Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Merry C____________

Skye Puppy has a great post about the Happy Holidays vs Merry Christmas thing, including some intersting comments from a Rabbi Lapin. Good reading.

The Pupster wraps it up with this suggestion:

We talked about this, including the various stores that have instructed their employees to say "Happy Holidays," in our Bible Study class on Sunday. Our teacher had a good suggestion.

When you go into a store to do your Christmas shopping, ask to speak to the manager (a checkout clerk can't be counted on to relay the message). Ask the manager if the store's employees are wishing people "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays."

If it's the holiday greeting, then let the manager know how disappointed you are. "Oh, that's too bad. I don't want to buy holiday gifts. I'm doing my Christmas shopping." Then leave the store.

Our teacher expects to do most of his Christmas shopping this year at little boutique shops that wish him "Merry Christmas," rather than at the big stores who are afraid of December's "C word." I may be doing the same.
Max Boot on "White Flag Democrats"

Boot is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He states:

Just a few years ago, it seemed as if the Democrats had finally kicked the post-Vietnam, peace-at-any-price syndrome. Before the invasion of Iraq, leading Democrats sounded hawkish in demanding action to deal with what Kerry called the "particularly grievous threat" posed by Saddam Hussein. But it seems that they only wanted to do something if the cost would be minuscule. Now that the war has turned out to be a lot harder than anticipated, the Democrats want to run up the white flag.

The Baathists and their jihadist allies were planning a ruthless terrorist campaign even before U.S. troops entered Iraq. Their calculation was that if they killed enough American soldiers, the American public would demand a pullout.So far the terrorists' plan seems to be working. Even most Republican senators are demanding a withdrawal strategy. But it is the Democrats who are stampeding toward the exits. Apparently the death of about 2,100 soldiers over the course of almost three years is more than they can bear. Good thing these were not the same Democrats who were running the country in 1944, or else they would have pulled out of France after the loss of 5,000 Allied servicemen on D-day.

The Democratic mindset — cakewalk or cut and run — has already had parlous consequences. It is the reason why President Clinton did not take meaningful action against Al Qaeda in the 1990s. He figured that a serious military response — an invasion of Afghanistan or even a covert campaign to aid the Northern Alliance — would run steep risks, like body bags coming home. So he limited himself to flinging a few cruise missiles at empty buildings, leading our enemies to think that we were, in Osama bin Laden's words, a "paper tiger" that could be attacked with impunity.

A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq today, aside from sparking a Balkans-style civil war in which hundreds of thousands might die, would confirm this baleful impression and encourage Islamo-fascists to step up their predations.
"Things may develop faster than we imagine," Al Qaeda's deputy commander, Ayman Zawahiri, apparently wrote to Abu Musab Zarqawi, the top terrorist in Iraq. "The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam — and how they ran and left their agents — is noteworthy." Even more noteworthy is that so many Democrats seem so sanguine about letting history repeat itself.,0,520033.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

If George Bush was as competent in communicating the benefits of aggressive strength as the Democrats are in communicating flacid and insipid weakness... the Republicans and the war effort would be miles ahead.

Senator Harry Reid Leaks

I found this story by John Fund through Betsy's Page. Its maddening... both that it happened, and that Harry Reid is still employed.
Fund writes:

Last Wednesday, the Minority Leader appeared on KRNV-TV's "Nevada Newsmakers" program and dropped a stunning revelation. He had been informed just that day that Osama bin Laden was killed in the giant Pakistan earthquake last month. "I heard that Osama bin Laden died in the earthquake, and if that's the case, I certainly wouldn't wish anyone harm, but if that's the case, that's good for the world."

Intelligence analysts tell me that the only proper action by a top U.S. Senate leader who has been given such information is radio silence. If the report is true, such information is best released at a moment of the U.S. government's choosing. For one thing, as long as the information is tightly held, it can be used to sift out electronic intercepts that might lead to other Al Qaeda leaders. On the other hand, if Mr. Reid's public speculation proves groundless, it only embarrasses the U.S. and contributes to enemy morale. Here's hoping Al Qaeda figures aren't soon appearing on Al Jazeera television chortling about the clueless Mr. Reid.

Earlier this month, Mr. Reid was eager to keep discussions of intelligence matters under wraps. For little apparent reason, he invoked a seldom-used rule that forced the Senate to go into secret session to debate complaints about pre-war intelligence concerning Saddam's weapons programs. ...

Since we know that Harry Reid is not a stupid man, we can conclude that the safety of our intelligence community and the best interests of our country fall somewhere behind self-aggrandizement in his list of priorities.

Now he does have competition from Senators Leahy, Rockefeller, Durbin, and Wyden for the title of "biggest treasonous leaker" in the Senate, but his performance is noteworthy.

Also noteworthy is his sentiment that he wouldn't wish harm to the mass murderer Bin Laden. The Dems chose this man to lead them?

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Senator Lieberman: Patriot

The Senator from Connecticut is torching his future in the Democrat Party for the sake of the nation and its war on terror. The entire article is a must-read.

UPDATE: I went looking for Left-Wing-Kook reactions to Lieberman's piece in the blogosphere. As you might guess, its very ugly. I guess mavericks are only worshiped when they are Republicans. I don't agree with Senator Lieberman on many issues, but I believe he is a rare Democrat... an honorable man that deserves our respect.
War and the Media

Watching or reading the news is an exercise fraught with negativity which leaves the participant tired, weary, and wondering why President Bush doesn't just accept reality and hand the reigns of government over to the more lucid guidance of Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore. Liberal spin is an ubiquitous and over-powering force that encompasses most every avenue of our news and entertainment culture. Ahh, but some truth here and there elbows its way to the surface of this informational quagmire and spreads the clouds of negativity and misinformation.

A poll quoted in the Washington Post suggests that some sanity in this misled and misinformed country survives:

Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale -- with 44 percent saying morale is hurt "a lot," according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.
Their poll also indicates many Americans are skeptical of Democratic complaints about the war. Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to "gain a partisan political advantage."

A plurality, 49 percent, believe that troops should come home only when the Iraqi government can provide for its own security, while 16 percent support immediate withdrawal, regardless of the circumstances.

I am amazed that the citizens of this country can be blanketed... no, smothered with the words of the anti-bush media and still muster 49% support for any issue related to his leadership. John Leo wonders if the mainstream media knows the stakes:

Can it be that many national reporters are so afflicted by Bush hatred that they can’t let go long enough to report stories straight? Could be. Consider the entire backward-looking thrust of so much reportage, focusing sharply on what happened in 2002 and 2003, less on the stake we have in prevailing in Iraq. If we lose in Iraq, it will be the first great victory for global jihad, with tremendous consequences for the U.S. Can the media get over their obsession with Bush and focus on that?

The answer to Leo's question is ofcourse... No. If our efforts in Iraq and the war on terror are successful it will be in spite of the dark synergy of the media, the Democrats, the terrorists, and other members of the opposing team.

Monday, November 28, 2005

The Real News from Iraqi Bloggers

I was reading a blog page that originates inside Iraq which had posted pictures of American and Iraqi soldiers together at an Iraqi Security Forces Graduation Ceremony. Many of the comments posted observed that these were the types of news and pictures that the mainstream media doesn't publish.

But one comment came from an anonymous radical Muslim:

Should have taken the pictures at closer range : sometimes, it´s hard to see the features of the faces of these traitors. Every single one deserves to die.
Free Iraq !

I assume that to this "anonymous" a free Iraq means an Iraq free of American troops... free of self-determination... free of freedom in general. This person no doubt gets his news from CNN and his encouragement to stay the course from the Democrat leadership in this country. Like the Democrats he is no doubt heavily invested in our failure.

Some of these Iraqi Blog Sites have between 100 and 300 comments after their posts, mostly from Americans. My favorite one gets 64 % of its hits from the U.S. This is no doubt indicative of the hunger for the unbiased news that we are not getting from the mainstream media.

The blog site that posted the pictures is operated by a 35 year-old male from Baghdad. Under the "about me" section he simply writes, "free man!" If the Democrats, the MSM, and other Libs fail to have their way... he will remain free.

Friday, November 25, 2005

Vote for your Republican Presidential Candidate Today!

Hugh Hewitt is taking a Thanksgiving Weekend poll to determine who conservatives want as their presidential candidate in 2008. Go to his site and vote, please. Its fast. Its fun. Its easy.

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Steyn on Zarqawi

Mark Steyn makes a couple points about the bombing in Jordan and what it tells us about the war on terror and Iraq.

I don't know what Islamist Suicide-Bombing For Dummies defines as a "soft target" but a Jordanian-Palestinian wedding in the public area of an hotel in a Muslim country with no infidel troops must come pretty close to the softest target of all time. Even more revealing, look at who Zarqawi dispatched to blow up his brother Muslims: why would he send Ali Hussein Ali al-Shamari, one of his most trusted lieutenants, to die in an operation requiring practically no skill?

Well, by definition it's hard to get suicide bombers with experience. But Mr Shamari's presence suggests at the very least that the "insurgency" is having a hard time meeting its recruitment targets.

True, he (Zarqawi) did manage to kill a couple of dozen Muslims. But what's the strategic value of that? And that worked out well, didn't it? Hundreds of thousands of Zarqawi's fellow Jordanians fill the streets to demand his death.

Did they show that on the BBC? Or are demonstrations only news when they're anti-Bush and anti-Blair? And look at it this way: if the "occupation" is so unpopular in Iraq, where are the mass demonstrations against that? I'm not talking 200,000, or even 100 or 50,000. But, if there were just 1,500 folks shouting "Great Satan, go home!" in Baghdad or Mosul, it would be large enough for the media to do that little trick where they film the demo close up so it looks like the place is packed. Yet no such demonstrations take place.

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

You Gotta Love This Woman

Rush Limbaugh played a recording of "our Jean" speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives. Jean Schmidt, the freshman congresswoman from Ohio, is the lady who defeated Paul Hackett in the recent special election in Ohio.

Schmidt said:
A few minutes ago, I received a call from Colonel Danny Bopp, Ohio representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: "Stay the course." He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message that "cowards cut and run; Marines never do." Danny and the rest of America and the world want the assurance from this body that we will see this through.

At this point the Democrats roundly booed Congresswoman Schmidt. (and, in effect Colonel Bopp, too) This woman has guts.

McCain Begins to Look and Sound Presidential

"If we really want to do well in 2006, we need to have fiscal discipline like Republicans campaigned on. We have lost our way as a party. Our base is deflated and taxpayers don't see any difference between us and the Democrats."

John McCain is no public speaker, but these are the words of a conservative running for the presidency. At least he sounds conservative. Maybe its time we Republicans started to deal with the possibility that the Senator from Arizona may end up being our "lesser of two evils" candidate in 2008.

McCain and fellow-Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina were in Graham's home state campaigning for Republican state Attorney General Henry McMaster, when during an Associated Press interview he also said:
"The message in Iraq is we are making progress... we have to make progress and we regret the loss of every single young American. But the benefits of success are enormous."

Graham added:
"Democrats who have this cut-and-run strategy... the public doesn't want to follow that. They want to follow Republicans who understand the war is not going as well as it should but who understand that our security is better off with a successful outcome in Iraq."

Referring to Graham, McCain said:
"Some people have said this might be a very attractive vice presidential candidate."

I don't think so... what could Graham deliver to McCain's candidacy? South Carolina? If McCain didn't already have this conservative southern state he wouldn't be winning anything anyway.

Senator McCain, of the "gang of fourteen" fame, may desire to be president, but there will first have to be a great deal of fence mending with the conservative base of the Republican party before his run is feasible.

Maybe the fence mending has begun.

Saturday, November 19, 2005

Murtha's Memory

Pennsylvania Democrat Congressman John Murtha announced this week that it was in the United States' best interest to withdraw its troops from Iraq in the next six months. I do not question Murtha's sincerity or his concern for the troops. But I do call into question both his common sense and his memory.

First of all Murtha, a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War knows that U.S. troops are going to be stationed in Iraq for as long as George Bush and his advisors deem their presence necessary. And, if he has been paying attention, he knows that no poll will help George Bush decide. So what should Murtha know that his words will accomplish?

His memory of the Vietnam War should help him understand that anti-war rhetoric, especially on the part of decision-makers in the government, encourages our enemies in Iraq to hang-on just as it did in Vietnam. His common sense should tell him that our enemies will see this as a sign of weakness and our allies will see this as a lack of resolve. His words hurt the efforts towards democratization in Iraq... and most importantly they place our troops in even greater danger. His common sense should tell him this.

On Friday the Republicans in the House brought "immediate withdrawal" up for a vote and it was overwhelmingly rejected 403-3. Like most Democrats, Murtha voted against the measure, saying it was not the thoughtful approach he said he had suggested... bringing the troops safely home in six months. Democrats derided the vote as a political stunt.

I admire the Republicans for trying, through this vote, to send a message to the fledgling Iraqi government... and to our enemies, but it is really just a band-aid placed on the wound that Murtha and other Democrats have inflicted on this nation and its war on terror. The Democrats are at war, but they choose not to fight terrorism... instead they make war on George W Bush and his ability to lead. The Democrat's war hurts our country and our troops... but somewhere I stopped accusing the Democrat Leadership of patriotism.

Hugh Hewitt posts this letter:
Congressman Murtha,
PO Box 780
Johnstown, PA 15907-0780

As a U.S. Army veteran of the Vietnam Era and the father of two sons, one a 6 year Army Veteran and the other a 13 year active duty soldier preparing for his 3rd tour in Iraq, I want you to know that I, and they, feel you have abandoned them today. We have great respect for your honorable service but your past service makes it even worse a betrayal of those who fight today!

My oldest son said it best after 9/11 when I told him “well the American people are behind you now”. His response was “yeah Dad….for how long?” It didn’t take the Democratic Party very long to abandon them. It took you a little longer but the betrayal is complete. We are winning this war everywhere except at home. You have forgotten what it felt like to be a soldier spit on by your fellow citizens. You join the ranks of those who want to drive military recruiters out of the schools. You sir, should be ashamed.

Thursday, November 17, 2005

The Democrat's War

I think we've all wondered how the Democrat's war is effecting the men and women fighting our nation's war in Iraq. These are the Vice President's Remarks at the Frontiers of Freedom Institute 2005 Ronald Reagan Gala:

The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out. American soldiers and Marines are out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures - conducting raids, training Iraqi forces, countering attacks, seizing weapons, and capturing killers - and back home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie.

The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone - but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history. We're going to continue throwing their own words back at them. And far more important, we're going to continue sending a consistent message to the men and women who are fighting the war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other fronts. We can never say enough how much we appreciate them, and how proud they make us. They and their families can be certain: That this cause is right ... and the performance of our military has been brave and honorable ... and this nation will stand behind our fighting forces with pride and without wavering until the day of victory.

We hear the destructive, defeatist words from CNN... to the Daily Show on Comedy Central... to the nation's newspapers... and, incredibly, from the mouths of the people we elect to lead us. And the same question keeps popping into my head; Do these people know that we are at war? Do these people know that our soldiers are in harms way when they spew talking points that encourage our enemies?

Its a crushing realization that our country has fallen so far from the courage and resolve of the World War II generation. What protracted war could this nation ever win when the majority of our own words are written and spoken by those working against victory... working against us. When did treasonous words become free speech? When did the "loyal opposition" become loyal to our failure?

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Thomas Sowell Is My Hero

The next time a Senate hearing addresses the latest call for a rise in the minimum wage and the liberal Senators like Teddy Kennedy begin preaching at us... I wish (...and if I were King this would happen) the conservative Senators would call in Thomas Sowell to give us all a little class in economics.

Note: This guy is on the short list of people I want to meet before I die.

T Sowell writes:
Let us go back a few generations in the United States. We need not speculate about racial discrimination because it was openly spelled out in laws in the Southern states, where most blacks lived, and was not unknown in the North.

Yet in the late 1940s, the unemployment rate among young black men was not only far lower than it is today but was not very different from unemployment rates among young whites the same ages. Every census from 1890 through 1930 showed labor force participation rates for blacks to be as high as, or higher than, labor force participation rates among whites.

Why are things so different today in the United States -- and so different among Muslim young men in France? That is where economics comes in.

People who are less in demand -- whether because of inexperience, lower skills, or race -- are just as employable at lower pay rates as people who are in high demand are at higher pay rates. That is why blacks were just as able to find jobs as whites were, prior to the decade of the 1930s and why a serious gap in unemployment between black teenagers and white teenagers opened up only after 1950.

The net economic effect of minimum wage laws is to make less skilled, less experienced, or otherwise less desired workers more expensive -- thereby pricing many of them out of jobs. Large disparities in unemployment rates between the young and the mature, the skilled and the unskilled, and between different racial groups have been common consequences of minimum wage laws.

Where minimum wage rates are higher and accompanied by other worker benefits mandated by government to be paid by employers, as in France, unemployment rates are higher and differences in unemployment rates between the young and the mature, or between different racial or ethnic groups, are greater.

France's unemployment rate is roughly double that of the United States and people who are unemployed stay unemployed much longer in France. Unemployment rates among young Frenchmen are about 20 percent and among young Muslim men about 40 percent

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Newdow's Money

Here's another reason to elect conservative presidents who will place strict constructionists on the Supreme Court:

Michael Newdow said Sunday that he planned to file a federal lawsuit this week asking for the removal of the national motto, "In God We Trust," from U.S. coins and dollar bills. He claims it's an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and "excludes people who don't believe in God."

Newdow, a Sacramento doctor and lawyer who is an avowed atheist, used a similar argument when he challenged the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools because it contains the words "under God." He took his fight to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2004 said he lacked standing to bring the case because he didn't have custody of his daughter.

... kind of makes you sick, doesn't it.

Monday, November 14, 2005

As Europe Lies Dying

The French government has demonstrated in the past few days that it is nothing but a weak and impotent collection of liberal buffoons. They simply haven't a clue how to handle the riots because, being Leftists... they've been doing everything right all along, and... this shouldn't have happened! Predictably, to the left of these liberals, the Greens, Communists, and human rights groups think the problem is not the gangs of arsonists but "the system" and order, and the police. Its also comical the way the left-wing press in the U.S. continues to call the rioters "youths," which is evidently the politically correct term for violent disaffected Muslim immigrants. Mark Steyn isn't bridled by such inanities and calls it the way he sees it... and his view isn't a fun read.

"More than three years ago, I wrote about the "tournante" or "take your turn" — the gang rape that's become an adolescent rite of passage in the Muslim quarters of French cities — and similar phenomena throughout the West: "Multiculturalism means that the worst attributes of Muslim culture — the subjugation of women — combine with the worst attributes of Western culture — license and self-gratification. Tattooed, pierced Pakistani skinhead gangs swaggering down the streets of northern England areas are as much a product of multiculturalism as the turban-wearing Sikh Mountie in the vice-regal escort." Islamofascism itself is what it says: a fusion of Islamic identity with old-school European totalitarianism. But, whether in turbans or gangsta threads, just as Communism was in its day, so Islam is today's ideology of choice for the world's disaffected.

Some of us believe this is an early skirmish in the Eurabian civil war. If the insurgents emerge emboldened, what next? In five years' time, there will be even more of them, and even less resolve on the part of the French state. That, in turn, is likely to accelerate the demographic decline. Europe could face a continent-wide version of the "white flight" phenomenon seen in crime-ridden American cities during the 1970s, as Danes and Dutch scram to America, Australia or anywhere else that will have them.

As to where Britain falls in this grim scenario, I noticed a few months ago that readers had started closing their gloomier missives to me with the words, "Fortunately I won't live to see it" — a sign-off now so routine in my mailbag I assumed it was the British version of "Have a nice day". But that's a false consolation. As France this past fortnight reminds us, the changes in Europe are happening far faster than most people thought. That's the problem: unless you're planning on croaking imminently, you will live to see it."

Steyn feels the "biculturalism" of Europe makes disaster there a certainty. One way he suggests France might be fixed would be to go truly "multicultural" but he then laments:

But a talented ambitious Chinese or Indian or Chilean has zero reason to emigrate to France, unless he is consumed by a perverse fantasy of living in a segregated society that artificially constrains his economic opportunities yet imposes confiscatory taxation on him in order to support an ancient regime of indolent geriatrics.

To an American conservative the question immediately arises, Why don't the Europeans rise up and address this problem? And fix it? The answer ofcourse is that these Europeans are a later version of the lazy, inattentive Americans who have let our culture slouch towards the liberal mediocrity that has made us what we are today... but a shadow of the World War II generation.

Steyn once said to Hugh Hewitt that the advantage of living in North America is that these bad things will happen in Europe first. Its a wonder that more conservatives in the media and government aren't pointing to Europe and screaming about the obvious and sad results of electing inept, multicultural-loving Leftists to government. As Europe continues to lose its identity its time to pay attention to events across the ocean and hold tight to ours.
A Man of Character

If there was such a place as "The Museum of the Over-Rated", in the lobby there would be a statue of President John F Kennedy. Yes, the same JFK who twiddled his fingers as the Berlin Wall went up... the same JFK who sat on his hands as the freedom fighters at the Bay of Pigs got slaughtered. That JFK.

If there was a "Museum of the Unfairly-Treated and Under-Appreciated" there would be a whole room dedicated to Justice Clarence Thomas.

We should never forget this fine man's humble beginnings and the greatness to which he rose. We should never forget the wisdom, judicial honesty, and common sense that he has brought to the Court.

There is nothing that special in these quotes that I found on the Fox News site... I just wanted the honor of posting his picture on my blog page. These are comments he made about the current "circus" that the Judicial Hearing process has become.

"I think we all should be honest with one another that the only issue, the central issue in all of this, is abortion. It's not the other things that people throw out," he said. "The whole judiciary now is being held, in a sense, hostage to that one issue."

We cannot say that all the examination of nominees has improved the court," said Thomas. Thomas said he has never met a judge who attempted to impose a personal agenda through decisions, so attempting to uncover such people through extensive hearings is pointless.

"The whole process of trying to ferret out the personal agenda through the confirmation process isn't an endeavor that I think is worth the price we are paying," said Thomas. "I think the only thing it does is rats out the agenda of the people asking the questions.",2933,175365,00.html

Star Parker On California's Assault On the Family

This Christian woman is a great spokesperson for the African-American family because of her difficult past and because of her obvious passion for the subject.

"November has been a banner month so far in California for assaulting the traditional family. Last Tuesday, California voters rejected Proposition 73, which would have required parental notification before allowing a minor to receive an abortion. The week before, California's wacko 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that parents do not have "exclusive" right in their children's sex education.

It's not an accident that in polling before the Proposition 73 vote, blacks supported the initiative. It's also not an accident that 75 percent of blacks supported the ban on gay marriage that passed in Texas in the week past.

Blacks are increasingly appreciating that the No.1 challenge in our community is the restoration of family. This is a challenge under any circumstances. All the more so today, in the midst of a prevailing culture that increasingly goes in the opposite direction in the values it promotes.

The very decision of the court tells you what values the government will teach. Marginalize the traditional family and have Justice Reinhardt [of the 9th Circuit], or his equivalent, join you as the co-parent of your kids.

Poor black kids, already coming from broken homes, are forced into broken schools where they are taught the very values that will increase the probability that they will stay poor, as will their children. And liberals think they are our friends?"

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Blogging Orewon the Liberal

I've been chatting back and forth with a seemingly bright guy, though liberal, that goes by the name "Orewon" here in the blogosphere. He currently has a post that explains his disdain for intelligent design being taught in the classroom. I would like to invite my fellow minions and friends from the KP site to visit and give some help to this wayward soul. I would love to read your comments there.

I posted this today on his site challenging his comments on evolution:

Obviously you have made your choice and I am truly and compassionately sorry for you. I hope one day you consider that you are blindly putting YOUR FAITH in the works of men that have proved nothing other than that somewhere in their lives they chose not to believe in God.

Evolution is nothing but a pathetic and desperate attempt by atheists to seek out a justification for rejecting that ubiquitous characteristic that every culture in history has expressed by seeking God. And Orewon, just where do you think that characteristic came from? Just what in the evolutionary cycle favored survival among early humans who sought God? Isn't it amazing that it is universal and yet not "designed" into the human psyche?

You are a smart guy. Life has a way of softening hearts. Maybe it will hit you in your fifties. I try to remember to pray for you... I'll try harder.

Sunday, November 06, 2005

France and the Democrat Party

Sometimes an example of how NOT to do things can be very helpful. If there is a country on this planet that mirrors the soul of the Democrat base in this country it would have to be France. Is there a country anywhere more liberal, more pacifist to the core, more sophisticated and "above it all" than France?

Because the U.S. demonstrated, or at least conveyed weakness in Vietnam, the Iran hostage crisis, and Somalia, Bin Laden misjudged our resolve and attacked us in the 90's and ultimately on 9-11. Ofcourse things did not turn out the way Osama anticipated. Now the country in which his operation was based is voting for its leaders and he is living, presumably, in a cave. Now, instead of fighting Democracy by attacking the U.S. homeland, he is fighting to keep democracy out of Iraq. We're still fighting him, but we're doing it on foreign soil and moderate Muslims are fighting beside us.

So before we turn our government over to the appeasing, pacifist, "lets just get along" purveyors of weakness in the Democrat party, lets take a look at France. The French appeased Islam by betraying the U.S. over the Iraq invasion. The French appeased Islam by embracing Arafat. The French appeased Islam by turning over sovereignty of large portions of its cities to Muslim immigrants.

So, when radical Islam looks at the French does it see a friend? No, it sees weakness and an opportunity to exploit it.

No matter how many times the left-leaning press denies or suppresses it, the riots on French streets are a religious and cultural war. The rioters are not the assimilated French Muslims of the 20th century. They are unhappy, disaffected Muslim youth who are ready to terrorize France and the rest of Europe until they become a world to their liking. The liberals of Europe may appease and "try to understand the anger" right up until the moment they realize all is lost. There are those out there in the blogosphere that believe we are in the first seconds of a cultural and political avalanche that will change Europe forever. Even if the few conservatives left cry for change, the left will counter with a cry of "fascism." (See "Will France Remain French" below)

American liberals and Democrats look at Iraq and see America making enemies. They look at detainees at Guantanimo with compassion and demand legal representation. They undermine the war at home, spend most of their energy going after the President, and approach the war on terror with an academic detachment that is interpreted by radical Islam as nothing less than...weakness.

George Bush has provided the leadership necessary to protect this country. It hasn't been pretty, but it has been what is needed to keep us free. Perhaps liberals need to look at the Iraqis to remember something this nation learned over 200 years ago.
Iraqis are having to fight and risk their lives to hold up that famous purple finger. Its a dangerous and violent birth for their democracy. But maybe for freedom to survive, it must have a painful birth. In this century western culture faces a much more dangerous threat than communism. Our survival depends on the simple recognition that freedom often survives only with the shedding of blood. This is a lesson that the Left will never embrace.

Friday, November 04, 2005

Will France Remain French?

Recently Paris and some 20 surrounding cities have been plagued with rioting. It started in a poor suburb east of Paris named Clichy when Muslim youths were stealing parts from cars parked on the street. The police came, chased the youths, and two young Muslims ended up in an area cordoned-off around an electric pylon where they were subsequently electrocuted.

Amir Taheri writes in the New York Post:
Once news of their deaths was out, Clichy was all up in arms.
With cries of "God is great," bands of youths armed with whatever they could get hold of went on a rampage and forced the police to flee.
The French authorities could not allow a band of youths to expel the police from French territory. So they hit back — sending in Special Forces, known as the CRS, with armored cars and tough rules of engagement.
Within hours, the original cause of the incidents was forgotten and the issue jelled around a demand by the representatives of the rioters that the French police leave the "occupied territories." By midweek, the riots had spread to three of the provinces neighboring Paris, with a population of 5.5 million.

These areas are basically slums made up of Muslim immigrants, mainly from North Africa. Part of the reason why the areas are so poor is that the Muslims have driven out shopkeepers that sold pork or alcohol and have closed down cinemas, theaters, dancehalls, and other establishments associated with the "sinful" French culture. So instead of assimilting into the culture of France these immigrants have made parts of France Muslim and basically kicked out the French.

Taheri continues:
As the number of immigrants and their descendants increases in a particular locality, more and more of its native French inhabitants leave for "calmer places," thus making assimilation still more difficult.
In some areas, it is possible for an immigrant or his descendants to spend a whole life without ever encountering the need to speak French, let alone familiarize himself with any aspect of the famous French culture.
The result is often alienation. And that, in turn, gives radical Islamists an opportunity to propagate their message of religious and cultural apartheid.

This story has been covered by the American press, but in the spirit of political correctness you're usually two or three minutes in before you hear its a Muslim problem.

Ironically, no other country has tried harder to appease the Muslim world than has France. When Chirac opposed the invasion of Iraq I'm sure he figured he would be a hero to Islam. Looking at Paris today it is obvious that appeasement doesn't work.

The population of unassimilated Muslims, through birth rate and immigration, is rising in France much faster than that of the French. Will there one day be civil war? Are these riots the beginning? And when the French ultimately surrender will the Muslims tear down the Cathedrals? Will they destroy all the western art in the Louvre? If France becomes a Muslim-run nation will liberals in America finally realize we are at war?

When Hugh Hewitt interviewed Mark Steyn on the subject of the Muslin riots in Paris, Steyn had this to say about our future:
"I'm sometimes accused of being terribly pessimistic when I speak in North America. And I always tell Americans and Canadians, that the one great advantage people have... there may be a lot of bad news in the world, but the one advantage North Americans have, is that Europe is ahead of you in the line. And you have to learn what's happening. You have to confront honestly what's happening with these disaffected Muslim populations in Europe."

America, liberals and all, needs to wake up and see the opportunity we have in Iraq. If we are successful maybe Iraq, and some day its neighbors, will be the prosperous and free democracies while France and much of Europe struggle in a Muslim theocracy.

Tradition, Head Fakes, and John Paul Stevens

Traditionally Supreme Court Justices retire when a president of the same party is in the White House that was in when he or she was nominated. There is no law that states that this must be so, but it is demonstrably tradition. John Paul Stevens who was nominated by Republican President Ford in 1975 is 85 years old and could possibly be considering retirement while George Bush is still President.

Stevens replaced ailing Justice William O. Douglas who was one of the most colorful and most liberal members in the history of the Court. Douglas, who was nominated by Roosevelt, suffered a stroke during the Ford administration and was unable to hold on until a Democrat was in the White House.

In his book, The Brethren, Bob Woodward suggests that Ford "ofcourse" could not nominate a conservative replacement for the most liberal justice who had ever sat on the bench. This suggest to me that liberals, for some time now, have been trying to tell Republican presidents what sort of nominees for the Court are allowed.

But where does Steven's allegiance lie? Is he loyal to the tradition of the court or is he loyal to the free-wheeling lack of restraint that he has demonstrated in the 30 destructive years that he has plagued the Court? If its the latter I fear he will choose to let someone other than George W. replace him.

His decision may rest upon Robert's and presumably Alito's approach to Roe vs Wade. If their approach is cautious, knowing the votes are not there to overturn, and if their treatment of any legislative tinkering with Roe is couched in a respect for the 33 years of precedent associated with Roe... then Stevens may feel more comfortable stepping down.

If this happens and President Bush is allowed to place another strict constructionist on the Court, then the court will tilt 5/4 to the conservatives, and the state legislatures will be free to carve abortion rights into something that reflects the beliefs and values of their constituents.

As I've said before on this site, the state legislatures in this country are not likely to flat-out ban abortion. But with five strict constructionists on the court, every stipulation, every qualification, and every impediment that state legislatures place in front of the abortion storefront will stand... making the overturning of Roe a formality and moot point.

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

The Democrat's Little Stunt

Betsy Newmark of Betsy's Page presents in depth the story of the Senate Democrat Walk-Out yesterday and sums up with:

Don't be dismayed about what the Democrats did yesterday. It is actually a sign of the weak hand that they're playing. They lost the hope of a Rove indictment or of Libby's indictment being tied to the intelligence leading to the war. All the criticism of Bush's actions about Katrina have been diluted by information of how local and state officials were themselves at fault in so many ways. The nomination of Alito had shifted the conversation and stemmed some of the President's drop in the polls as conservatives return to the fold. The story was shifting to the actions that Bush was announcing yesterday about combatting avian flu. So, all they can do is pull a PR stunt to try to drag the storyline back to their turf. It might have worked for one day, but the Democrats need something positive for their agenda and they haven't been able to come up with a positive agenda for five years.

Harry Reid appeared foolish and childish yesterday to everyone except the ranting nutcases. Frists statement that he could no longer trust Reid did more for the majority than Harry's stunt did for the Democrats.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Alito's Way

As always the most difficult chore in selling a conservative judge to the public is explaing how upholding a badly written, or unpopular law, is the right thing to do. This takes more than a sound bite. This takes participation... thinking, on the part of those being persuaded.

Alito was the lone dissenter in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The law in question stated that a woman must notify her spouse before seeking an abortion, unless special circumstances made this notification an "undue burden" or dangerous. This case will no doubt be the major rallying point for those who wish to thwart this nomination.

In writing his position Alito Stated:

"Whether the legislature’s approach represents sound public policy is not a question for us to decide. Our task here is simply to decide whether Section 3209 meets constitutional standards."

This is a man who understands the role of the Supreme Court.

(Patternico's Pontifications goes into detail here:

Back in the 80's I remember reading in the National Review how a great debate was coming with the Bork nomination... How the brilliance of Robert Bork would come shining through and the liberals in the Senate would be exposed... Mmm Hmm. As it turned out Kennedy's outlandish rhetoric and Biden's feigned inability to understand what-in-the world the good judge meant!!! was far more effective. We've heard the same from today's conservatives who call for a grand examination of the Courts role in governing, and how Mier's wasn't the one to lead it. But I would suggest that if Robert Bork couldn't pull it off then perhaps intelligence and truth is over-rated in the process.

For those of us who watched the Bork hearings it is painfully obvious that being a constitutional scholar is not enough in the politicized atmosphere of Judicial hearings. Charm, an ability to communicate complex legal theory, and a talent for defusing emotionally charged rhetoric is unfortunately a prerequisite for success... at least for strict constructionists. Does Alito have these attributes and abilities?

I think we will learn early-on in the Judiciary proceedings how the Democrats on the committee and in the press will play it. If they see an opening to "Bork" Alito then I believe they will proceed with a grave manner that will all but mask their enthusiasm. But much of the process is in the hands of Alito himself... in his "way"... his manner... in his ability to communicate.