by Lance Thompson

American victories in Iraq following the new strategy employed by General Petraeus continue despite the efforts of the main stream media and political opponents of the war to conceal them. Iraqi civilians are cooperating with American troops to identify terrorists and warn of IEDs. Iraqi military and police personnel are proving increasingly effective at combating the enemy, despite being repeatedly attacked by that enemy. American forces find, capture and kill increasing numbers of al Qaeda leaders and their followers. This means that the American military is not only gaining the upper hand over a devious and dangerous enemy, but also over the treasonous politicians at home who doggedly undermine them and their mission.

One of the most gratifying developments in Iraq was reported on 30 October by worldnetdaily.com . According to worldnetdaily, Iraqi Army soldiers in Besmaya collected $1000 to donate for the relief of victims of the San Diego fires. This money was donated by Iraqi soldiers, not American soldiers fighting in Iraq. The story quoted a report from Sergeant First Class Charlene Sipperly, from Bayfield, Colorado: "Iraqi Army Colonel Abbass, the commander of the complex, presented a gift of $1000 to U. S. Army Colonel Darel Maxfield...to send to the fire victims in California...Colonel Abbass stated that he and the Iraqi soldiers were connected with the American people in many ways, and they will not forget the help that the American government has given the Iraqi people."

Iraqi soldiers, according to corpwatch.org, make about $70 per month. As the representatives and defenders of the new democratic Iraq, they and their families are particular targets for the terrorists who cannot afford to permit a free Iraq to survive. It would be very understandable if the daily threats they confront left them no time to consider the plight of American civilians half a world away living in a safe, bountiful world most of them could never dream of. Yet these Iraqis pooled their meager resources to send a gift to a country that represents the freedom they want for their children and grandchildren.

The ramifications of this event are enormous. Certainly the Iraqi soldiers merit our commendation and appreciation. Their gift is a sincere gesture of mercy to the victims of the wild fires. But it is also a testament to the success of one of the overlooked missions of the American military–representatives of the American spirit.

American soldiers in Iraq aren’t just battling terrorists and insurgents. They are protecting Iraqi civilians; treating the injured and sick; building schools, hospitals and roads; rebuilding homes, power grids and water systems. They give clothes, school supplies, toys and treats to Iraqi children and help their parents understand their roles and responsibilities in a democratic society. American troops are part of the world’s pre-eminent military force, but they are also ambassadors to those who have very little chance of ever personally interacting with an American. To ordinary citizens in foreign lands, our men and women in uniform are the face of America.

Americans in uniform not only represent America’s military might, but also her softer

attributes of mercy, charity and humanity. They are examples of the best our country has to offer, and it is clear that the Iraqi troops in Besmaya have been at least partially inspired by that example.

Long after the buildings are repaired, the wounds are healed, and democracy is firmly established, the Iraqi people will remember the fine young people America sent to their country to bestow the gift of freedom. Perhaps with the passage of time, and the retelling of stories from Iraqi generation to generation, the American troops will be remembered as a little more courageous, more generous, more meritorious than other people simply because of what they accomplished.

But those Iraqis won’t be alone in holding that impression. Most Americans share it.

-=-=-=-=

Lance Thompson lives in Boise, Idaho, where those who serve America in uniform are held in high regard.

One only need change the names “America” to “California” and “Giuliani” to “Schwarzenegger” and you’ll have a recipe for an election win guaranteed to leave a bad taste in Republicans’ mouths.

Click to read more ...

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

For nearly eight months, there has been a spate of articles questioning the religious belief of one presidential candidate: Mitt Romney. This is not because he is the only candidate who happens to be a man of faith, but because he is of the Mormon faith. Every writer that injects a man’s religion into a campaign as an issue has a dearth of negative information to write about. The nonsensical hammering of the Mormon point makes us wonder if the MSM are actually trying to say “First Moron in the White House” – in which case, it’s a wide open field.

Plainly, the liberal media and secular progressives lack a sense of decorum. Each article they write is a deliberate attempt to frame Governor Romney as a probable cultist with designs on America . This predatory rhetoric is nothing more than depraved indifference to logic, trying to obfuscate politics with faith in order to distract attention from the real issues facing Americans.

Let he who is without faith cast the first political stone!

For anyone to describe The Church of Latter Day Saints as a cult, one first needs to understand the unabridged definition of the word “cult,” which is a particular system of religious worship with reference to its rites and ceremonies. Taken literally, this definition would cut a mile-wide swath across all religions.

In a recent Newsweek article, Campaign ’08: The Making of Mitt Romney Jonathan Darman and Lisa Miller , take a sloppy stab at construing that “ Romney has been unable to shake his authenticity problem....” Why? Because he does not choose to focus on his religion but rather on how he can help better serve this country. He is not running for high theological office, but as President of a multi-cultural and religiously diverse nation. They also say: “the fate of Romney ’s candidacy may come down to one question: Can he embrace his own biography to create a political and personal narrative that has heart and soul?” The Newsweek writers will have to build a stronger mousetrap than that.

Would they pose the same question in connection with Hillary Clinton ’s heart and soul, or genuine lack thereof? Was it with her heart, or soul, that she whipped out a fake southern accent for a church rally? Or simply the calculated machinations of her cafeteria Christianity?

Miller and Darman should bag the cuttings on their barber’s floor. That way they’d have limitless hairs to split.

John F. Kennedy very wisely pointed out in his 1960 address to Southern Baptists about his Catholicism:

“But because I am a Catholic and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured—perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again—not what kind of church I believe in for that should be important only to me, but what kind of American I believe in.”

Substitute the word “Mormon” for “Catholic” and it remains the perfect response to an imperfect liberal bone of contention.

Harry Reid is a Mormon. Yet, no matter how annoying his vituperative railing in the Senate is, there are no Republicans who have publicly attributed it to his Mormon faith. Have any of these supposedly fair-minded journalists put forth examples of how Orrin Hatch’s, Harry Reid ’s and other Mormon members of the House and Senate have allowed this so-called “cult” to interfere with their elected office? Has any member of the liberal media ever seen or heard Mitt Romney proselytizing during his term as Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or do they assume he is saving it for a special situation – such as the Presidency?

This is a country founded on religious freedom, therefore it is mind-boggling when secularists (and unfathomable when the media) persecute anyone who does not share their irreverent values, unless, of course, it is to protect the religious freedom of terrorists. John Kennedy pointed out, “we have a system of checks and balances in this country that would not permit a President to subvert the First Amendment guarantees of religious liberty.”

So what are these critics really afraid of?

Unless and until every candidate is subjected to the same battery of questions about their respective faiths, it is time to move on with the election and focus on the strengths each man or woman brings to the table in 2008.

Why Evangelicals Should Support Mitt Romney

You can desecrate the sacred rite of communion in a Catholic church, as some mocking gays in nuns’ habits did in San Francisco, and enjoy the explicit support of the mayor.

However, you can’t erect a manger scene on public property during Christmas. You can’t say a prayer in a public school. If your city seal has any remotely religious image on it, your city will be sued by the ACLU.

You are free to kill an innocent child in the womb. However, you are not free to discourage that violent act within a few hundred feet of facilities where it occurs or where it is encouraged.

You are free to attend the college of your choice. If you attend Harvard, you can take classes studying gender differences in government and sociology. However, if you are the president of Harvard, and suggest that there are differences between the way men and women think, which is obvious to anyone who has more than a one-weekend relationship with a member of the opposite sex, then you can be hounded from your position by radical feminists and their allies.

You can even be the leader of a nation that hates this one, a leader who supplies terrorists with the weapons to kill American soldiers and innocent civilians, a leader who denies the Holocaust that thousands of Americans gave their lives to end, a leader who openly pursues nuclear weapons and threatens neighboring nations with them, and still be invited to speak before students at Columbia University.

However, if you’re a member of a citizen organization dedicated to stopping illegal immigration, and you, too are invited to speak at Columbia University, you won’t get very far. You will be heckled, shouted down, accosted, and strong-armed off the stage by protestors in the time-honored tradition of fascists.

If you’re a student at Columbia who has made the selfless and noble decision to dedicate a portion of his life to the defense of this country, you are free to participate in the ROTC program, but only since Columbia was forced by federal law to make that program available. But you will be required to leave campus, hop a subway to a remote location, and attend your ROTC classes somewhere other than the university that enjoys federal subsidies because Columbia’s administration wants to make the path of the patriot as difficult as possible.

This is the ultimate irony, because the freedoms Americans enjoy are defended by those very Americans who make the choice that Columbia University and the Left so disdain. USA Today this week noted that those who serve and have served in the military are more likely to vote than those who have not. Perhaps this is because they know the cost of freedom, having paid it themselves.