleeping with another man's wife became issue.

It called everyone to their own personal account - and that terrifies non-Christians bent on satisfying their lusts for debauchery on all forms.

This sounds like a religious blog, and in part, it is. But keep this in mind: all politics are based on faith. Politicians are the most religiously devout of anyone you will ever meet - whether their god is Jehovah or themselves.

So choose your faith. Understand that as world religion goes beyond the separation of church and state and once again returns war to the level of the crusades (whether to conquer or to survive), your very life will depend on whom you choose - both in this life and after.

Johnathan Cross
Marietta

There is no true love without respect

"We must denounce this war! But we must support our troops!"

There is no true love or support without respect. It's otherwise just a word or a hope, or an empty thought of emotion. Real love requires action, and to truly show love to American troops, citizens must support their decision to fight overseas. That includes trusting them to know what the best course of action overseas is.

While not all troops believe the US should be there, a hosting majority, especially those who have been on the frontline, believe in what is being accomplished. As much as Congress denounces the war, troops denounce the cowardice on Capitol Hill. What has made this into a Vietnam is less because of the actions in the Military Area of Responsibility, but more of the indecisive nature of politicians and the games of power they play at the expense of solid military support.

President George W. Bush may not be a perfect president - who has been? - and while mistakes have been made, the end goal is more important than how comfortable Americans feel, namely because the war is keeping citizens alive. Unfortunately, too many prefer luxurious comfort to breathing.

Vocalizing a support for troops, but disregarding their voluntary decision to join the service and fight overseas, is no different than going to a doctor and disbelieving his diagnosis of a serious illness. The troops see a sickness that, left unchecked, will cause incalculable damage to any free-thinking nation.

Americans need to turn off CNN and talk to a soldier who's been out there - not the dropouts, the kicked-outs or the dishonorably discharged - and make their decisions by first-hand accounts. Look up soldier blogs on-line that display the good being done, the people being saved and the respect of the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan troops earn by their actions.

Americans here can decry war and the US's involvement in Iraq, but the military is finally accomplishing a difficult task that has needed doing for far too long. Whatever the initial motivations for the country to enter this wa , let there be no misconception as to when it began. It began centuries ago by two incredibly different forms of thought powering them - radical Christianity and Islam.

Radical Christianity has, for the most part tapered. The Roman Catholic church no longer leads armies or dominates world leaders as it did in its empiric days. Radical Islam, however, has resurfaced with little opposition - an arrangement that only increases its bloodlust for world domination.

Troops have seen the necessity of American actions overseas. While the situation has been less than favorable at times, they're making a difference. So next time anyone wants to doubt the dangers involved, ask a soldier who has trained to see the dangers, has seen the dangers firsthand and has been willing to put his or her life on the line to see that those dangers don't come home.

Johnathan Cross
Marietta

The Difficulties of Societal Evolution

The U.S. has evolved, as all major societies, from green to brown (growth to groan). Societies built on solid principles of liberty and freedom are tainted by those least appreciative of it - the successive children of each generation.

Born already fat on the hard-earned prosperity of our forefathers without the corporate memories of the work required to get there only makes it worse for each next generation.

To truly forge a path back to the basic and everlasting princples our forefathers forged for us, it will take a rebirth of the unique, fighting spirits our ancestors brought with them to the US - the same spirit that forged the cowboys and wranglers, and sent us to the moon.

Now, that fighting spirit has been dampened by a communal need for universal mediocrity to prevent damaged self-images of those who are unwilling to fight for their own livelihood and unwilling to accept the harshness of reality.

Lack of responsibility is a major factor in our society. No one will take responsibility for what happens to them, or put it where it's due. Blaming the government for mother nature is irresponsible. Blame mother nature and the simple truth that life isn't fair.

To redeem our broken society, it will take a major social climate change that can be found only by the fruition of the negative results from current primary political taint. It's up to responsible Americans to rise and overcome the arrogance of current politics and be dedicated solely to destroyed the omnipresent power and tyranny the current federal government is exercising over the country.

In what ways can we infuse patriots with the will and determination it will take to destroy our current systems and be willing to revert a currently modern, socialist system into a purely capitalist and self-governing state?

Is it even possible? Are such a decadent people capable of positive reversion? What will it take short of nuclear fallout or decimating war in these 48 that will force mankind to a natural order of self-ruling parties, built on the powers of responsible self-interest?

Are there honest steps being taken or is this simply a flight of an intelligent fancy?

Johnathan Cross
Marietta

A Call for a Change in Natural-Born Citizenry

To be born in this country should no longer solely be able to account for citizenship any longer. How many come to bear their children so that their children might have a better life, and in hope be able to tag along for the ride?

I understand the desire to have a better life, but as long as laws break no moral code, then there is yet a reason to break them, even in pursuit of a better life.

I think it prudent of the U.S. government to consider a new approach to citizenship by involving parental citizenship in determination for the children. If I'm born to American parents in Germany, I hope that I'm American. There can be statues of difference involved in parental intention. If my parents wished to change their citizenship to German, I hope that I as their child would be granted the same status they themselves have gained, even if they had spent 90 percent of the required time to gain new citizenship.

Otherwise, as has already been proven, our natural-born citizenship is left open for easy abuse.

Johnathan Cross
Marietta

The War for the Soul of America

Welcome to the United States of America. We here are a diverse pot of folks, bound together through a common goal of freedom for none and indifference of all.

Don’t get me wrong. It’s not like we’re telling people what they are or are not allowed to believe, obviously. They just can’t express it in any way that might conflict with anyone else’s view. Conflict is not welcome in a country of neutral-hungry liberals, where argumentative discourse from anything but an indifferent, yet, All-Is-Acceptable-In-Your-Head-Not-Out-Of-Your-Mouth way of thinking is old-fashioned, out-of-date or simply narrow-minded.

We’re not allowed to disagree with those who unanimously tell us that “everyone is right,” and anyone who denies that is encroaching on someone else’s freedom not to choose a side in a war of morality – a war for the soul of America.

I tend to disagree. There are sides. This is not Switzerland – this is America. While I fully appreciate keeping your nose in your own business, the leg room to do just that gets smaller and smaller the more we close our eyes and ears to the ever-encroaching government – all due to men and women who think that to disagree with them is morally wrong. That’s because, in the end, they are their own moral authority, and are loud-mouthed enough to tell everyone just how wrong we are.

Johnathan Cross
Marietta

Overshooting the mark on race

Martin Luther King Jr. was a visionary.

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are stationary. The only progression I see in their future is an attempt to either victimize the black man, or push him into a superiority race with the white – neither are things Martin Luther King Jr. advocated at all.

Dr. King spoke of two children of different race playing together. Together. Not separated by a fight of racial difference, even within a pretext of pressing toward racial harmony.

I don’t think racism can ever truly be wiped from the planet. For example, good people, white or black, in an argument with a person of a different race, will often grope for any differentiating factor they can belittle, often using racist remarks as fuel for the fight.

Are they racist? I would say the majority are not. I’d say it’s simply a man in a fight grabbing whatever tool he can to overcome the other, no matter how “politically incorrect,” or even futile, it may seem at the time.

My point is not that we should say racial division is not worth overcoming. A man is a man, regardless of his pigmentation, but if we sqwak so loudly when someone does something racist, does it not further racial divides? It rather works better as a parent correcting a child quietly, teaching them the error of their ways, and just-as-quietly correcting by advocating an apology.

In other words, there should have been few actual parties in the Imus fiasco. The offender, the target, and the monetarily affected – such as sponsors who would lose money due to his thoughtless words. I, joe schmo from round the corner need not hear Sharpton or Jackson explode, nor the news displaying every last detail when we have American service members fighting for the rights of women overseas not to be sexually mutilated at birth, among other things.

I fear Dr. King would weep to see what has become of his vision. This isn’t racial harmony. It’s a quiet standoff in a race war. And it’s not between whites and blacks, but segregationists and everyone else who’s already gotten over it – white or black.

Johnathan Cross
Marietta

Holding Bush accountable for long-term problems erroneous

Re: Hold Bush accountable for not enforcing immigration laws

Of course! It’s Bush’s fault immigrants are pouring in from a country who wants them to leave. While we’re at it, let’s go ahead and blame Bush for global warming, Islam and the death of Anna Nicole Smith.

Blaming Bush for such long-term issues is pathetic. This isn’t to say he hasn’t made mistakes, but if you’re going to blame him for a nationwide problem we’ve had since Mexico invaded Texas back in the 1800’s, you’re blisslessly ignorant.

If I remember correctly, this nation was built on a platform of united statehoods. And, though united, they still held a level of personal authority and responsibility for themselves and their citizens.

Since when does all the responsibility of a state failing to enforce its own laws suddenly get thrown on the shoulders of the president?

Let’s put the blame squarely where it belongs: on the cowardly politicians we never fail to re-elect because they somehow put money in our pockets or promise that they’ll use the government to take responsibility for our lives. Hold our governor, mayors and city councils accountable for enforcing our local laws. And if we don’t have any, let’s get our ELECTED officials to finally work for what we want, instead of waiting on an obviously convoluted national platform.

Johnathan Cross
Marietta

Give peace a chance? How long are we supposed to wait?

I’ve heard many say that peace can only be fostered by offering peace; that there is no way we could gain peace by war in the Middle East. We should let them work out their problems in a peaceful manner and they’ll stop hating us …

Really? So … what, our turning blind eyes to numerous attacks against American embassies around the world wasn’t enough? Should we have offered to bring terrorists to America and set them up in lush hotels, give them suburban homes and SUVs? Would that have helped them see that America isn’t really decadent? Let them relax along our shorelines with women wearing practically nothing so that we don’t offend their beliefs?

Oh, that’s right. We should send our young children overseas so that their bloodlust is sated by their raising them as future terrorists. Of course, Americans would be too generous, at that point, for them to hate us more.

I say, for those of you who think that peace cannot be gained without shedding blood, that you should go live with them, offer your lives as slaves, and see if they still don’t seek your life. There is nothing that can sate the bloodlust of a thirsty radical. Only the destruction of anything that considers itself equal or above them will make them remotely satisfied with their own pathetic lives.

Johnathan Cross
Marietta

The apology of Imus

Imus said a dirty word.

50 Cent said a dirty word.

Anne Coulter said a dirty word.

Jesse Jackson said a dirty word.

Ever considered turning off the television? Turning the newspaper page?

Public figures like these are fueled by those who support them – and by those who oppose them. Morality has little bearing in the matter more than how offended someone might be by an insensitive comment. What’s a quick solution?

Grow thicker skin.

Imus made a big mistake. I’m no Imus fan, but I don’t dislike him. The real question is, does one wrong nullify so many rights? While I don’t place Imus on a pedestal, from a nonpartisan standpoint, he must have made a lot of good points for people to put a radio show (a RADIO show, mind you) on TV. And I think most would agree that he has a face for radio, at that.

While I certainly don’t approve of Imus’ comment, I also don’t listen to him. The only people he should have apologized to were the Rutgers’ team, which he did, and they accepted it. He might also need to apologize to his boss, which I can almost certainly assume he did.

He could even owe an apology to Comcast, Charter and other cable companies for losing viewer-base because of his comment.

Does he owe us, the public an apology? Of course not. While my endorsement of cable may in some way trickle a thousandth of a cent into his paycheck, I did not choose what cable channels I’d receive (another issue I with the cable companies would modify), they did. I’d happily go without MSNBC. I prefer the History channel anyway.

Johnathan Cross
Marietta

Another suggested apology

To everyone who thinks they deserve an apology about slavery: I’m sorry.

I’m sorry you’re stuck in the past. I’m sorry you think you’re entitled to anything you haven’t earned.

I’m sorry you believe that because certain children of slaves who feel condemned to a life of oppression by a “white” majority are entitled to something their great great parents earned.

I’m sorry you live life according to what other people “do to you,” rather than how you do for yourselves.

I’m sorry you think the government is in any, proper way, a moral standpoint in which to give an apology of any kind of magnitude, based on the temporal shirttail of a practice (slavery) held since the beginning of time.

I’m sorry you don’t fight your way out of ghettos and “hard-knock” lives because there’s no opportunities for you, neverminding how many more government programs there are for you than for other races, or even foreign nationalities.

I’m sorry there are so many in power, who stay in power only because you believe their lies; their panderings to your feelings.

I’m sorry you’re so sorry.

On second thought, I’m not sorry, because I have never, and will never, own another person. My life is not even mine, it belongs to my God. I have no right to own another, I will never advocate it and I will support those who fight to end it.

I’m not sorry you’re stuck worrying about yourselves while your fellow countrymen – black, white, yellow – are fighting for the freedoms and liberties of people they’ve never met in a land across the ocean.

I’m not sorry you’re selfish and ignorant.

I’m not sorry at all.

Johnathan Cross
Marietta

It never changes

Call me a young conservative. Call me a man who grew up in the South, with Southern pride and a home-grown soul. I’ve lived in Virginia, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi and central Florida (the front line to the Northern State of Florida, as everyone knows). I’ve seen the people, the smiles, the hearts, and the minds of Southernors in a broad swath of the Southeast U.S.

I’ve also lived in California, southern Florida and Maryland.

I’ve heard the left and the right, gained friends on both sides and even one who hated both – he was green. I love them all. But I can’t agree with them. I can’t support their ideas. I can’t help but feel many are misguided, but they have lived their lives as best they could. I respect that.
When I look at my experiences, and remember the people I’ve listened to, and times when I sat back and watched the world, I’m left with a sense of disappointment. I’m left wondering why people today think that “enlightened” values will get them any farther than it did the Romans, or the Greeks, or the Persians …

I look at the world, after having tried to ride the middle, and see a people that chooses liberality, a ‘giving away’ of responsibility, as a matter of overcoming humanity’s older, more ignorant side.
In the end, that’s how the left looks at the right. That’s how liberals look at conservatives.
The universality of healthcare, government subsidization and socialist enterprises are people stepping further away from the joys and pains of responsibility, and putting it in a group of people who pay for the lowest bidder and promote based on personal preference (the government). For all people complain about politics and bureaucracy, so many are willing to put all their trust into them to take care of them after they’ve grown too old to take care of themselves.

A pressing for the openness of homosexuality and acceptance of debaucherous lifestyles are exactly what happened in the late days of our “great” ancient empires. Are we more enlightened because we have cars or computers? Because we’ve been to space and can harness the power of the atom? Is it because after all this time, we obviously know more than they did?

Are you kidding me or are you high?

We, today, are no different than they were then. They wore skirts and we wear pants. We’re different? I don’t think so.

Our country is running headlong over the same cliff our ancient cousins did in the past. We think we know better, when we actually choose to ignore the hard truths more and more often.
Rulers lie, politicians deal, husbands filander, wives cheat, children rebel – it’s been this way since Adam and Eve or the monkey stopped sniffing its own butt, whichever you prefer to believe. And it will never change.

America was built on the foundation that you could be anything you wanted to be, because you were FREE to take the reins of your life and rise to the top. Abraham Lincoln certainly did. It was a situation of “I” can do it because “I” will put the work into it and “I” will fight for it, even by the blood “I” spill.

Now, it’s “me.” Now, people cry out for their government to help “me,” to take care of “me,” to make “me” feel less offended when my neighbor has different beliefs than “me,” or who works harder than “me.” It’s “mine.”

Abraham Lincoln would be ashamed of those who thank him for ending slavery but still demand the government owes them something. The government should owe its people nothing more than national defense and a common monetary currency. Through the federal government, state governments should be left to rule themselves and take care of their people’s individual needs, individually.

Why should a need in California constitute a law in northern Tennessee?

If California has a massive number of legal Hispanic immigrants – legal, mind you – and they want to change their ballots to Spanish, let them. I may not agree with it, but I’m Georgian. I demand of my officials NOT to follow the tide in California, and instead follow the greater majority here in the South and keep English as our official language. If there’s an INS problem in southern Texas, why should that prevent our officials here from working hard to find illegal immigrants – a danger to us all economically and potentially life-threatening – and deporting them as the law requires?

“Shame” is a word that comes to mind when I think of my politicians. I’m ashamed of governors and senators who only work hard enough to satisfy their paying constituency so they can win their seat another year. What happened to U.S. senataorial and house representatives being elected by state legislatures? In that day, those senators were forced to follow the needs of their entire state in the U.S. House and Senate. Now, they just need to satisfy their voter-few here in the state and can largely ignore their state governments.

No wonder the liberals hate America. They’re already ruining it.

Johnathan Cross
Marietta

Humanity can ill-afford pillow-talk of half-measures

At the heart of American society is a core ignorance of humanness – a desire for enlightenment in a being where enlightenment is ill-attainable.

To consider the simple truth of it: Many people believe that because of our heightened forms of technology, the tenure of our species’ stay on this planet and a particular culmination of scientific understanding of our universe, we humans should be able to overcome petty things such as war and fighting, starvation and even disagreement, to be frank.

In this "hopeful world," everyone is perfectly happy with everyone else’s beliefs, little matter how much they differ, and that religion is a base of human history that has helped in the past, but has little to offer in our present day and age.

I offer, to this simplified argument of post-hippy-scientific theology, that humanity is just as base and ignorant today as the very first forms of modern homo-sapien, whether God-made or evolved. Humanity will never reach an all-inclusive state of enlightenment. We were not built for perfection, and to imagine that such imperfect beings could create a perfect society is exactly the kind of flaw that fouled Lenin’s socialist communism.

Peace is not made by laying down your gun, and the radical Islamists know this better than anyone. They want peace – after everyone but them is dead. There will be peace, alright. Just not the kind any civilized nation wants.

To prohibit arms is to create sheep for the slaughter.

To give into absolute tolerance is a marketing ploy for chaos. Order is created by rigidity, and kept by that rigidity being flexible - not taken away.

Humans will always be plagued by sins of moral debasement, greed for power, hunger for carnal pleasures … it takes firm hands of moral standing, in one form or another, to create a firm foundation to affirm a system that allows men and women to find their own paths in life, while still being able to define who they are, what is wrong, what is right, and how they fit in the grand scheme of things.

How is that done?

Finding a moral equivalency between all major forms of thought in a nation that demands religious freedom. Only problem with this is, it’s been tried and has now overflowed with claims that personal carnality is a universal religion unto itself and should therefore supercede any religious interference.

Tell me this: How enlightened are we now? Drugs do not make us more enlightened. Computers do not make us more enlightened. Building skyscrapers and bullet trains do not make us enlightened.

Watching PBS and listening to Sean Penn do not make us enlightened.

What must simplify our lives. Remove ambiguity from your beliefs, from your work, from your lives. Find dedication - to your wife, your husband, your work, your children and your community. Especially, to your God, whomever he may be.

Remove drama and those who cause it from your lives. If someone cannot stop picking at you or gossiping about others in your presence, stop letting them in it. You can be assured that if they talk about others behind their back, they talk about your behind yours.

Allowing people to choose their own morals is one thing, but condoning anything you don't agree with is a lack of definition on your part. Be defined. If you don't know who you are, stop asking others and look at yourself. Define who you are by what you like, what you don't, and who you want to be.

All too often people think they can't change. That's a crock. If you want to be a self-assured person, become a self-assured person. Make decisions and follow those decisions. If you're wrong, avoid making that decision again, learning from your previous mistake, and make the right decision next time. Just because you only have one run-through in this life doens't mean you have to do it perfectly, but it will serve you well to step out, learn quickly, and start being the person you admire, rather than hoping the person you admire will take care of you.

Morals have proven themselves a strong framework of a good life for thousands of years. You may not agree on where it comes from, but principals on murder, theft, adultery, pre-marital sex, godlessness, vagrancy, disrespect of elders and lying are but a few immoral actions the past has proven will do nothing to improve anyone's life, the practitioner or the environmental participants.

Societies with common morals of decency and responsibility have had their peace, and are abundant with good people.

Now can you see where America is fouling? A debasement of ourselves, a giving away of our moral definition, is degrading our nation. When I read the words of an ancient, wise Jewish king, I can't help but feel he was trying to tell the world that simplicity in life was best, because all we had, in the end, was the pleasure of each day; everything built crumbled, everything sought after came to nothing.

We can tell ourselves that allowing a loss of morality across the board won't affect us, even if we have morals, but to think that your environment cannot affect you is naive. Consider the World Wars and America's initial standpoint of non-involvement - the fight came to us.

Eventually, those will morals will no longer be awash in a neutral sea of others' immorality - we will be on the frontline in a fight against those who don't want to be shown how dark they really are. The presence of light always makes the dark angry. The dark wish to snuff out lights for fear of being revealed, and light, as truth, reveals all.

The time for half-measures is over. We can no longer stand idly by as our nation falls prey to the Dark. We cannot turn away and hope it passes over. Like weak Europe to radical Islam, it only makes the beast that much more hungry for our blood. Just as a no-gun zone becomes a prime target for a mass murder, so are those who are ill-prepared to fight for morality against one who is dedicated to wiping them away.

Start defining what you believe - not because of political correctness or fear of being ill-accepted for believing someone is doing something wrong - but because you feel it's the right thing to do, and your god (whomever or whatever that may be) leads you to it. (You can be your own god, though I wouldn't recommend it.)

Johnathan Cross
Marietta

Government Rights

I am neither communist nor socialist. My life does not belong to the group, commune or collective. I demand freedom; freedom to do with my life as I see fit. There is no religion that should dictate how I can or cannot abuse myself that enforces itself through governmental action.

Who is the group to demand my life be preserved? By every right they claim to have to demand I preserve my life, will they not also demand the right to claim my life if they so determine it be best?
In a land of imperative democracy, the personal, God-given right of the citizen is stripped for a “greater good.”

Who’s greater good?

Suicide is considered a travesty by many, and I agree, it’s a terrible thing for a life to end itself. But who am I, or anyone, to dictate to someone else that they can or cannot end their own existence? I don’t believe in assisted suicide, but I believe that should I choose that life is no longer worth living, that I can end it and move onto the next.

Morality? I believe it’s immoral to kill oneself. But the government has no right to dictate my choice of morals, or mortality. The government is here to protect me in national defense and in regulation of national issues (and that would debatable dependant on which political party you might ally yourself to).

Seatbelts becomes another issue. While I understand why an insurance company may charge more if a person isn’t wearing a seatbelt, who is the government to make it mandatory?

A loose passenger in a car filled with seat-belted passengers could be knocked around during an accident and kill all of them. This is true. But what happened to the responsibility of those other passengers to ensure that said passenger was seat-belted?

Oh, sorry. That’s not a word anyone understands anymore: Responsibility.

“But suicide is selfish and would hurt more than just you! It would hurt your family and your children!”
You know what, that is absolutely true.

Know what else?

The government still has no right to dictate that to me.

Johnathan Cross
Marietta