I have a really dark daydream of a couple of grim-looking men coming to my door one day to inform me that my son has perished in Iraq (he has not yet deployed).  I will doubtless have a bumpy ride through this ordeal.  But I know what document my son signed as he enlisted.  I go into his room and look at it frequently.  It is called the “Oath of Enlistment.”  It has certain things that my son swore to do, and we had some serious discussions prior to him signing about what a solemn duty he was undertaking, with potential for loss of limbs or life.

An Army officer, it seems, has refused orders to deploy to Iraq.  I am sure that the anti-war zealots will hail him as their new poster boy.  In my opinion, he is a liar.  He swore to do certain things and then refused.  This makes him a liar.  It is as simple as that.

Atheist Richard Cohen in his most recent commentary waxes on about things of which he has no understanding (hat tip to Right Wing News).  Our friend at Right Wing News (John Hawkins) takes Mr. Cohen to task, but using a view different from the Calvinian understanding of God’s sovereignty that came from the reformation (or in the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith, God ordains “whatsoever comes to pass”).  Mr. Cohen’s theodicy has been posed and solved a hundred thousand times.  Cohen’s problem is psychological, not logical.  While we cannot reprint huge portions of Hodge, Dabney, and other systematic theologians to responsd to Cohen, we can point our readers to several good, contemporary papers on this issue.  Paul Helm has a great paper entitled “Openness Theology: A Response to Gregory Boyd,” which can be found here.  See Gordon H. Clark on the Sovereignty of God here.  Also see Clark on Determinism and Responsibility here (although there is a typo in the title line).

Update: Some blogs seems to suggest that because of low voter turnout, this election means little to nothing.  Sure.  What do you think would have happened had Bilbray’s position on immigration been directly contrary to the ten points posed below?  Does anyone honestly think the result would have been the same?  Moral of the story: Republicans have no love for the liberal position Bush is taking on immigration.  Neither, in fact, do liberals.  Bilbray took the position on immigration that every Republican should take before and after the upcoming November elections.  In other words, if there was low turnout, then the democratic base turned out, and the republican base turned out.  Now.  Imagine a position on immigration contrary to the one Bilbray took.  Does anyone really think he would have won?  Would the base have turned out?

Brian Bilbray, candidate for House in California, wins, running on the following platform:

Over the next year I will endeavor to commit as many candidates as possible to join me by pledging their support to ten essential border security and immigration reforms. These ten items are:

1. Ending the current “Catch and release” policy by making expedited removal of illegal aliens mandatory and to require the completion of the US-VISIT entry-exit system.
2. Authorizing the deployment of the military on the border to assist in controlling illegal immigration.
3. Construction of a border fence along the U.S.-Mexico border extending from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico, starting with the most heavily trafficked border crossings.
4. Mandatory employer verification of worker eligibility to work in the United States.
5. Stiff penalties for knowingly hiring illegal workers, not fines that are considered “a cost of doing business.”
6. Make clear that local and state authorities are authorized to apprehend illegal aliens in the conduct of their routine duties, a legal uncertainty that has prevented untold thousands of illegal alien captures.
7. Prohibit illegal aliens from any access to Social Security benefits. Unbelievably, current U.S. law allows a loophole for illegal aliens to receive social security benefits. This practice must end.
8. Removing employer tax deductions for wages and benefits paid to illegal aliens.
9. Limiting birthright citizenship to the children of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents.
10. Comprehensive border and immigration enforcement legislation to end countless other loopholes that benefit illegal aliens and those who profit from their crime of illegal presence in the United States, to give law enforcement the tools and permission to enforce the laws and to compensate states for the financial impact of illegal immigration.  

Hopefully, the balance of the House, having watched what happened in liberal California, will take heed.  Perhaps the Senate should listen too?

This post is updated (to add a trackback to Right Wing News and a little comment) for that ridiculous position on war over at the Daily Kos.  Calvin and Aquinas take a very different view — a view in which a warrior can engage in “good wars.”  I’ll side with Calvin instead of Daily Kos.

ORIGINAL POST BELOW:

Nothing can be better than to let John Calvin and Thomas Aquinas speak for themselves on the issue of war.  These studies below are the best that can be found, in my opinion.

This is taken from “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” Book IV, Chapter 20, Sections 11 and 12:

As it is sometimes necessary for kings and states to take up arms in order to execute public vengeance, the reason assigned furnishes us with the means of estimating how far the wars which are thus undertaken are lawful. For if power has been given them to maintain the tranquillity of their subjects, repress the seditious movements of the turbulent, assist those who are violently oppressed, and animadvert on crimes, can they rise it more opportunely than in repressing the fury of him who disturbs both the ease of individuals and the common tranquillity of all; who excites seditious tumult, and perpetrates acts of violent oppression and gross wrongs? If it becomes them to be the guardians and maintainers of the laws, they must repress the attempts of all alike by whose criminal conduct the discipline of the laws is impaired. Nay, if they justly punish those robbers whose injuries have been inflicted only on a few, will they allow the whole country to be robbed and devastated with impunity? Since it makes no difference whether it is by a king or by the lowest of the people that a hostile and devastating inroad is made into a district over which they have no authority, all alike are to be regarded and punished as robbers. Natural equity and duty, therefore, demand that princes be armed not only to repress private crimes by judicial inflictions, but to defend the subjects committed to their guardianship whenever they are hostilely assailed. Such even the Holy Spirit, in many passages of Scripture, declares to be lawful.

But if it is objected that in the New Testament there is no passage or example teaching that war is lawful for Christians, I answer, first, that the reason for carrying on war, which anciently existed, still exists in the present day, and that, on the other hand, there is no ground for debarring, magistrates from the defence of those under them; And, secondly, that in the Apostolical writings we are not to look for a distinct exposition of those matters, their object being not to form a civil polity but to establish the spiritual kingdom of Christ; lastly, that there also it is indicated, in passing, that our Saviour, by his advent, made no change in this respect. For (to use the words of Augustine) “if Christian discipline condemned all wars, when the soldiers asked counsel as to the way of salvation, they would have been told to cast away their arms, and withdraw altogether from military service. Whereas it was said, (Luke 3: 14,) Concuss no one, do injury to no one, be contented with your pay. Those who he orders to be contented with their pay he certainly does not forbid to serve,” (August. Ep. 5 ad Marcell.)

But all magistrates must here be particularly cautious not to give way, in the slightest degree, to their passions. Or rather, whether punishments are to be inflicted, they must not be borne headlong by anger, nor hurried away by hatred, nor burn with implacable severity; they must, as Augustine says, (De Civil. Dei, Lib. 5 cap. 24,) “even pity a common nature in him in whom they punish an individual fault;” or whether they have to take up arms against an enemy, that is, an armed robber, they must not readily catch at the opportunity, nay, they must not take it when offered, unless compelled by the strongest necessity. For if we are to do far more than that heathen demanded who wished war to appear as desired peace, assuredly all other means must be tried before having recourse to arms. In fine, in both cases, they must not allow themselves to be carried away by any private feeling, but be guided solely by regard for the public. Acting otherwise, they wickedly abuse their power which was given them, not for their own advantage, but for the good and service of others.

On this right of war depends the right of garrisons, leagues, and other civil munitions. By garrisons, I mean those which are stationed in states for defence of the frontiers; by leagues, the alliances which are made by neighbouring princess on the ground that if any disturbance arise within their territories, they will mutually assist each other, and combine their forces to repel the common enemies of the human race; under civil munitions I include every thing pertaining to the military art.

For Aquinas and more on Calvin, see the following excellent paper in the scholarly publication First Things, entitled “Good Wars.”  For link see here.  Believe me … it is well worth the time to study this paper.

Finally, for further study on this issue, see a book that I gave to my son as a gift:

Loraine Boettner, “The Christian Attitude Toward War.”

I will make a post in the future contrasting the Christian attitude towards war with the Islamic attitude towards war.

Bush, 6/6/06, to the Border Patrol in New Mexico: “In order to secure the border, we have to make sure that people don’t feel like they need to sneak across.”

So far many people don’t get it.  A close-off of the border to illegals, all the while allowing massive numbers of “legal” guest workers will not solve the immigrant problem.  It just makes it all legal.  The public (primarily the middle class rate-payer and tax-payer) will still be responsible for the economic overhead that comes with Mexico’s poverty problem being exported to the U.S.

Here is the question: will the House of Representatives fall for it?

Over at the Counterterrorism blog (linked in this site), you will find that there was concern that the Jihadists recently captured in Canada were targeting Pickering Nuclear Power Plant.

American nuclear reactors have to be designed with an overall negative power coefficient.  According to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, general design criterion 11:

The reactor core and associated coolant systems shall be designed so that in the power operating range the net effect of the prompt inherent nuclear feedback characteristics tends to compensate for a rapid increase in reactivity.

Translation: when an incident happens (let’s say, a loss of reactor coolant), the nuclear design of the reactor must be such that without any assistance or interference from humans, the reactor tends to decrease power and shut itself down.

The CANDU reactors in Canada are not U.S. design nor do they have to meet U.S. Code, but they do have a negative overall power coefficient like U.S. reactors.  Also like U.S. reactors, they have strong containment and reactor building designs, as well as serious, heavily armed security, truck barricades and other impediments to vehicular threats.

The very worst that the Jihadists could cause would be some serious financial damage to the reactor site in terms of peripheral equipment (such as step-up transformers, switchyard equipment, etc.).  They could not get close enough even to damage the reactor building structure, much less to cause a release of radioactivity.  And even if all of this did happen, the reactor shuts down because that is the way it is designed.

Shopping malls, drinking water supplies, bridges, tunnels … these things are soft targets.  A nuclear power plant?  Too hard.  They wouldn’t even get close.  No worries.  Security did its job and the Jihadists were caught.  Around nuclear power plants they always will be.

Over at the Counterterrorism blog (linked in this site), you will find that there was concern that the Jihadists recently captured in Canada were targeting Pickering Nuclear Power Plant.

American nuclear reactors have to be designed with an overall negative power coefficient.  According to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, general design criterion 11:

The reactor core and associated coolant systems shall be designed so that in the power operating range the net effect of the prompt inherent nuclear feedback characteristics tends to compensate for a rapid increase in reactivity.

Translation: when an incident happens (let’s say, a loss of reactor coolant), the nuclear design of the reactor must be such that without any assistance or interference from humans, the reactor tends to decrease power and shut itself down.

The CANDU reactors in Canada are not U.S. design nor do they have to meet U.S. Code, but they do have a negative overall power coefficient like U.S. reactors.  Also like U.S. reactors, they have strong containment and reactor building designs, as well as serious, heavily armed security, truck barricades and other impediments to vehicular threats.

The very worst that the Jihadists could cause would be some serious financial damage to the reactor site in terms of peripheral equipment (such as step-up transformers, switchyard equipment, etc.).  They could not get close enough even to damage the reactor building structure, much less to cause a release of radioactivity.  And even if all of this did happen, the reactor shuts down because that is the way it is designed.

Shopping malls, drinking water supplies, bridges, tunnels … these things are soft targets.  A nuclear power plant?  Too hard.  They wouldn’t even get close.  No worries.  Security did its job and the Jihadists were caught.  Around nuclear power plants they always will be.

A good story about making Marines was recently carried in the Parade magazine, and can be found here.  I also cite two books in an earlier post on making Marines: “Making the Corps,” and “Into the Crucible.”  One interesting thing about this story is found in the comments to the story.  One or more comments pertain to how this story has accidentally poor timing given the Haditha incident.

Let me say it as loudly as I can: No, and a thousand times NO!  Look, as the investigation(s) come to a close and whatever legal action is necessary ensues, we will find out the details of what happened.  We do not know now, and so I will not speculate.  In Boot Camp and SOI (School of Infantry) the Marines train killers – killers of the enemy.  They do it with no apologies.  They DO NOT train killers of women and children.  If the worst happens (Marines are found guity of crimes), then those who are found guilty will be punished.  It is not helpful, effective to appease our enemies, effective to appease the anti-war zealots, or honorable for us (brass, military, bloggers and finally the citizens) to engage in self-flagellation or in any way dishonor the Corps over something that a statistically insignificant number of men did (or are alleged to do).  The Marines who were not involved in this should keep their head held high.  This includes almost every member of the USMC.  We should all remember that the honor, dignity and prestige of our Marines, Soldiers, Airmen and Sailors are at stake, and act with decorum in the coming days.  The coming days might be trying and difficult.

In the future I will post more on this incident, including a quote from Ernie Pyle on what war does to soldiers (from his famous “This is Your War”).

Bush discussed his “comprehensive immigration”plan with the U.S. Department of Commerce; the speech can be found here.

Bush continues to propagate myths about immigration that are so brazenly and obviously illogical and wrong-headed that it is amazing that he can do it with a straight face.  For instance, one such illogical statement was that illegal immigrants are “beyond the reach and protection of American law.” I’ll tell you what.  Go to China, preach Christianity on the street corner, and upon being arrested and imprisoned by the police, tell them that because you are not a citizen of China, you are “beyond the reach of Chinese law.”  See how this argument fies (no, I am not suggesting that the U.S. become like China – I am using hyperbole to make a point).  There is another argument routinely proffered: any bill that does not include “comprehensive” measures (what Bush defines as comprehensive, such as a guest worker program, eventual amnesty for those who are here now, etc.) is unrealistic and doomed to failure.  Again, I’ll tell you what.  Go and talk to the Chinese and see how easy it is for “enemies of the state” (e.g., Christians) to get out of the country.  See how effective border guards and fences are for the Chinese.  There is absolutely nothing that makes it necessary to have a guest worker program in order to seal our border.  This is a non sequitur.  But the worst possible quote follows:

There’s a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant and a program that requires every illegal immigrant to leave.

Let’s word this a little differently:

There’s a rational middle ground between granting complete immunity from prosecution and freedom for every felon and requiring each and every felon to go to prison.

How does this last paragraph strike you?

Good Lord.  What could be possessing Bush?  Why does he waste what remaining political capital he has left pushing his immigration policy?

Tim Russert (CNBC) recently did a customarily soft-ball interview with Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong about their new book, “Crashing the Gate.”  The interview (and book) made clear the disdain the Markos and the political left (mainly the grass roots activitsts, bloggers, etc.) have for the inside-the-beltway people, even democrats.  In fact, Markos finds distasteful everything other than “outsider credentials.”  What I found so amusing (and ironic) about this interview was what they two of them think of each other.  Russert has ridiculed Kos for thinking that Gore is electable, while Kos has made quite ugly statements about Russert.  Daily Kos has a commentary on Tim Russert that is about as hateful, vulgar and venomous as a commentary can get.  I know, a web site owner may not be responsible for or necessarily even agree with every entry of every blogger on his site, but this commentary is particularly hateful, and as best as I can tell, represents the attitude of most on the far left towards both Tim Russert and Chris Matthews.  They see these two basically as lap dogs for the RNC and the administration.  For what Kos thinks about Russert, see Here, and followup here and here.  There is a little more on Russert here.  Regarding how the liberal blogs and grass roots activists see Russert, see here.  Be careful.  Some of the entries contain profanity, and most of them are very biting and hateful.

But in the interview, Russert seemed disinterested, almost disengaged.  Markos gushed and waxed on about poor Kos … we get no respect or support compared to the conservative bloggers, and so on and so forth (as if Michelle Malkin gets RNC money to blog!).  In a particularly irrelevant moment, he mentioned that you can drive into Chicago and see billboards of Michael Savage.  You are tempted to ask, “so what?”  Russert stared back with rather empty eyes, and I became disengaged in a little while (I am normally a political junkie and it is not like me to disengage).

Here is the question: will the real lackey stand up?  Did Russert not know what the folks at Kos think of him?  If not, since he himself is included in this beltway insider crowd that they have such disdain for, Russert was woefully unprepared for the interview.  If so, why would he grant the interview?  Did Markos know what Kos thinks of Russert?  If not, is Markos not managing the Kos content as well as he needs to?  If so, why would he go to Russert for the interview to begin with?

In hindsight, the interview would have made much more sense had the following brief discussion occurred on camera just prior to the interview.

Russert: I think you’re a buffoon for thinking that Gore can be elected.

Markos: I think you are a worthless lap dog for the RNC and the administration.  You are the very type we talk about in our new book.

Russert: Very well, since I like to be liked by everyone, how’s ’bout an interview on your book.

Markos: Great! I like to have the respect of lap dogs too, and anything I can do to get inside the beltway so that I can criticize those inside the beltway, I’ll do!  I’ll smile a lot, too.

How pathetic.