I) To be eligible to be listed on the Blogroll of Blogger's Rally for Bush you must 1) have a blog, 2) keep that blog relatively family-friendly and 3) have joined the Blogger's Rally for Bush.

II) Each Rally-er will post one of the black, support the President buttons (found here) on your homepage as a hotlink to Blogger's Rally for Bush.

III) Once you have done this, email rightfaithjr 'at' yahoo 'dot' com with the words Join Bush Blogroll in the subject. In the email, list the following:

Name of Blog
Link to Homepage.

IV) I will confirm your membership, add your blog to the blogroll, and will email you the blogroll script.

In 2008, Republicans will be vulnerable to the attacks of fiscal and social hypocrisy while Democrats will be tied to the champions of secular progressivists. The Presidential election in 2008 will be the year of the third-party candidate.

Gone are the days of fiscal conservatism. Congressional Republican have rejected conservative economics in favor of pork and soaring deficits. They failed to make permanent the Bush tax cuts, inflation is up, and they can’t muster enough votes to cut the growth in spending from 7.3% to 7.0%. Fiscal conservatism in the Republican Party is beginning to look like a fairy tale: a long, long time ago in a land far, far away. One begins to wonder if the term “fiscal conservatism” was not so much a principled position as much as it was a stand against the Democrat-controlled purse strings for the 40 years prior to the Reagan administration.

Meanwhile, legislative leaders in the GOP are waning on issues close to the heart of social conservatives such as the marriage amendment; they are slow in rejecting embryonic stem-cell research and hate-crimes legislation. Republican leader and Virginia Representative Tom Davis manifested to social conservatives a lack of integrity by suggesting a negative political consequence to the moral issue of abortion. Regardless of his intent, to publicly consider the political consequences of morally right decisions is translated by social conservatives: “fake and unprincipled." Political calculations were at the heart of President Bush’s stealth nomination of Harriet Meirs; social conservatives responded and it cost him dearly.

On the other hand, Democrats have pigeon-holed their agenda through the incremental placation of their wacky, far-left base over the past 5 years and, losing all touch with reality, now look like phony ideologues to the average American. It would take a revolution in the Democrat party occurring through the replacement of Dean, Durbin, Reid, Kennedy, Bayh, and Biden, for this to occur. While Hillary will have stiff competition, she will probably win the Democratic nomination; but, assuming this, not even she will be able to separate herself from, or her need for the support of, Hollywood, the ACLU, George Soros, and Michael Moore.

If Republicans lose in 2008 to Clinton, it’s not going to be because of Clinton’s moderate positions; it will be because they have alienated either fiscal or social conservatives. The primary question (pun completely intended) for Republicans to consider is which nominee eliminates the foothold of a third-party candidate? Consider the following:

Guliani, McCain, and Rice, the poll leaders for the Republican primaries, including Pataki and Romney, alienate social conservatives by waffling on abortion, homosexuality, and/or stem-cell research. Turn the disappointment with Harriet Meirs into apathy and multiply it by twenty and you begin to understand the social conservative response to these individuals. While they may have good leadership skills, they leave room for a third-party presidential candidate like Alan Keyes or Roy Moore to capture a few thousand social conservative votes in each state.

The diarrhea of the budget is a direct result of Republican legislators’ lack of fiscal leadership. Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has rejected social conservatives by supporting embryonic stem cell research and fiscal conservatives by the lack of leadership in the Senate, has no chance of gaining credibility. And while George Allen (barely), Tom Tancredo (most likely) and Sam Brownback (definitely) have the support of social conservatives, they along with McCain (another strike) are part of the problem in the Senate. Their nominations leave room for a libertarian candidate, or someone like Ross Perot, to claim the votes of fiscal conservatives in 2008.

While a third-party candidate may never win, the Republicans currently leading in the primary polls alienate some portion of the conservative base. To alienate fiscal or social conservatives, on top of the hypocrisy these groups are already enduring, allows room for a third-party candidate to capture their devotion. Given the current political environment, a third-party candidate may even appear above the fray and capture more votes. If such a candidate emerges it will be the fault of Republican leadership; and, Hillary Clinton will be the next President.

What is the Blogger's Rally for Bush?
Blogger's Rally for Bush is an opportunity for you to show your support of the President. Consider it an act of rebellion against those who seek to demolish the Bush agenda and nullify the reasons you voted for him (ie. Social Security Reform, Victory in Iraq, pro-family, Tax Reform, pro-small business, whatever). Bloggers Rallying for Bush still support the President and agree that nothing in the past year has occured that would change their 2004 vote for Bush.

How can I be a part of it?
It's simple! 1) Just post the reason you'd vote for President Bush again in the comments section below and 2) proudly display one of the following buttons or banners on your blog linking back to the "Blogger's Rally for Bush."

What's in it for me?
You're supporting the President; isn't that enough? Of course it is, but in addition you can use one of these pretty buttons/banners on your website and your name will be listed on the Blogger's Rally for Bush Blogroll. Click here for complete information on joining the blogroll and getting the blogroll on your site.

What if I don't own a blog or choose not to post a button?
If you don't have your own blog or choose not to post a button, that's fine! You can still join by posting the reason you would vote for the Bush-Cheney ticket again in the comments section below. However, only blogs with a button or banner can be listed in the blogroll.

Do I have to agree with every decision made or position taken to join?
No, you don't. By joining, you are simply consenting that you, broadly speaking, support the President and, knowing now what you didn't know then, would still have voted for him.



Previous Comments:
I voted for him, and would vote for him again, because he said he was going to lower taxes, reform education, and be an advocate for traditional values. He was in his first term and I like what he said about his second term; so I'd vote for him again today!
# posted by Anonymous : 8:54 AM, November 08, 2005

Is it redundant to say I'd vote for the President again? Here are my reasons:
He's pro-child (education, marriage, life, and family values).
Bush is pro-victory in Iraq.
Bush is pro-American military.
He is pro-reform (tax systems and SS).
Integrity--I don't question it.
# posted by JR : 10:31 AM, November 08, 2005

Of course I would vote for him again. He is changing the course of the world and making America safer. He has taken bold steps and major risks to bring about change. That shows an immense sense of mission and courage.
# posted by Gary Aminoff : 11:41 AM, November 08, 2005

I would absolutely vote for him again. He stands for the things that are most important to me--preserving our religious freedom, marriage, the family, the unborn, the strong defense of our nation. I also believe he is a born-again believer. I believe in his integrity and good character, and that's extremely important to me in a president.

No, I don't agree with everything he does and says, but I do respect and admire him.
# posted by Cindy : 12:29 PM, November 08, 2005

Our expectations for a president are tremendous-responsible for our safety, economy,health concerns, education of our children etc. GWB is doing well and although immigration is not at the top of his agenda, he has the rest of his priorities right. Yes, I would vote for him gain.
# posted by Pat in NC : 6:20 PM, November 08, 2005
I would vote for him again, and I'm saddened we have term limits. Our country needs more leaders like George W. Men with integrity, true faith, values, and the courage to speak up for them. He also demonstrates wisdom by the people with whom he surrounds himself as advisors. He's a good listener and he's genuine. The issues he supports - national security, rights of the unborn, protection of marriage, education, the economy, oil in our own country, etc - are those I prioritize as well. I'm thankful our nation has enjoyed the past few years with him and will miss his presence at the helm when he leaves.
# posted by Susan Maurer : 11:03 PM, November 08, 2005

Sign me up, and I am totally swiping some of your pictures ;)
/TJ
... NIF
# posted by TJ : 3:39 PM, November 09, 2005

Hey great site! Keep up the good work!
# posted by J.Wizzle : 4:39 PM, November 09, 2005

I Still Support President Bush and always will. We know what he is capable of because we have seen him in action. His speech today was a great example of that. Sign me up for supporting the president. I am still a proud Bush Cronie!
# posted by Ken : 6:07 PM, November 11, 2005

That was a null-brainer Nov.2 2004. I voted for George W Bush after a lifetime of blindly voting for the "Craps". What is so difficult about admitting to being fooled by professional liars(democrats). I admit it . Too many can't come clean and admit it . Is it that embarrassing ?

Not for me , I now clearly see who is our enemy and the Dems have lost my vote in LA Ca. forever. Bye Bye, see ya . In your pocket no more. I will never knowingly vote for a traitor Fraud Kerry or any of his fellow COMMYCRATS.
# posted by Anonymous : 1:44 PM, November 13, 2005

President Bush, though not perfect, has always seemed to me to be an honest person. We need that. He's also been a great leader of our nation when it has come to response to terrorism. I feel safer having him as my president, and would definitely vote for him again.
# posted by Jeremiah Stoddard : 10:41 PM, November 13, 2005

Alright I'm in. Can I use one of your graphics, linked back to this article of cours?
# posted by Dr. Phat Tony : 7:43 AM, November 15, 2005

I would still vote for Bush because he has never wavered or bowed to political pressure. That is real leadership.
# posted by SimplyKimberly : 1:35 AM, November 16, 2005

anyone joining the rally, can use any of the graphics. Welcome to one and all.
# posted by JR : 8:30 AM, November 16, 2005

Count me in all the way!
http://rightwingtestimonial.blogspot.com
# posted by Daniel Christianson : 6:52 PM, November 16, 2005

I'd vote for him again without a doubt. He knows how important the war on terrorism is and he will not waver!
# posted by J.Wizzle : 3:49 PM, November 17, 2005

Oops, forgot to leave the blog:

http://mlgsac.blogspot.com/
# posted by Michael : 6:28 PM, November 18, 2005

geez, you'd think that I'd know what to do wouldn't you?
I'd vote for Bush again because he's a decent Christian man. The leftists that are trying to destroy him now are just a tool of the real enemy.
# posted by Michael : 6:30 PM, November 18, 2005

Of course I would vote for President Bush again and I will vote for the next Republican nominee in 2008. The defense of our country is critical. Homeland security depends on a President that will not allow adversity to sway his (or her) resolve. Our military needs (has) a steadfast commander and our country needs (has) a man (or woman) of moral integrity. Under liberal leadership America became weak,lazy and vulnerable. Today our military and economy are stronger. We are liberating and changeing the world. Why would we put this heritage back in the hangs of politicians whose platform promotes abortion, tax increases, military cutbacks, and the United Nations and the ACLU?
# posted by Don : 2:09 PM, November 21, 2005

I support President Bush! He has shown overall strong leadership, especially in face of terrorism and in his addresses to other countries.
# posted by TKls2myhrt : 2:56 PM, November 21, 2005

George Bush, although not perfect, is a man of steely determination and conviction. I know where he stands even if I may not agree. He does not wilt under popular pressure.
# posted by ric ottaiano : 12:15 AM, November 22, 2005

I would vote for President Bush again, if it were possible. I believe he is a man of integrity, a many of his word, one who doesn't give in to pressure. He sticks to his guns, regardless of how the polls look!
# posted by Barbara : 12:45 PM, December 06, 2005

I'd vote for Bush again because he's a decent Christian man.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10355980/
# posted by Anonymous : 4:33 PM, December 07, 2005

In 2008, Republicans will be vulnerable to the attacks of fiscal and social hypocrisy while Democrats are tied to the champions of the secular progressivists. The Presidential election in 2008 will be the year of the third-party candidate.

Gone are the days of fiscal conservatism; the Republican Party has rejected conservative economics in favor of pork and soaring deficits. The Senate failed to make permanent the Bush tax cuts, inflation is up, and they can’t muster enough votes to cut the growth in spending from 7.3% to 7.0%. Fiscal conservatism in the Republican Party is beginning to look like a fairy tale: a long, long time ago in a land far, far away. One begins to wonder if the term “fiscal conservatism” was not so much a principled position as much as it was a stand against the Democrat-controlled purse strings for the 40 years prior to (and including for the House) the Reagan administration.

Meanwhile, Republican leaders are waning on issues close to the heart of social conservatism, such as the marriage amendment, and are slow in rejecting stem-cell research and hate-crimes legislation. Republican leader and Virginia Representative Tom Davis manifested to social conservatives a lack of principled integrity by suggesting a negative political consequence to the moral issue of abortion. Regardless of his intent, to publicly consider the political consequences of morally right decisions translates “fake and unprincipled” to social conservatives. Political calculations were at the heart of President Bush’s stealth nomination of Harriet Meirs; social conservatives lost confidence him and it cost him dearly.

On the other hand, Democrats have pigeon-holed their agenda through the incremental placation of their wacky, far-left base over the past 5 years and, losing all touch with reality, now look like phony ideologues to the average American. It would take a revolution in the Democrat party occurring through the replacement of Dean, Durbin, Reid, Kennedy, Bayh, and Biden, for this to occur. While Hillary will have stiff competition, let’s assume that she wins the Democratic nomination. But, assuming this, not even she will be able to separate herself from, or her need for the support of, Hollywood, the ACLU, George Soros, and Michael Moore.

If Republicans lose in 2008 to Clinton, it’s not going to be because of Clinton’s moderate positions; it will be because they have alienated either fiscal or social conservatives. The primary question (pun completely intended) for Republicans to consider is which nominee eliminates the foothold of a third-party candidate? Consider the following:

Guliani, McCain, and Rice, the poll leaders for the Republican primaries, including Pataki and Romney, alienate social conservatives by waffling on abortion, homosexuality, and/or stem-cell research. Turn the disappointment with Harriet Meirs into apathy and multiply it by twenty and you begin to understand social conservative thoughts about these individuals. While they may have good leadership skills, they leave room for a third-party presidential candidate like Alan Keyes or Roy Moore to capture a few thousand votes in each state.

The diarrhea of the budget is a direct result of Republican legislators’ lack of fiscal leadership. Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has rejected social conservatives by supporting embryonic stem cell research and fiscal conservatives by the lack of leadership in the Senate, has no chance of gaining credibility. And while George Allen (barely), Tom Tancredo (most likely) and Sam Brownback (definitely) have the support of social conservatives, they along with McCain (another strike) are part of the problem in the Senate. Their nominations leave room for a libertarian candidate, or someone like Ross Perot, to claim the votes of fiscal conservatives in 2008.

While a third-party candidate may never win, the Republicans currently leading in the primary polls alienate some portion of the conservative base. Alienating fiscally or socially conservative Republicans in 2008 allows room for a third-party candidate to capture their devotion. Given the current political environment, a third-party candidate may even appear above the fray and capture more votes. If such a candidate emerges because Republicans have nominated a social or fiscal ‘moderate’, Hillary Clinton will be the next President.

In his address last night at the air force base in Alaska, President Bush made these comments, “Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever we choose to call this enemy, we must recognize that this ideology is very different from the tenets of the great religion of Islam.” I don’t expect the Commander and Chief to be a chief theologian for any religion, but I did question his comments and have spent my morning learning about the history of Islam. It’s quite interesting.

For millions of Muslims, the majority, the manifestation of their faith is peaceful. Many scholars of the Islamic faith preach against violence (http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=1774&theType=NR), rejecting jihad and the terrorist attacks of September 11 (http://www.cair-net.org/html/911statements.html). I understand that they believe their faith has been hijacked by extremists, Islamofacists, jihadists. But, to say that Islam is a religion of peace seems to be historically inaccurate.

Below is a brief history followed by verses of the Qur’an that demonstrate the foundations upon which the religion was founded. I’ve concluded with a few closing remarks.

Muhammad was born in 570 AD traveling extensively in his youth and learning about the religions of Judaism and Christianity. In 610 AD he receives his first revelations and within three years 40 people accept Islam. Muslims are persecuted during this time. In 620 AD Arabs from Medina (called Yathrib) convert to Islam and travel in an envoy to communicate that they want Muhammad to lead their ummah (community).

In 621 AD, Muhammad is taken by an angel from the Kabah in Mecca (The Dome of the Rock) to Jerusalem to meet Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and others. Later, he is taken to heaven to see signs. In 622, an angel warns Muhammed to flee from Mecca to Medina (hirah, the night of migration) because the leaders of his tribe Quraysh, plan to kill him. Regardless of whether or not they did, the Meccans viewed this as a defection. Those from Mecca came to Medina for revenge which led to the largely defensive battle of Badr where Muslims won. After Badr, Jews in Medina were given the opportunity to stay giving homage due to Muslims, in the form of taxes, or leave. When they chose not to pay the taxes, the Bani Qainuqa Jews were expelled.

In 624 AD, outside of Medina, Muslims lose the battle of Uhud to the Meccans. The Banu Nadir Jews, Banu Quraiza Jews were expelled for collaborating with Meccans. This was followed by the preemptive attacks against the towns at Badr (again) and Banu Mustaliq. The Muslims won the Battle of the Trench outside the city of Medina. Following this were the battles for Khyber (90 miles north of Medina; a victory) and then the battle near Syria at Muta where the Muslim army withdrew in defeat.

After this Muslim victory, the treaty of Hudaybiyyah was reached with the Meccans and then violated. Muhammed gathered an army and marches on Mecca; the city falls without a battle. Following this were the Battles of Hunsin, Auras, Taif and Tabuk. In 632, Muhammad dies the most powerful man on the Arabian peninsula with virtually all tribes joining the ummah (community) if not by surrender, than by force.

After the death of Muhammed, Abu Bakr is appointed caliph (representative). This begins many years of war from 632-634 including battles at Syria, battles of Zu Qissa and Abraq, battles of Buzakha, Zafar and Naqra. Campaigns against Bani Tamim and Musailima, the Liar, campaigns in Bahrain, Oman, Mahrah Yemen, and Hadramaut, raids in Iraq, battles of Kazima, Mazar, Walaja, Ulleis, Hirah, Anbar, Ein at tamr, Daumatul Jandal and Firaz, battles of Basra, Damascus and Ajnadin. After these, Abu Bakr died.

The caliph Umar ibn al-Katthab, extended the battles to neighboring countries including wars the battles of Namaraq and Saqatia. In 635, the Battles of Bridge, Buwaib, Conquest of Damascus, and Battle of Fahl. In 636, Battles of Yermuk, Qadsiyia and conquest of Madain. In 637, the Conquest of Syria, fall of Jerusalem, and the Battle of Jalula. In 638, the conquest of Jazirah. In 639, the Muslims conquered Khuizistan and advanced into Egypt. In 640, Muslims captured the post of Caesaria in Syria, Shustar and Jande Sabur in Persia and fought the Battle of Babylon in Egypt. In 641, the Battle of Nihawand and Conquest Of Alexandria in Egypt. In 642, the Battle of Rayy in Persia and conquest of Egypt. In 643, the Conquest of Azarbaijan and Tabaristan (Russia). In 644, the Conquest of Fars, Kerman, Sistan, Mekran and Kharan. After these Umar was killed by a Persian prisoner of war in a mosque of Medina.

In 644, the caliph Uthman ibn Affan was appointed representative. During his rule, he carried out campaigns in Khurasan, Armeain and Asia Minor, North Africa, the island of Cypress, against the Byzantines, and the Battle of the Masts against the Byzantines. Many Muslims were disaffected by his rule and Uthman was assassinated by Muslim soldiers who proclaim Ali ibn Abi Talib as the new caliph.

During the years 656-660, the new caliphate of Ali ibn Abi Talib, cousin of Muhammad, a five-year civil war ensues, known as the first fitnah (time of temptation) beginning with the Battle of the Camel. Aisha, one of Muhammad's wives lead rebellion against Ali for not avenging Uthman's murder. They are defeated. In Syria the opposition is led by Uthman's kinsman Muawiyyah ibn Abi Sufyan. An attempt to arbitrate leads to Muawwiyyah deposing Ali and proclaiming himself caliph in Jerusalem. Ali is murdered by a Kharajite extremist. Ali's supporters acclaim his son Hasan as the next caliph, but he abdicates and Muawiyyah becomes caliph who starts what becomes known as the Umayyad dynasty (moving the capital from Medina to Damascus).

In 662, Khawarij revolts. In 666, Muslims raid Sicily. In 670, Muslims advance into North Africa, and Kabul (Afghanistan) is conquered. In 672, the island of Rhodes (Greece) is conquered and campaigns begin in Khurasan (Iran). Bukhara (Uzbekistan) becomes a vassal state in 674. Muslims then moved into and occupied Sarnarkand and Tirmiz (Uzbekistan), and sieged Constantinople.

It is estimated that from 623 to 777, there were close to 100 Islamic battles, conquests, or campaigns. “When studied chronologically, the Qur'an concept of war appears to evolve: Stage one: no retaliation (in Mecca), Stage two: defensive fighting permitted (first instruction in Medina); Stage three: defensive fighting commanded (revised instruction in Medina); Stage four: offensive war commanded to kill pagans and humble Christians and Jews (after conquering Mecca)” [Richard P. Bailey, Jihad: The Teaching of Islam From Its Primary Sources - The Qur'an and Hadith] This suggests that depending upon which stage you read, you will find a contextually different stance toward war. This may explain the differences in thinking about jihad.

These words from the Qur’an illustrate how a doctrine of jihad can be derived:

"Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of God; whether he dies or triumphs, We shall richly reward him. ... The true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan ..." (Qur'an 4:74,76)

"The believers who stay at home -- apart from those that suffer a grave impediment -- are not the equals of those who fight for the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God has given those that fight with their goods and their persons a higher rank than those who stay at home ..." (Qur'an 4:95,96)

"Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. ...lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way ..." (Qur'an 9:5)

"Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter: except those that repent before you reduce them ..." (Qur'an 5:34, 35)

"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme" (Qur'an 8:39)

"Prophet, rouse the faithful to arms. If there are twenty steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish two hundred; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding." (Qur'an 8:65)

"Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given...and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Qur'an 9:29)


Any verse taken out of context can be used to mean a variety of things; I may be guilty of doing that here. In addition, history removed from its context can look awfully strange as well. I also understand that the actions of followers like Osama bin Laden and other jihadists do not define what is truth any more than the actions of Jim Baker or Jimmy Swaggert. While I’ll leave room for these errors in interpretations, I’ve concluded that I’m simply not comfortable with calling Islam a religion of peace. In my opinion, it is an inaccurate statement.

These sources were used in the compilation of the above data:
http://www.thewaytotruth.org/prophetmuhammad/trench.html http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/companion/04_abu_bakr.htm http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/companion/12_ali_bin_talib.htm http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/companion/12_ali_bin_talib.htm http://islamicweb.com/history/century7.htm http://www.carm.org/islam/islam_chronology.htm http://al-islam.org/restatement/29.htm http://www.cair-net.org/ http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/islam.htm http://www.geocities.com/badr_313/ http://www.islamicvoice.com/august.98/child.htm http://www.message4muslims.org.uk/Muhammad/LifeofMuhammad/22beyondOhod.htm http://www.sabawoon.com/afghanpedia/KhyberPass.shtm http://www.themodernreligion.com/basic/islam_Chronology_P1.htm


Related Information can be found here:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/001/1.32.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17059
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39116
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/larryelder/2003/11/20/170277.html

I believe in the inerrancy and verbal inspiration of the Holy Scriptures as originally given; that God exists as three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; that Jesus Christ was born, fully man and fully God, by a virgin birth; that the death and bodily resurrection of the Son of God on the cross provides for the redemption of man through a vicarious atonement; that all have sinned and must be regenerated through God’s grace; that this regeneration is not by works, but by faith; that the Holy Spirit is given to the believer for sanctification, holiness, and power for service; that Christ is concerned with the needs, and is active in the life, of every believer; that an actual return of Christ will occur, producing a purifying hope in the believer and incentive in preaching the gospel that all might be saved from eternal judgment.