Catching up with Janet Parshall

Last night I had the chance to listen to some recent segments of Janet Parshall's America. Who is Janet Parshall you ask? She is a great God-fearing and Christian woman who does a radio talk show here in the DC area. Her husband, Craig Parshall, is a DC area lawyer and an author who has written a number of fiction novels that I highly reccomend - novels that blend Christianity, Politics, and Law.

All of that said I stumbled across two segments of her show that I found very interesting:

The first of these segments deals with the Israel/Hezbollah (that is to say Iran's terrorist proxy that is fighting a war for it) Conflict. In this segment she talks with one Carolyn Glick, a writer for the Jerusalem Post, about the current situation - a.k.a. the failure of the recent United Nations Security Council Resolution ("cease-fire") to cause Hezbollah to disarm. In truth this "resolution" does not call for them to disarm, but for them to "talk and discuss".

While all of this diplomacy is going on, Hezbollah is being refurbished and rearmed, ready for what some call Round II. Who won Round I then? The terrorists and Iran - which only embolden's them against the West/Israel/The USA.

So, what happens now? How might this effect the outlook for Israel? Politically, I would imagine that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his Administration is not in good standing with their countrymen. They have been shown as impotent and unable to conduct an effective war. Add to this the idea that a number of the Administration, including Olmert and his wife, are being investigated for corruption or sexual misconduct (in the case of the Minister of Justice).

In light of that, I hope that, provided that Olmert's government falls, Benjamin Netanyahu once again comes to power and wipes the walls, and the floor, with these Iranian proxy fighters. Netanyahu believes as the late Ronald Regan did - that peace comes through strength.

Secondly, I caught a segment that had to do with the recent ruling by a judge in Detroit (a judge that was shopped around for) that ruled that the NSA program to monitor terrorist activities (no it is NOT a domestic spying program) has been deemed unconstitutional. This decision has been appealed by the government, and there is a STAY in place (meaning that the NSA program is still in place and being used until the decision comes down).

The Plaintiff here is the ACLU and some of it's clients (thus this should be one's first clue that something is fishy). The Judge herself describes this program accruately when she said that this program "monitors international calls" - thus busting the myth that this is a "domestic spying program" - it isn't.

One of the biggest issues in this case, as in any case is that of standing, or a solid and valid reason as to why one would bring this case forward in the first place - in other words what is the damage that is being done, what is the injury to the plaintiff(s). In a nutshell the "standing" is as follows - that clients of the ACLU are afraid to call the ACLU because they believe that the government might listen in on those calls! I am not making this up, and I am glad I'm not.

Personally I think that this is great, that people are afraid to support it, as the ACLU has been one of the main proponents of "upholding the Wall of Seperation of Church and State" that they tout as the high idea in America, when in fact, thanks to the court, they have warped, broken down, and rebuilt - and inso doing have perverted the original intent of the First Ammendment - that is to say that there was never intended to be a seperation between religion and the public square (which according to the actual document at the National Archives is actually the third ammendment [or Article]).

This however is a discussion for another post...