1.  Check out the sites I'm adding.
2.  Post a comment to this entry if you own a blog or know of a blog you think is worthy of being enshrined in my blogroll.

Here we go (in no particular order):

As I've gotten more involved in learning about the political makeup of America, my long-held perceptions of America's Christian heritage, which largely mirrored the traditional Christian view, have been buffeted by secular humanist accounts.  Their version paints an entirely different picture of America's birth in the late 1700's and its maturation during the 19th and 20th centuries.  It is a picture in which the Christian God plays only a peripheral role in our nation's founding and development.

Nathan Tabor of the Conservative Voice has written a wonderful article which greatly fortifies the traditional perception that we are (were) truly a Christian nation.  I encourage you to read the whole thing, but here's the money quote:

... the Supreme Court expressly declared in 1892 that America was indeed a "Christian nation."  Writing the Court's opinion in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, Justice Josiah Brewer cited "the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation." "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind," Justice Brewer wrote.  "It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.  This is historically true.  From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation."

I imagine the history revisionists out there wish Justice Brewer hadn't said that!  You can read Justice Brewer's entire opinion here.  The opinion reads more like a theological examination of the law than a legal document.  In today's America, it would be considered secular heresy by the likes of the ACLU and the People for the American Way.  It sheds a light on the intent of the establishment clause in the first amendment.  Obviously, the intent was never to keep the Christian faith out of government.  Perhaps it was to keep government out of the Christian faith! (And other faiths, for that matter.)

Addendum:  As Judge John Robert's Supreme Court nomination is questioned and debated, liberal senators will undoubtedly grill him on his view of precedent as it pertains to Roe v. Wade.  They will raise a stink if they suspect he is inclined at all to overturn the Court's prior ruling.  Whenever you hear that question arise, be it on the news or in newspaper editorials or during the confirmation hearings themselves, just remember the precedent set by Justice Josiah Brewer.  Maybe Ted Kennedy and Dick Durbin will make sure Judge Roberts upholds that one, too.  Somehow, I think not.  You see, Senators Kennedy and Durbin, et al, believe precedent is vital when they agree with it.  Precedent not to their liking, however, is conveniently ignored and readily discarded.

I wrote here that I believe Roberts will be more like Chief Justice Rehnquist, a solid conservative, than Souter.  After reading this quote, I'm encouraged that I may be right.  I doubt Roberts would fall anywhere close to the center ideologically.

Liberal special interests will, of course, fight this nomination, but his temperament, his intellect, his knowledge of the law, and his very short track record as a judge will make a filibuster politically impractical.  Abortion-rights groups will attack his apparent pro-life stance.  They will point of a trial brief, listing him as one of 6 authors, which contained, "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."  That brief, however, was written by his legal team in the capacity of a lawyer advocating a client's position.  As such, I don't think it will damage his chances at confirmation.

Unlike judges nominated during the Reagan and Bush Sr years, the GOP has a solid majority in the Senate these days.  Barring a blockbuster revelation about the character of Judge Roberts, that GOP majority ensures that the filibuster will be the only way to defeat his nomination.  However, democrats and their allies will be hard pressed to invoke the "extraordinary circumstances" clause in the filibuster deal reached earlier this year.  Once again the wisdom of that deal on the republican side is coming through in spades.

Judge Roberts's confirmation hearings will be filled with a good dose of partisan rhetoric and bickering, but they will not include a filibuster.  Without one, democrats will have no way to stop his appointment.  In the end, in relatively short order, Judge Roberts will be confirmed to the Supreme Court.  I believe he will turn out to be a staunch conservative vote on the Court in the same mode as Chief Justice Rehnquist.

President Bush, in his oft-maligned genius, has picked the perfect person to move this country to the right for the next 30 years or so as a justice on the Supreme Court.  In choosing a man without the hindrances of ideological baggage yet with a strong conservative ideology nonetheless, Mr. Bush has pulled a fast one on Senator Chuck Schumer and his ilk who were amassing their forces to wage war against whomever Bush picked.  They may still attempt war, but even they must know it will be futile.

The strife against agents of the Great Satan and backslidden Muslims around you comes with a price, though, and you've seen these enemies kill or capture many of your men.  You've even heard that other units within your network of insurgents have been completely obliterated.  You wonder how much longer the steady stream of replacements from Saudi, Pakistan and Syria can keep up with the casualties you're experiencing.  You pause to ponder how grateful you are to Allah that the efforts of your troops and the rest of the jihadists continue to be emphasized and trumpeted throughout the world via the press.

It must be an act of Allah, you surmise, that even the press in the infidel countries of Europe and, especially, the United States choose to focus so much on your actions rather than reporting the relative peace of the majority of Iraq and the great strides towards democracy that the people of Iraq have made.  You thank Allah for positive morale and resolute determination that you've seen grow in your men as they see on TV American politicians rail against military involvement in Iraq.  You look at your men and wonder about how many would not have decided to join this struggle had it not been for the constant condemnation of Bush's war from a large number of Americans, the hope-filling cries of quagmire and Viet Nam, and the incessant calls for American troops to abandon the struggle.

Even so, these forces are strong and, to hear Bush speak, America is determined to fight you until you are incapable of waging war.  If only you knew how long they would stay.  If only there were some indication of how much longer you need to resist them.  A particular month would suffice.  Then, you could tell your men, "just hang on until then, and the enemy will leave us, and we will be free to punish these infidels and create another Taliban here in Iraq."

"But," you think to yourself, "the enemy would never provide us with such a motivational tool.  They would be fools to name the day or the month of their withdrawal.  Surely they know that to offer such information would greatly increase the insurgents resolve and practically ensure your victory."

Roused from your thoughts by the sounds of your favorite news program on al Jazeera, you walk inside and sit down in front of your TV.  Then you wipe your eyes in incredulity at the lead story that evening.  The reporter is interviewing several American politicians who are - are they really? - yes, they're calling for a timetable for withdrawing American troops from Iraq!  Buoyed by this unbelievable possibility, you whisper praises to Allah and pray that this timetable becomes a reality.

Let me bring you out of your imaginings and whisper a prayer myself that America will never set a deadline for leaving Iraq.  Certainly few things, the favorable press coverage included, would be as welcome to the terrorists in Iraq as that.  We must stay there until the job is done, or at least until the Iraqis are strong enough to finish it themselves - no matter how long that takes.

Unfortunately, I fear the Iraqi people will have to face this kind of pointless killing many times more as they resist and reject an ideology that would shackle their freedom and imprison their democracy.  Our American soldiers and other coalition forces are present in Iraq, doing what they can to defeat these terrorist murderers.  So are the Iraqis themselves.  Let's do our part, too.  Let's pray for stability and the triumph of democracy in Iraq.  And maybe someday, in the not so distant future, attacks like these will be so few and far between that when they happen, we'll be encouraged by how far we've come, not reminded that we still have a ways to go.

over 12,300 people injured.

Bill Roggio and Marvin Hutchens of Winds of Change.net have created a solemn and telling flash presentation encapsulating the nature of the enemy we face.  The events depicted in it are not a crime spree carried out by some mob boss.  They are acts of war on a global front orchestrated by a warmongering madman bent on world domination.  Some in the far left fringes of this country have compared President Bush and his administration to Hitler and the Third Reich.  Surely, that comparison is infinitely better suited to bin Laden and al Qaeda.  Watch the presentation; let it steel your resolve.  We are at war, and the enemy must be defeated wherever it lives, wherever it hides.

Read more here and here.

The Daily Blog Roundup, barring another faux pas, will commence tomorrow morning.  I apologize for not getting it posted today.

Update:  I need some ideas for blog posts to put in the Roundup.  If you've recently read or written something good, send me an email.

To kick off this new feature, I thought an investigation into the political makeup of this website's audience would be ideal.  So, please take a moment to answer the following question.  Only answer once, and thanks a bunch!

The poll is closed.  The final results are listed below.  Thanks to everyone for participating.

Poll Question:  What ideological label most closely describes you? Selection   Votes Politically Conservative Christian  52% 203 Politically Conservative Non-Christian  6% 22 Politically Libertarian Christian  11% 42 Politically Libertarian Non-Christian  6% 24 Politically Moderate Christian  9% 35 Politically Moderate Non-Christian  3% 13 Politically Liberal Christian  4% 16 Politically Liberal Non-Christian  8% 31 None of the above  1% 5 391 votes total Free polls from Pollhost.com Poll results are subject to error. Pollhost.com does not pre-screen the content of polls created by Pollhost customers.

My aim is to become your everyday portal to the best of the blogosphere.  Because of the vast and ever-expanding number of blogs out there, I am soliciting your help to make this happen.  How can you help?  Simple.  If you own a blog and write a post you're particularly proud of or if you read a blog post that is interesting to you, shoot a quick email to me at blogroundup@electionprojection.com.  For as long as the quantity of requests doesn't make it prohibitive, I'll check out and consider each and every post mentioned in the emails I receive.  Please include the url in the email; that will make my evaluations easier.

To give you an idea of what would make it on the Daily Blog Roundup, here's what I'm looking for in a blog post.