The Supporters of Partial Birth Abortion
The act of voting in support of a despicable evil should not be forgotten or swept under the rug.
Let's review: The abortionist delivers the entire baby except for the head. As its little legs kick and its little fists open and close... the abortionist takes shears and cuts a hole in the back of the child's head. He inserts a suction device and sucks out the brains, collapsing the head.
Go to any hospital nursery, look at a newborn, imagine what he looked like the day before, and you see a potential victim of this procedure.
The Senate took a vote on this issue on October 21, 2003, at 05:09 PM. The following monsters voted to keep this practice legal.
Akaka (D-HI), Baucus (D-MT), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Cantwell (D-WA), Chafee (R-RI), Clinton (D-NY), Collins (R-ME), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Dodd (D-CT), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), Graham (D-FL), Harkin (D-IA), Inouye (D-HI), Jeffords (I-VT), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Kohl (D-WI), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Levin (D-MI), Lieberman (D-CT), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Nelson (D-FL), Reed (D-RI), Rockefeller (D-WV), Sarbanes (D-MD), Schumer (D-NY), Snowe (R-ME), Stabenow (D-MI), Wyden (D-OR)
It's a hard thing to dress up infanticide with philosophical arguments... It's an ugly business exchanging your humanity for a few votes and some campaign cash.
In the words (lyrics) of Graham Nash, "Don't the wind blow cold when you're hangin' your soul on the line?"
Monday, January 30, 2006
Hillary Joins Filibuster
My favorite New York Senator (some choice) and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton decided it would be politically expedient to join Kerry and Kennedy in an attempt to obstruct the nomination of Sam Alito to the Supreme Court.
Clinton said, "I do not think Judge Alito would advance the principles Americans hold most dear." Evidently Hillary feels the Americans reject representative democracy and "hold most dear" being ruled by nine unelected judges. That's my gal.
Since a filibuster will add to the Democrat's loser-reputation for being obstructionists (see former SD Senator and minority leader Tommy-Tom Daschle) Hil must be shoring up the support from the lunatic-left that's been slipping lately.
After all, Cindy Sheehan... the Mother Theresa of the Left, has threatened to run against Senator Diane Feinstein in California, I assume because Di Fi isn't liberal enough. (that makes you stop and think, doesn't it?) Could Sean Penn move to New York and challenge a liberally unfaithful Hillary? Could it happen? Could anything these people do legitimately qualify for "surprise" status?
My favorite New York Senator (some choice) and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton decided it would be politically expedient to join Kerry and Kennedy in an attempt to obstruct the nomination of Sam Alito to the Supreme Court.
Clinton said, "I do not think Judge Alito would advance the principles Americans hold most dear." Evidently Hillary feels the Americans reject representative democracy and "hold most dear" being ruled by nine unelected judges. That's my gal.
Since a filibuster will add to the Democrat's loser-reputation for being obstructionists (see former SD Senator and minority leader Tommy-Tom Daschle) Hil must be shoring up the support from the lunatic-left that's been slipping lately.
After all, Cindy Sheehan... the Mother Theresa of the Left, has threatened to run against Senator Diane Feinstein in California, I assume because Di Fi isn't liberal enough. (that makes you stop and think, doesn't it?) Could Sean Penn move to New York and challenge a liberally unfaithful Hillary? Could it happen? Could anything these people do legitimately qualify for "surprise" status?
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Vacation's End
My vacation is over today. Thats why I look like this. Oh sure, I knew it wouldn't last forever, but this week went way too fast. (Do I look well in this picture? Maybe I should call in sick Monday.)
Surely a man of my warmth, wisdom, and sensitivity shouldn't have to work. I'm kind. I'm well-mannered. I whine a little, but other than that... And who came up with this five day work week anyway? What were they thinking? I'm not Superman. I can't leap tall buildings in a single bound. (You're disappointed? ...Think how I feel...) In my department there's me, a 24-year-old male, and 7 women. Who do you think does most of the work? MmmHmm. And am I appreciated? ...No I am not. Am I sexually harrassed? ...Not even if I was begging.
You say I should be grateful to have a job? You say I should be thankful that I'm healthy enough to go to work? Well why don't you just shut up.
No, actually I'm a little bored and I miss my friends at work. (he tells himself, knowing it's a ruse.) Once I'm settled in on Monday... once I'm bantering (masterfully) with my rapier-like wit... once I'm flirting (pathetically) with the young women... I'll be ok... probably.
I'm done now.
...thank you.
It Takes A Miwacle
When I was in high school there was a mentally-challenged woman at our church who wanted to sing for the morning services. She did not sing well. Nevertheless, our minister allowed her to sing once or twice per year.
I distinctly remember seeing her stand before the congregation and sing "It took a miwacle to hang the woold in space." I sat in a pew with 8 or 9 other high school boys squirming through this painful and embarrassing moment... and every one of us knew in his heart that letting this woman sing was the right thing to do.
At my present church there has been talk from the leadership that our goal is to provide the best and most appealing worship service to help bring in new converts and members. And they have succeeded in this goal because they put on a very professional and smooth service. Much can be said for being efficient and appealing to the public and I regularly pray for their success.
However the woman mentioned above would not be allowed to sing at our church. Perhaps the leadership thinks such a spectacle might cause someone to be "turned off" and not accept Jesus... to which I would remind them that it's the Gospel, not our management of it, that produces the "miracle" of a changed heart. More likely they think that someone might opt for a church that provides a better time... which would suggest that it's a business decision.
We the members of the 21st century Church do a lot of thinking... but I wonder sometimes if God isn't in Heaven saying, "Uh oh, they're thinking again..."
I would suggest that as our churches get bigger and more professional, we may be losing something important. I suppose in Bible Colleges and Seminaries they teach students how to be successful and how to "grow" a church... but I fear our church services are in danger of becoming just one more entertainment... so much like the world.
My high school church wasn't very slick... but on the Sunday that the mentally-challenged woman sang we had a message for our visitors and potential converts that was also appealing... one that spoke of our values and how we treated our family...those in our care. We displayed kindness and acceptance while sitting through this woman's tortured rendition of "It Took a Miracle"... while God tapped his foot to the rhythms of this poor woman's child-like faith.
When I was in high school there was a mentally-challenged woman at our church who wanted to sing for the morning services. She did not sing well. Nevertheless, our minister allowed her to sing once or twice per year.
I distinctly remember seeing her stand before the congregation and sing "It took a miwacle to hang the woold in space." I sat in a pew with 8 or 9 other high school boys squirming through this painful and embarrassing moment... and every one of us knew in his heart that letting this woman sing was the right thing to do.
At my present church there has been talk from the leadership that our goal is to provide the best and most appealing worship service to help bring in new converts and members. And they have succeeded in this goal because they put on a very professional and smooth service. Much can be said for being efficient and appealing to the public and I regularly pray for their success.
However the woman mentioned above would not be allowed to sing at our church. Perhaps the leadership thinks such a spectacle might cause someone to be "turned off" and not accept Jesus... to which I would remind them that it's the Gospel, not our management of it, that produces the "miracle" of a changed heart. More likely they think that someone might opt for a church that provides a better time... which would suggest that it's a business decision.
We the members of the 21st century Church do a lot of thinking... but I wonder sometimes if God isn't in Heaven saying, "Uh oh, they're thinking again..."
I would suggest that as our churches get bigger and more professional, we may be losing something important. I suppose in Bible Colleges and Seminaries they teach students how to be successful and how to "grow" a church... but I fear our church services are in danger of becoming just one more entertainment... so much like the world.
My high school church wasn't very slick... but on the Sunday that the mentally-challenged woman sang we had a message for our visitors and potential converts that was also appealing... one that spoke of our values and how we treated our family...those in our care. We displayed kindness and acceptance while sitting through this woman's tortured rendition of "It Took a Miracle"... while God tapped his foot to the rhythms of this poor woman's child-like faith.
Friday, January 27, 2006
Nominate Hillary... please?
Newsmax reports:
By a margin of three to one, Americans say they would "definitely" vote against Hillary Clinton for president, a CNN/Gallup poll released Tuesday has found.
While just 16 percent say they had made up their minds to back Clinton when she seeks the presidency in 2008, 51 percent say there's no way they want to see the former first lady back in the White House.
Men are the most vehement when it comes to the prospect of another Clinton presidency, with 60 percent telling Gallup they would vote against Hillary for sure.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/25/113250.shtml?s=ic
The mainstream media did its best to cover up this interesting poll... surprise... but good news finds a way.
I pose this question: Is Hillary Clinton really the worst Dem we could elect?
Newsmax reports:
By a margin of three to one, Americans say they would "definitely" vote against Hillary Clinton for president, a CNN/Gallup poll released Tuesday has found.
While just 16 percent say they had made up their minds to back Clinton when she seeks the presidency in 2008, 51 percent say there's no way they want to see the former first lady back in the White House.
Men are the most vehement when it comes to the prospect of another Clinton presidency, with 60 percent telling Gallup they would vote against Hillary for sure.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/25/113250.shtml?s=ic
The mainstream media did its best to cover up this interesting poll... surprise... but good news finds a way.
I pose this question: Is Hillary Clinton really the worst Dem we could elect?
Palestinians Choose War
Debbie Schlussel writes for Front Page Mag:
Remember, this is a region where Nick Berg videos are more popular than porn; where beheadings and multiple wives are more popular sports than even soccer; where sand and wannabe homicide bombers are plentiful, but new ideas and civilized behavior are rare.
Look at the results of "democratic" elections in the Middle East and lot of the Muslim world. It's a world Superbowl victory for Islamists.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21060
George Conway writes for NRO:
The Palestinian people overwhelmingly support terrorism. They support terrorism not just against Jews, but as a recent poll shows, they are big fans of al Qaeda's attacks against Americans, and support attacks even against Europeans, who are much less favorably disposed toward Israel than we. And if it is terror that the Palestinians like, then why shouldn't they vote for the best terrorists on the ballot? Which is exactly what they did. If Osama bin Laden had been running, he probably would have won too. That's democracy for you — the people get what they want, for better or for worse, for good or for evil.
http://conways.nationalreview.com/
The Palestinians are not the exception. They are just one diseased organ in this sick part of the world.
This is why we need to remain active in the region. This is the war we didn't ask for but must fight to remain free. This is why we must drill for oil in Anwar. This why we must rethink immigration policies and democratically purge liberals and peaceniks from our government. This is why we must destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities no matter what the cost. This is why we must embrace reality and remain vigilant.
Debbie Schlussel writes for Front Page Mag:
Remember, this is a region where Nick Berg videos are more popular than porn; where beheadings and multiple wives are more popular sports than even soccer; where sand and wannabe homicide bombers are plentiful, but new ideas and civilized behavior are rare.
Look at the results of "democratic" elections in the Middle East and lot of the Muslim world. It's a world Superbowl victory for Islamists.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21060
George Conway writes for NRO:
The Palestinian people overwhelmingly support terrorism. They support terrorism not just against Jews, but as a recent poll shows, they are big fans of al Qaeda's attacks against Americans, and support attacks even against Europeans, who are much less favorably disposed toward Israel than we. And if it is terror that the Palestinians like, then why shouldn't they vote for the best terrorists on the ballot? Which is exactly what they did. If Osama bin Laden had been running, he probably would have won too. That's democracy for you — the people get what they want, for better or for worse, for good or for evil.
http://conways.nationalreview.com/
The Palestinians are not the exception. They are just one diseased organ in this sick part of the world.
This is why we need to remain active in the region. This is the war we didn't ask for but must fight to remain free. This is why we must drill for oil in Anwar. This why we must rethink immigration policies and democratically purge liberals and peaceniks from our government. This is why we must destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities no matter what the cost. This is why we must embrace reality and remain vigilant.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
A Painless Death
Last week the Florida Supreme Court ruled that lethal injection was NOT cruel and unusual punishment. The 6-1 opinion rejected a request for a hearing on the study sought by Clarence Edward Hill, who was set to die Jan. 24th, which suggested that during the process the inmates were still semi-concious but unable to respond to the extreme pain involved when the diaphragm no longer functioned (Pancuronium bromide) and then when the potassium chloride stopped the heart.
I have spent enough time in nursing homes to be able to imagine what it is like to have extreme pain and not be able to respond to it... not be able even to move into a more comfortable position. It helped me understand that there are worse things than letting an older person quietly and comfortably pass... and that worse thing is using medical technology to keep them alive and in pain. I've also wondered if somewhere nursing homes and doctors are keeping people alive for financial reasons (you can't make money off a corpse), but that is a different blog for another time.
While death row is a different situation, I have no desire to place these people in a nightmare scenario.
State Sen. Kyle Janek (Republican, Houston), an anesthesiologist, addressed these questions to my satisfaction. He writes:
It is important to understand that sodium pentothal is given to an inmate 1st to render him completely unconscious and insensible to pain. For example, a normal surgical dose for a man weighing 220 pounds would be about 300 milligrams. Yet for lethal injection, the inmate receives 3 grams - or 10 times the normal amount based on body weight.
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/TXInjection.htm
It sounds to me as if the Left's version of the pro-life movement, the anti-death penalty crowd, was in this case grasping for another straw.
Update: Our old buddy Justice Kennedy has decided to waste everyone's time and grant a stay. I guess precedents for killing are sacred to liberals only when it involves killing a baby.
Last week the Florida Supreme Court ruled that lethal injection was NOT cruel and unusual punishment. The 6-1 opinion rejected a request for a hearing on the study sought by Clarence Edward Hill, who was set to die Jan. 24th, which suggested that during the process the inmates were still semi-concious but unable to respond to the extreme pain involved when the diaphragm no longer functioned (Pancuronium bromide) and then when the potassium chloride stopped the heart.
I have spent enough time in nursing homes to be able to imagine what it is like to have extreme pain and not be able to respond to it... not be able even to move into a more comfortable position. It helped me understand that there are worse things than letting an older person quietly and comfortably pass... and that worse thing is using medical technology to keep them alive and in pain. I've also wondered if somewhere nursing homes and doctors are keeping people alive for financial reasons (you can't make money off a corpse), but that is a different blog for another time.
While death row is a different situation, I have no desire to place these people in a nightmare scenario.
State Sen. Kyle Janek (Republican, Houston), an anesthesiologist, addressed these questions to my satisfaction. He writes:
It is important to understand that sodium pentothal is given to an inmate 1st to render him completely unconscious and insensible to pain. For example, a normal surgical dose for a man weighing 220 pounds would be about 300 milligrams. Yet for lethal injection, the inmate receives 3 grams - or 10 times the normal amount based on body weight.
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/TXInjection.htm
It sounds to me as if the Left's version of the pro-life movement, the anti-death penalty crowd, was in this case grasping for another straw.
Update: Our old buddy Justice Kennedy has decided to waste everyone's time and grant a stay. I guess precedents for killing are sacred to liberals only when it involves killing a baby.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
An Honest Liberal Voice
Joel Stein writes in the LA Times:
I DON'T SUPPORT our troops.
...I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken ...It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward.
The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying.
...when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse.
I know this is all easy to say for a guy who grew up with money, did well in school and hasn't so much as served on jury duty for his country.
I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades.
Seriously, the traffic is insufferable.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein24jan24,0,4137172.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
Thanks for your honesty, Joel. I could write ten thousand words and fail to express the basic truth you just made crystal clear. In the eyes of the Left the troops are guilty. I understand now. That's why you can justify encouraging our enemies with your anti-war protests. The troops are guilty. That's why the liberals in Congress proudly undermine the president in a time of war... giving hope to terrorists inside Iraq. The troops are as guilty as the president is. The troops are just more heavy-handed conservatives... and they need to be defeated... and that's why you give comfort and aid to the people trying to kill them.
Cleverly you have learned from VietNam that it's not wise politically to spit on your enemy when he returns home. But you do loathe the military.
Where have I heard that before?
Joel Stein writes in the LA Times:
I DON'T SUPPORT our troops.
...I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken ...It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward.
The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying.
...when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse.
I know this is all easy to say for a guy who grew up with money, did well in school and hasn't so much as served on jury duty for his country.
I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades.
Seriously, the traffic is insufferable.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein24jan24,0,4137172.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
Thanks for your honesty, Joel. I could write ten thousand words and fail to express the basic truth you just made crystal clear. In the eyes of the Left the troops are guilty. I understand now. That's why you can justify encouraging our enemies with your anti-war protests. The troops are guilty. That's why the liberals in Congress proudly undermine the president in a time of war... giving hope to terrorists inside Iraq. The troops are as guilty as the president is. The troops are just more heavy-handed conservatives... and they need to be defeated... and that's why you give comfort and aid to the people trying to kill them.
Cleverly you have learned from VietNam that it's not wise politically to spit on your enemy when he returns home. But you do loathe the military.
Where have I heard that before?
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
No Love for Joe Among Wild-Eyed Connecticut Dems
This surprises even me. Joseph Lieberman's support for the war has leading Democrats in Connecticut looking to challenge his re-election. Amazing.
Lieberman has the respect of the entire nation... well if you don't count the liberal loons, and is a solid moderate. He is a former vice-presidential candidate for crying out loud!
This is truly a defining moment for the Democrat Party.
And the name being floated to replace him? In an interview with FOXNews.com:
Former U.S. senator and Connecticut Gov. Lowell Weicker said he will challenge Lieberman in 2006 if no credible anti-war Democrat or Republican jumps into the race first.
This is the same Loony-Lowell Weicker that the National Review has had so such fun with in the past. This is just too sweet.
This surprises even me. Joseph Lieberman's support for the war has leading Democrats in Connecticut looking to challenge his re-election. Amazing.
Lieberman has the respect of the entire nation... well if you don't count the liberal loons, and is a solid moderate. He is a former vice-presidential candidate for crying out loud!
This is truly a defining moment for the Democrat Party.
And the name being floated to replace him? In an interview with FOXNews.com:
Former U.S. senator and Connecticut Gov. Lowell Weicker said he will challenge Lieberman in 2006 if no credible anti-war Democrat or Republican jumps into the race first.
This is the same Loony-Lowell Weicker that the National Review has had so such fun with in the past. This is just too sweet.
Conservatives Take Canada
Stephen Harper, a conservative, will be the new Prime Minister of our neighbor to the north. The sun set on solid "red" as the Conservatives dominated in the west, taking 48 out of 56 seats in the Prairies and sweeping all 28 seats in Alberta.
From the AP:
Many Canadians had grown weary of the broken promises and corruption scandals under the Liberal Party and were apparently willing to give Harper the benefit of doubt, despite fears the 46-year-old economist was too extreme in his views opposing abortion and gay marriage.
He sounds OK to me. But I wonder how much trouble he will get from Canada's liberal media. As we Republicans know, success can be twisted to look like a kind of failure. I also wonder if the alternative media in this country or Fox News had any effect on the Canadian election. I wonder if our beloved Democrats feel more isolated this morning.
Stephen Harper, a conservative, will be the new Prime Minister of our neighbor to the north. The sun set on solid "red" as the Conservatives dominated in the west, taking 48 out of 56 seats in the Prairies and sweeping all 28 seats in Alberta.
From the AP:
Many Canadians had grown weary of the broken promises and corruption scandals under the Liberal Party and were apparently willing to give Harper the benefit of doubt, despite fears the 46-year-old economist was too extreme in his views opposing abortion and gay marriage.
He sounds OK to me. But I wonder how much trouble he will get from Canada's liberal media. As we Republicans know, success can be twisted to look like a kind of failure. I also wonder if the alternative media in this country or Fox News had any effect on the Canadian election. I wonder if our beloved Democrats feel more isolated this morning.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Rove on Republican Progress
Karl Rove spoke at the winter meeting of the RNC. Here is a short excerpt:
Four decades ago, the Republican Party was relegated to the wilderness and today Republicans control the White House, the Senate, and the House; a majority of governorships; and in the last several elections, more state legislative seats than in 80 years.
More importantly, we have seen the rise of a great cause. Three Republican Presidents and Republican Congressional majorities have achieved a tremendous amount in two-and-a-half decades. The Cold War was won and today we are winning the war against Islamic fascism. Millions of people who lived in tyranny have been liberated and freedom is spreading across the globe. Republicans rebuilt our national defenses; cut taxes and spurred economic growth; ended stagflation; limited governmental growth; reformed welfare and insisted on accountability and high standards in education; took important steps to protect and strengthen marriage and the family; and stood up against judicial activism and for constitutionalism.
The second paragraph sounds like a winning theme for the 2006 elections. I would just add this line: The Democrats are the party of accusation and rhetoric... The Republicans deal in ideas and accomplishment.
Karl Rove spoke at the winter meeting of the RNC. Here is a short excerpt:
Four decades ago, the Republican Party was relegated to the wilderness and today Republicans control the White House, the Senate, and the House; a majority of governorships; and in the last several elections, more state legislative seats than in 80 years.
More importantly, we have seen the rise of a great cause. Three Republican Presidents and Republican Congressional majorities have achieved a tremendous amount in two-and-a-half decades. The Cold War was won and today we are winning the war against Islamic fascism. Millions of people who lived in tyranny have been liberated and freedom is spreading across the globe. Republicans rebuilt our national defenses; cut taxes and spurred economic growth; ended stagflation; limited governmental growth; reformed welfare and insisted on accountability and high standards in education; took important steps to protect and strengthen marriage and the family; and stood up against judicial activism and for constitutionalism.
The second paragraph sounds like a winning theme for the 2006 elections. I would just add this line: The Democrats are the party of accusation and rhetoric... The Republicans deal in ideas and accomplishment.
Self Portrait
I turned 52 years old on Saturday. That's why I look like this... although I don't think my face is really that fat. My ears are really that big, but my face... In fact, my big ears generally make my face look thinner but it seems they are letting me down these days. If you click on my face it will become its "actual size," depending on the size of your monitor... but that may not be a priority for you.
As you might have guessed, self deprecation is a way of life for me. In fact I try to deprecate at least once a day, even if I have to strain to do it.
I purchased a new digital camera for my birthday... you can see it in the mirror. There is nothing quite like being 52 and having a new toy. I'm sure you'll be seeing digital pictures of my vegetable garden later in the year on this site. I'm the Carrot King of my neighborhood. (Yes, I'm proud.) I was thinking I might have a weekly garden-picture moment on my blog... me tilling my garden... me pulling weeds... me looking troubled over blossom end rot... stuff like that. Rivetting journalism at its best.
(Here is an actual photogragh of me holding carrots.)
I turned 52 years old on Saturday. That's why I look like this... although I don't think my face is really that fat. My ears are really that big, but my face... In fact, my big ears generally make my face look thinner but it seems they are letting me down these days. If you click on my face it will become its "actual size," depending on the size of your monitor... but that may not be a priority for you.
As you might have guessed, self deprecation is a way of life for me. In fact I try to deprecate at least once a day, even if I have to strain to do it.
I purchased a new digital camera for my birthday... you can see it in the mirror. There is nothing quite like being 52 and having a new toy. I'm sure you'll be seeing digital pictures of my vegetable garden later in the year on this site. I'm the Carrot King of my neighborhood. (Yes, I'm proud.) I was thinking I might have a weekly garden-picture moment on my blog... me tilling my garden... me pulling weeds... me looking troubled over blossom end rot... stuff like that. Rivetting journalism at its best.
(Here is an actual photogragh of me holding carrots.)
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Gays Portraying Christians
SkyePuppy's blog, which is always worth your time, brought to my attention a movie called "End of the Spear" that was made about the five missionaries that were killed in Equador and the families who subsequently took up their work... a story you've probably heard on Moody Radio or from your church's pulpit. It's supposed to be a very good movie that apparently adheres to the "spirit" of the event... (will inspire Christians that know the story)... and yet waters down the Christian evangelism stuff to make it more palatable for other audiences. (Which should surprise no one.)
And now the controversy.... A gay man, Chad Allen, who is also a gay activist is playing one of the missionaries... and some Christians are upset.
So Chad Allen is a sinner. It's too bad that the producers didn't find that out before they cast him. Only men that do not sin should play missionaries.
Oh wait... there are degrees of sin. Its on a ten point scale where child molestors are (10) and those who litter are (1). That of course puts Gays at (8)... (7) if they just kiss.
But I fear the gay community may not sense our Christian love and concern for them when they hear about all this. They may take it the wrong way. They may think some of us are hypocrites (5) and bigots (6). Most of them are liberal Democrats (9) and already don't trust us, causing them to spit on the street (1) at the very mention of the word "Christian."
This little controversy seems to me a no-brainer. If we are against hiring gay actors or seeing a movie with a gay actor, are we against hiring a gay machinist to work the line at Chrysler? Is the LeBaron he makes "unclean?" This is important because there may be a gay person at all the automobile manufacturing plants and I live several miles from my work.
I have not seen this movie, but I would guess that if a Sunday School class of teenagers went to see it they would not be inspired to become gay... but they might be inspired to do something very special with their lives.
I think Jesus would take His Sunday School class to see this movie. Would He pay those ridiculous prices for cokes and popcorn? No, He would not.
SkyePuppy's blog, which is always worth your time, brought to my attention a movie called "End of the Spear" that was made about the five missionaries that were killed in Equador and the families who subsequently took up their work... a story you've probably heard on Moody Radio or from your church's pulpit. It's supposed to be a very good movie that apparently adheres to the "spirit" of the event... (will inspire Christians that know the story)... and yet waters down the Christian evangelism stuff to make it more palatable for other audiences. (Which should surprise no one.)
And now the controversy.... A gay man, Chad Allen, who is also a gay activist is playing one of the missionaries... and some Christians are upset.
So Chad Allen is a sinner. It's too bad that the producers didn't find that out before they cast him. Only men that do not sin should play missionaries.
Oh wait... there are degrees of sin. Its on a ten point scale where child molestors are (10) and those who litter are (1). That of course puts Gays at (8)... (7) if they just kiss.
But I fear the gay community may not sense our Christian love and concern for them when they hear about all this. They may take it the wrong way. They may think some of us are hypocrites (5) and bigots (6). Most of them are liberal Democrats (9) and already don't trust us, causing them to spit on the street (1) at the very mention of the word "Christian."
This little controversy seems to me a no-brainer. If we are against hiring gay actors or seeing a movie with a gay actor, are we against hiring a gay machinist to work the line at Chrysler? Is the LeBaron he makes "unclean?" This is important because there may be a gay person at all the automobile manufacturing plants and I live several miles from my work.
I have not seen this movie, but I would guess that if a Sunday School class of teenagers went to see it they would not be inspired to become gay... but they might be inspired to do something very special with their lives.
I think Jesus would take His Sunday School class to see this movie. Would He pay those ridiculous prices for cokes and popcorn? No, He would not.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Iran... Suicide Nation?
We have seen the results of single suicide bombers. But what will be the effect if Iran's government is willing to commit suicide to destroy Israel? Mutual Assured Destruction worked with the Soviet Union but a disastrous outcome may be welcomed or tolerated by the theocracy in Iran.
I believe we need to make it clear that if a government attacks Israel that the entire weight of the U.S. arsenal will be used to punish that government and remove its ability to threaten its neighbors. It's also important that the Iranian people understand fully their isolation and the danger in which their government is placing them.
The U.S. government should be contacting the Iranian military covertly to see if their leaders approve of the current threats to the security of their lives and families... and offer our support.
This is not the time in our history for weak-kneed leadership. Aggressive and preemptive action must remain our policy as long as there are governments who support terrorism and threaten to produce WMD.
We have seen the results of single suicide bombers. But what will be the effect if Iran's government is willing to commit suicide to destroy Israel? Mutual Assured Destruction worked with the Soviet Union but a disastrous outcome may be welcomed or tolerated by the theocracy in Iran.
I believe we need to make it clear that if a government attacks Israel that the entire weight of the U.S. arsenal will be used to punish that government and remove its ability to threaten its neighbors. It's also important that the Iranian people understand fully their isolation and the danger in which their government is placing them.
The U.S. government should be contacting the Iranian military covertly to see if their leaders approve of the current threats to the security of their lives and families... and offer our support.
This is not the time in our history for weak-kneed leadership. Aggressive and preemptive action must remain our policy as long as there are governments who support terrorism and threaten to produce WMD.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Osama Speaks, Dems Lose
The Democrats just can't catch a break. They get their backs up about NSA wiretaps, and here comes Bin Laden making those wiretaps look comforting. Iraq is a quagmire, and then the Big O suggests it is time for a truce so that Iraq and Afghanistan can be rebuilt.
The Dems are at this moment huddled and wringing their hands.
When you are the party of weakness... its hard to sell yourself in perilous times.
The Democrats just can't catch a break. They get their backs up about NSA wiretaps, and here comes Bin Laden making those wiretaps look comforting. Iraq is a quagmire, and then the Big O suggests it is time for a truce so that Iraq and Afghanistan can be rebuilt.
The Dems are at this moment huddled and wringing their hands.
When you are the party of weakness... its hard to sell yourself in perilous times.
Hillary's Plantation
First of all, do the Dems really want the word plantation floating around considering the way blacks have been treated by Dems in the distant past... not to mention the present? Hillary used this inflammatory word in front of a black audience on MLK day to describe the Republican run House of Representatives... but I think it much better represents the Democrat Party.
Is there anything whiter than the Democrat leadership? Look who's calling the shots! The Republican base wants Condi Rice for its candidate in 2008... and the Democrat's prominent black is...?
The closest thing to a serious black Democrat candidate is Senator Barack Obama... the son of a Kenyan college professor, a white mother from Kansas, born in Hawaii, raised by an Indonesian Muslim step-father, educated in a Catholic school... not exactly an Alabama sharecropper's son, now is he. His heritage in no way reflects black America but his physical appearance... well its all about appearances with the Dems. And this is typical of the "kind" of non-black black man that the Dems are comfortable with.
The Democrats have kept African Americans in their place for several hundred years now. But conservative and moderate blacks are finding a home in the Republican Party... a home where they are embraced and elevated.
First of all, do the Dems really want the word plantation floating around considering the way blacks have been treated by Dems in the distant past... not to mention the present? Hillary used this inflammatory word in front of a black audience on MLK day to describe the Republican run House of Representatives... but I think it much better represents the Democrat Party.
Is there anything whiter than the Democrat leadership? Look who's calling the shots! The Republican base wants Condi Rice for its candidate in 2008... and the Democrat's prominent black is...?
The closest thing to a serious black Democrat candidate is Senator Barack Obama... the son of a Kenyan college professor, a white mother from Kansas, born in Hawaii, raised by an Indonesian Muslim step-father, educated in a Catholic school... not exactly an Alabama sharecropper's son, now is he. His heritage in no way reflects black America but his physical appearance... well its all about appearances with the Dems. And this is typical of the "kind" of non-black black man that the Dems are comfortable with.
The Democrats have kept African Americans in their place for several hundred years now. But conservative and moderate blacks are finding a home in the Republican Party... a home where they are embraced and elevated.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Tom Daschle Considering Run
This is precious.
Former South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle is weighing the possibility of running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.
http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060117/NEWS/60117013
Yes, oh yes... give us another Democrat candidate for president that can't carry his home state. Al Gore accomplished this amazing feat in 2000... this conservative wants to see it again.
This is precious.
Former South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle is weighing the possibility of running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.
http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060117/NEWS/60117013
Yes, oh yes... give us another Democrat candidate for president that can't carry his home state. Al Gore accomplished this amazing feat in 2000... this conservative wants to see it again.
Who Needs the Patriot Act?
The Brownesville Herald reports on the upcoming trial of a couple of drug smugglers who evidently were courting the possibility of smuggling some even more dangerous cargo:
Recorded telephone conversations authorized under the U.S. Patriot Act and a court order captured the La Feria truck driver referring to the 20 men as “gente de Osama” or “Osama’s people.”
During a Jan. 5, 2005, telephone conversation, Exinia described the men as “Iraqis,” ages 25 to 33, who were willing to pay $8,000 for transportation past Border Patrol checkpoints in South Texas and into the U.S. interior.
Exinia mentioned that eight of the men were coming to Progreso, northwest of Brownsville. He said they were “dangerous” and “really bad people.” They carried guns and made the smuggler that was helping them “afraid.”
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/ts_more.php?id=68871_0_10_0_C
Let the Dems and the ACLU have the microphone so they can express their hostility towards our security methods. For Republicans and other sane portions of our society, this issue is a winner.
The Brownesville Herald reports on the upcoming trial of a couple of drug smugglers who evidently were courting the possibility of smuggling some even more dangerous cargo:
Recorded telephone conversations authorized under the U.S. Patriot Act and a court order captured the La Feria truck driver referring to the 20 men as “gente de Osama” or “Osama’s people.”
During a Jan. 5, 2005, telephone conversation, Exinia described the men as “Iraqis,” ages 25 to 33, who were willing to pay $8,000 for transportation past Border Patrol checkpoints in South Texas and into the U.S. interior.
Exinia mentioned that eight of the men were coming to Progreso, northwest of Brownsville. He said they were “dangerous” and “really bad people.” They carried guns and made the smuggler that was helping them “afraid.”
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/ts_more.php?id=68871_0_10_0_C
Let the Dems and the ACLU have the microphone so they can express their hostility towards our security methods. For Republicans and other sane portions of our society, this issue is a winner.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Impeach Bush?
In concert with Al Gore's tirade, Zogby ran a poll asking if Americans favored Congress looking into the matter of impeachment.
SkyePuppy has a great post on the subject.
http://skyepuppy.blogspot.com/2006/01/zogby-poll-on-impeaching-bush.html
Update:
I just checked the blogosphere and the left-wing loons are going nuts over Gore's speech and the Zogby Poll. One reported that a majority of Americans wanted the president impeached... not exactly what the poll indicated... but accuracy never got in the way of the Left.
In concert with Al Gore's tirade, Zogby ran a poll asking if Americans favored Congress looking into the matter of impeachment.
SkyePuppy has a great post on the subject.
http://skyepuppy.blogspot.com/2006/01/zogby-poll-on-impeaching-bush.html
Update:
I just checked the blogosphere and the left-wing loons are going nuts over Gore's speech and the Zogby Poll. One reported that a majority of Americans wanted the president impeached... not exactly what the poll indicated... but accuracy never got in the way of the Left.
The Golden Globe Awards
Hollywood isn't just about making money. They have several liberal causes that they promote through their products and these promotions are more a kind of subtle societal indoctrination than entertainment.
One of these causes is to change the way America perceives homosexuality, and those who are most susceptible to their influences are the young.
While I'm sure for many in Hollywood their motivation is compassion, there is nothing compassionate about facilitating the development of appetites and habits that lead to disease and an early death.
Walter E Williams writes:
According to a study titled, "The Longevity of Homosexuals," in the Omega Journal of Death and Dying in 1994, the median age of death from AIDS is 37 and death from other causes 42. In another study, "Does Homosexual Activity Shorten Life?" in Psychological Reports in 1998, the average life expectancy of homosexuals is 20 to 30 years less than heterosexuals.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/walterwilliams/2003/12/31/160650.html
Today, confused young men who are looking for identity, love, and acceptance are lured into a destructive life-style... the same young men that would perhaps have grown past this vulnerability 50 years ago.
What I have heard from sources I trust is that human sexuality is not black and white, or positive and negative. It lies on an arc. There is a gray area and that gray area is more expansive and accessible in the young.
I know every human being is different, but I figure there are many men and women walking around out there who are leading healthy heterosexual lives only because of the positive and moral influences that accompanied their adolescence and young adulthood.
So here enters Hollywood. Last evening "Brokeback Mountain," the movie about two Gay cowboys, won four Golden Globe Awards and will probably do as well at the Oscars. While Hollywood supports their friends who have already made a perhaps deadly choice, they influence many who are teetering in an insecure world and struggling with their needs, conscience, and self control.
Hollywood isn't just about making money. They have several liberal causes that they promote through their products and these promotions are more a kind of subtle societal indoctrination than entertainment.
One of these causes is to change the way America perceives homosexuality, and those who are most susceptible to their influences are the young.
While I'm sure for many in Hollywood their motivation is compassion, there is nothing compassionate about facilitating the development of appetites and habits that lead to disease and an early death.
Walter E Williams writes:
According to a study titled, "The Longevity of Homosexuals," in the Omega Journal of Death and Dying in 1994, the median age of death from AIDS is 37 and death from other causes 42. In another study, "Does Homosexual Activity Shorten Life?" in Psychological Reports in 1998, the average life expectancy of homosexuals is 20 to 30 years less than heterosexuals.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/walterwilliams/2003/12/31/160650.html
Today, confused young men who are looking for identity, love, and acceptance are lured into a destructive life-style... the same young men that would perhaps have grown past this vulnerability 50 years ago.
What I have heard from sources I trust is that human sexuality is not black and white, or positive and negative. It lies on an arc. There is a gray area and that gray area is more expansive and accessible in the young.
I know every human being is different, but I figure there are many men and women walking around out there who are leading healthy heterosexual lives only because of the positive and moral influences that accompanied their adolescence and young adulthood.
So here enters Hollywood. Last evening "Brokeback Mountain," the movie about two Gay cowboys, won four Golden Globe Awards and will probably do as well at the Oscars. While Hollywood supports their friends who have already made a perhaps deadly choice, they influence many who are teetering in an insecure world and struggling with their needs, conscience, and self control.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Planned Parenthood's Help
Last week we heard from Peter Heck about the tasteless "condom key chains" that Planned Parenthood is promoting, and then today I find this from www.lifenews.com and www.msnbc.com :
Consumer Reports, in a study focusing on the effectiveness and quality of condoms, says Planned Parenthood offers the worst ones on the market.
In its February issue, the magazine takes the nation's largest abortion operation to task for its poorly made contraception devices. Two of the three types of free condoms offered by Planned Parenthood received low ratings in terms of strength and reliability.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat1085.html
MSNBC reports on the Consumer Reports story:
A melon-colored model distributed by Planned Parenthood performed the worst, bursting during a test in which the latex condoms were filled with air.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6786982/
So Planned Parenthood is giving out free condoms to kids... and these condoms are some of the least reliable on the market? I guess it makes business sense... people in the abortion business spend 25 cents on a defective condom and reap a few hundred dollars in charges for their services. (This would be like a lung doctor handing out cigarettes?)
Abortion is big business, and anyone or any business whose ethics would allow them to snuff out a child... would surely have no trouble passing out defective condoms to stimulate profits. And, our taxes support them.
Thanks to http://farrightwing.blogspot.com/ and http://preachingpolitics.blogspot.com/ .
Last week we heard from Peter Heck about the tasteless "condom key chains" that Planned Parenthood is promoting, and then today I find this from www.lifenews.com and www.msnbc.com :
Consumer Reports, in a study focusing on the effectiveness and quality of condoms, says Planned Parenthood offers the worst ones on the market.
In its February issue, the magazine takes the nation's largest abortion operation to task for its poorly made contraception devices. Two of the three types of free condoms offered by Planned Parenthood received low ratings in terms of strength and reliability.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat1085.html
MSNBC reports on the Consumer Reports story:
A melon-colored model distributed by Planned Parenthood performed the worst, bursting during a test in which the latex condoms were filled with air.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6786982/
So Planned Parenthood is giving out free condoms to kids... and these condoms are some of the least reliable on the market? I guess it makes business sense... people in the abortion business spend 25 cents on a defective condom and reap a few hundred dollars in charges for their services. (This would be like a lung doctor handing out cigarettes?)
Abortion is big business, and anyone or any business whose ethics would allow them to snuff out a child... would surely have no trouble passing out defective condoms to stimulate profits. And, our taxes support them.
Thanks to http://farrightwing.blogspot.com/ and http://preachingpolitics.blogspot.com/ .
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Albert Arnold Gore Jr on Wiretaps
Former Senator, former Vice President, former presidential candidate, former journalist, former internet inventor, former college professor, former environmentalist loon, former inspiration for the movie Love Story, former pro-life supporter, former soldier, former stirring speaker, and former poster-boy for the concept that anyone can make it in America... Al Gore, will speak at the DAR Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C on Monday about his concern over the NSA wiretaps and how they are violating the constitutional rights of terrorists here and abroad.
Former Republican Congressman, and now Libertarian and ACLU employee Bob Barr will attempt to destroy any credibility he [Bob Barr] might have left by introducing Mr Gore. Barr, who abandoned the Republican Party and publicly endorsed the presidential ticket of the Libertarian Party, was called upon to lend to the gathering the illusion of bipartisanship.
In what is being called a major address, Gore's appearance will further notify terrorists of our security tactics and redefine the word major.
Gore' speech will also address torture as an example of the administration's efforts to extend executive power, and will demonstrate the evil of torture by requiring listeners to sit through Gore's speech.
Former Senator, former Vice President, former presidential candidate, former journalist, former internet inventor, former college professor, former environmentalist loon, former inspiration for the movie Love Story, former pro-life supporter, former soldier, former stirring speaker, and former poster-boy for the concept that anyone can make it in America... Al Gore, will speak at the DAR Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C on Monday about his concern over the NSA wiretaps and how they are violating the constitutional rights of terrorists here and abroad.
Former Republican Congressman, and now Libertarian and ACLU employee Bob Barr will attempt to destroy any credibility he [Bob Barr] might have left by introducing Mr Gore. Barr, who abandoned the Republican Party and publicly endorsed the presidential ticket of the Libertarian Party, was called upon to lend to the gathering the illusion of bipartisanship.
In what is being called a major address, Gore's appearance will further notify terrorists of our security tactics and redefine the word major.
Gore' speech will also address torture as an example of the administration's efforts to extend executive power, and will demonstrate the evil of torture by requiring listeners to sit through Gore's speech.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Robertson and Son
Friday morning as I lay in bed watching TV, contemplating the dreaded and monumental task of swinging my feet out onto the floor, I came upon a TBN interview with Gordon Robertson, son of the Christian Broadcasting Network's founder, Pat Robertson.
Gordon was talking about his childhood and how he grew up on powdered milk and dishes his mother made with soybeans. His grandfather was a U.S. Senator, but evidently his father Pat was determined to rely on God to provide their needs. Gordon said that visiting his grandparents was like visiting another world.
It must have been a world Gordon liked because, instead of considering the ministry, he became a lawyer and practiced for ten years.
Then he went on a missionary trip to India and his life changed. According to Gordon... during a festival late at night, while he observed an old woman fervently praying to a statue, he heard a voice say to him, "No one has told her." He left the crowded festival and Jesus appeared to him and talked to him.
Whoa Duke! About here in the interview I began thinking of all the strange and embarrassing things Pat Robertson has said in the past few years. Being a believer I know that God can do anything, which includes appearing and speaking to a man... but come on!
I don't know that God is embarrassed by the Robertsons, but I know that those of us who wear the name of Christ... right under our cloak of worldly sophistication... are very embarrassed by these people.
And why is that? Why do I immediately tend to reject such claims? It may in part be because when I'm honest with myself I have to admit that I don't want Jesus to appear to me. I don't want a "Road to Damascus" kind of experience that Gordon Robertson claimed to have had, because Jesus might ask me to do something specific that I don't want to do... like go to Ninevah, or something. You see, I've got God under control. He gets 20 minutes every morning for Bible reading and prayer... I squeeze him in for the occasional (and very timid) witness... and ofcourse I have Him pencilled in on Sundays. The fact is, my faith more often resembles a life-style than a passion, and I wonder if that is an embarrassment to God.
Well Gordon went on to say that CBN is working at starting a "700 Club-like program" in India... in the Hindi language... that I figure could one day reach a billion people.
Now I haven't the resources to determine if God actually appears and speaks to the Robertsons. But I've decided that it would be wrong for me to criticize or even look down my nose at individuals who seek to bring the Gospel to a billion people. I don't think I was called to India... but I know I wasn't called to berate or belittle Pat Robertson and Son.
Friday morning as I lay in bed watching TV, contemplating the dreaded and monumental task of swinging my feet out onto the floor, I came upon a TBN interview with Gordon Robertson, son of the Christian Broadcasting Network's founder, Pat Robertson.
Gordon was talking about his childhood and how he grew up on powdered milk and dishes his mother made with soybeans. His grandfather was a U.S. Senator, but evidently his father Pat was determined to rely on God to provide their needs. Gordon said that visiting his grandparents was like visiting another world.
It must have been a world Gordon liked because, instead of considering the ministry, he became a lawyer and practiced for ten years.
Then he went on a missionary trip to India and his life changed. According to Gordon... during a festival late at night, while he observed an old woman fervently praying to a statue, he heard a voice say to him, "No one has told her." He left the crowded festival and Jesus appeared to him and talked to him.
Whoa Duke! About here in the interview I began thinking of all the strange and embarrassing things Pat Robertson has said in the past few years. Being a believer I know that God can do anything, which includes appearing and speaking to a man... but come on!
I don't know that God is embarrassed by the Robertsons, but I know that those of us who wear the name of Christ... right under our cloak of worldly sophistication... are very embarrassed by these people.
And why is that? Why do I immediately tend to reject such claims? It may in part be because when I'm honest with myself I have to admit that I don't want Jesus to appear to me. I don't want a "Road to Damascus" kind of experience that Gordon Robertson claimed to have had, because Jesus might ask me to do something specific that I don't want to do... like go to Ninevah, or something. You see, I've got God under control. He gets 20 minutes every morning for Bible reading and prayer... I squeeze him in for the occasional (and very timid) witness... and ofcourse I have Him pencilled in on Sundays. The fact is, my faith more often resembles a life-style than a passion, and I wonder if that is an embarrassment to God.
Well Gordon went on to say that CBN is working at starting a "700 Club-like program" in India... in the Hindi language... that I figure could one day reach a billion people.
Now I haven't the resources to determine if God actually appears and speaks to the Robertsons. But I've decided that it would be wrong for me to criticize or even look down my nose at individuals who seek to bring the Gospel to a billion people. I don't think I was called to India... but I know I wasn't called to berate or belittle Pat Robertson and Son.
Friday, January 13, 2006
Alito and the Dems
Its been an interesting week. The Dems performed in accordance and proportionally to their character... as did Alito. The Dems followed the money and looked kookie and mean just like their base. Alito followed the same principles he has followed throughout his life and looked... like a Supreme Court Justice. So it goes.
The Committee vote was supposed to take place next Tuesday, but now Senator Leahy wants to postpone that for a week.... more fun and games. According to Fox News the Leftist interest groups that give money to the Democrats have a big war chest to use against Alito by purchasing commercial time targeting the "gang of 14" senators, hoping to persuade them to support a filibuster.
Leahy isn't doing his Senator buddies in the "gang" any favors by postponing the vote. It puts them in a very difficult position. Do they keep their word or do they get the money? Time will tell.
Its been an interesting week. The Dems performed in accordance and proportionally to their character... as did Alito. The Dems followed the money and looked kookie and mean just like their base. Alito followed the same principles he has followed throughout his life and looked... like a Supreme Court Justice. So it goes.
The Committee vote was supposed to take place next Tuesday, but now Senator Leahy wants to postpone that for a week.... more fun and games. According to Fox News the Leftist interest groups that give money to the Democrats have a big war chest to use against Alito by purchasing commercial time targeting the "gang of 14" senators, hoping to persuade them to support a filibuster.
Leahy isn't doing his Senator buddies in the "gang" any favors by postponing the vote. It puts them in a very difficult position. Do they keep their word or do they get the money? Time will tell.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Skye Puppy Rules
The Pupster has a great post that is a must-read. She reports on sources that Teddy-Ted and his buddies conveniently decided to ignore. Don't miss this.
I'm excited about Alito... and Roberts... two great additions to the court... and all that slander and mud-slinging... to no avail... but to ricochet back at the real extremists!?!
well... it should be reported that way...
The Pupster has a great post that is a must-read. She reports on sources that Teddy-Ted and his buddies conveniently decided to ignore. Don't miss this.
I'm excited about Alito... and Roberts... two great additions to the court... and all that slander and mud-slinging... to no avail... but to ricochet back at the real extremists!?!
well... it should be reported that way...
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Slandering Alito
At some point Sam Alito has to say to himself, "I've worked all my life at being a good man and honest judge... I've served my country... I'm respected by my colleagues... my reputation is spotless... and now these Democrats, in front of my family and the entire nation make me out to be a racist... a liar... as they drag through the mud the good name I've spent a lifetime making."
A man's good name is a precious thing. It should be sacrosanct. Those who would steal it, misrepresent it, and bear false witness against it... have no honor. The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are doing a shameful thing... a thing they've done before.
The circular published by the Concerned Alumni of Princeton organization, of which Alito was once a member, has contained inflammatory and hateful rhetoric in the past. But the Democrats know that this has nothing to do with the nominee and in no way reflects the way he has lived his life or performed his duties. Still, Ted Kennedy feels inclined to sit and read these hate-filled words before the cameras, hoping that some of this dirt will stick to Alito. Character assasination is all Kennedy has to use against this judge, and Kennedy's pathetic character does not prevent him from using it.
Martha Alito has handled the lies and insinuations well. It wasn't until Republican Senator Graham apologized to her husband for his fellow Senators' behavior that her feelings finally surfaced in tears. It must be terribly painful to sit and helplessly listen as someone you respect and love is unfairly abused.
But the Democrats will pay a price for this evil. And as the nation continues to lose respect for these honorless men, they have no one to blame but themselves.
At some point Sam Alito has to say to himself, "I've worked all my life at being a good man and honest judge... I've served my country... I'm respected by my colleagues... my reputation is spotless... and now these Democrats, in front of my family and the entire nation make me out to be a racist... a liar... as they drag through the mud the good name I've spent a lifetime making."
A man's good name is a precious thing. It should be sacrosanct. Those who would steal it, misrepresent it, and bear false witness against it... have no honor. The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are doing a shameful thing... a thing they've done before.
The circular published by the Concerned Alumni of Princeton organization, of which Alito was once a member, has contained inflammatory and hateful rhetoric in the past. But the Democrats know that this has nothing to do with the nominee and in no way reflects the way he has lived his life or performed his duties. Still, Ted Kennedy feels inclined to sit and read these hate-filled words before the cameras, hoping that some of this dirt will stick to Alito. Character assasination is all Kennedy has to use against this judge, and Kennedy's pathetic character does not prevent him from using it.
Martha Alito has handled the lies and insinuations well. It wasn't until Republican Senator Graham apologized to her husband for his fellow Senators' behavior that her feelings finally surfaced in tears. It must be terribly painful to sit and helplessly listen as someone you respect and love is unfairly abused.
But the Democrats will pay a price for this evil. And as the nation continues to lose respect for these honorless men, they have no one to blame but themselves.
Alito and Roe
On a couple of my favorite blog sites I witnessed a bit of apprehension on the part of conservatives who were wondering if Alito's testimony at the hearing might suggest that he would NOT vote to overturn Roe vs Wade.
I won't try to analyze Alito's words or try to divine his motivations for speaking the way he did because that is anyone's guess. But here I would like to suggest what would happen if Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, and one other strict constructionist judge, that was confirmed later, decided to overturn Roe... and what would happen if they didn't.
If 5 justices decided to scrap Roe:
In most states the legislatures would transform the abortion laws into a form which would reflect the majority views of the citizens of that particular state. For instance in New York the laws would remain much the same. In a conservative state from the Bible-Belt, such as Mississippi, abortion might be practically outlawed except under special circumstances. The use of RU486 in that state would naturally increase.
If Alito and four other strict constructionists decided NOT to overturn Roe:
In most states the state legislatures could transform the abortion laws to better reflect the majority views of its citizens without fear of the Supreme Court striking down its legislation, because with a majority of strict constructionist judges the Court would rule that the states had the right to make such laws.
Only the outright ban of abortion in one or maybe two states is the difference in the two scenarios.
I would personally like to see Roe overturned, but it would still leave us who are pro-life with much work to do, and I believe our successes would be measured much as they are now... one mother's heart at a time.
Abortion aside, there are so many issues coming down the pike that a strict constructionist such as Alito will help decide wisely... Prayer and other forms of public religious expression... gay marriage... matters of our security, and many more. I believe there is cause for a great deal of optimism.
On a couple of my favorite blog sites I witnessed a bit of apprehension on the part of conservatives who were wondering if Alito's testimony at the hearing might suggest that he would NOT vote to overturn Roe vs Wade.
I won't try to analyze Alito's words or try to divine his motivations for speaking the way he did because that is anyone's guess. But here I would like to suggest what would happen if Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, and one other strict constructionist judge, that was confirmed later, decided to overturn Roe... and what would happen if they didn't.
If 5 justices decided to scrap Roe:
In most states the legislatures would transform the abortion laws into a form which would reflect the majority views of the citizens of that particular state. For instance in New York the laws would remain much the same. In a conservative state from the Bible-Belt, such as Mississippi, abortion might be practically outlawed except under special circumstances. The use of RU486 in that state would naturally increase.
If Alito and four other strict constructionists decided NOT to overturn Roe:
In most states the state legislatures could transform the abortion laws to better reflect the majority views of its citizens without fear of the Supreme Court striking down its legislation, because with a majority of strict constructionist judges the Court would rule that the states had the right to make such laws.
Only the outright ban of abortion in one or maybe two states is the difference in the two scenarios.
I would personally like to see Roe overturned, but it would still leave us who are pro-life with much work to do, and I believe our successes would be measured much as they are now... one mother's heart at a time.
Abortion aside, there are so many issues coming down the pike that a strict constructionist such as Alito will help decide wisely... Prayer and other forms of public religious expression... gay marriage... matters of our security, and many more. I believe there is cause for a great deal of optimism.
Bathus' Gas-Bag Chart
Bathus posted this wonderful chart which shows the number of words used by the Senators as opposed to the nominee in the Alito hearings. Its very revealing.
http://adeimantus.blogspot.com/2006/01/study-reveals-joe-biden-is-judiciary.html
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Alito vs Schumer
Because of a steady flow of work yesterday I saw only two small portions of the Alito judicial hearings, the first of which was Senator Charles Schumer's opening remarks.
Now I know we are taught to love our enemies and bless those who do us wrong. But Senator Schumer's performance left me wondering if he was born of woman or if he was rather belched-up from the bowels of hell. So my question is, if Schumer is the very spawn of Satan do we still have to love him? No doubt there are theologians deliberating on this issue as I write.
The second portion I witnessed was Alito's opening remarks. Did he have notes with him? It looked as if he was relaxed and I thought he represented himself very well. But early-on in today's grilling we'll know the metal of the man.
Hardest for me will be keeping my religion as I watch the hero of Chappaquiddick waxing nobler-than-thou with a man whose character and intellect dwarfs that of Joe's and Rose's last and biggest mistake.
But I believe Schumer will offer up the most effective and formidable challenge to Alito's confirmation... that is, if he concentrates and keeps his head from spinning around.
My apologies to Senator Schumer's mother.
Because of a steady flow of work yesterday I saw only two small portions of the Alito judicial hearings, the first of which was Senator Charles Schumer's opening remarks.
Now I know we are taught to love our enemies and bless those who do us wrong. But Senator Schumer's performance left me wondering if he was born of woman or if he was rather belched-up from the bowels of hell. So my question is, if Schumer is the very spawn of Satan do we still have to love him? No doubt there are theologians deliberating on this issue as I write.
The second portion I witnessed was Alito's opening remarks. Did he have notes with him? It looked as if he was relaxed and I thought he represented himself very well. But early-on in today's grilling we'll know the metal of the man.
Hardest for me will be keeping my religion as I watch the hero of Chappaquiddick waxing nobler-than-thou with a man whose character and intellect dwarfs that of Joe's and Rose's last and biggest mistake.
But I believe Schumer will offer up the most effective and formidable challenge to Alito's confirmation... that is, if he concentrates and keeps his head from spinning around.
My apologies to Senator Schumer's mother.
Monday, January 09, 2006
Best Sitcoms
And now for something really important. Beneath my rough and rugged exterior there lives a certifiable geek. Did I play an instrument in the high school band? Oh yes... I did.
As a geek I love to make lists whose titles involve words like best, biggest, most... etc.
So here are the best sitcoms of all time... or at least of my time.
1) The Dick Van Dyke Show
Great characters. The first year was the weakest, but finished strong. Carl Reiner was a genius.
2) The Andy Griffith Show
Would be #1 except for the post Barney Fife years.
3) The Bob Newhart Show
Great characters and great writing.
4) Mary Tyler Moore Show
Was there a bad episode? Three spin-offs: Lou Grant, Phyllis, Rhoda... and four if you
count the Betty White Show.
5) Seinfeld
Not as broad an audience appeal, but merits top five.
6) I Love Lucy
Timeless.
7) All in the Family
A bit preachy at times, but great entertainment.
8) Cheers
Lost a little when Diane Chambers left, but other strong characters filled in.
9) Barney Miller
You could count on your fingers the scenes outside that one squad room.
10) Frazier
Sophistication with belly-laughs.
11) Newhart
Bob Newhart at his second-best. Started on video-tape, later filmed.
12) Taxi
Danny Devito teams with Christopher Lloyd again... first played together in "One Flew Over
a Cookoo's Nest."
Honorable Mention:
1) Mash
In the top ten till Henry and Trapper John left. Then it became a weekly sermon with a couple laughs mixed in.
2) The Practice
Little known, short-lived Danny Thomas vehicle... every episode a gem.
3) Night Court
Great characters
4) Best of the West
The first time I remember seeing Christopher Lloyd. Only 13 episodes. Very funny.
5) Everybody Loves Raymond
And now for something really important. Beneath my rough and rugged exterior there lives a certifiable geek. Did I play an instrument in the high school band? Oh yes... I did.
As a geek I love to make lists whose titles involve words like best, biggest, most... etc.
So here are the best sitcoms of all time... or at least of my time.
1) The Dick Van Dyke Show
Great characters. The first year was the weakest, but finished strong. Carl Reiner was a genius.
2) The Andy Griffith Show
Would be #1 except for the post Barney Fife years.
3) The Bob Newhart Show
Great characters and great writing.
4) Mary Tyler Moore Show
Was there a bad episode? Three spin-offs: Lou Grant, Phyllis, Rhoda... and four if you
count the Betty White Show.
5) Seinfeld
Not as broad an audience appeal, but merits top five.
6) I Love Lucy
Timeless.
7) All in the Family
A bit preachy at times, but great entertainment.
8) Cheers
Lost a little when Diane Chambers left, but other strong characters filled in.
9) Barney Miller
You could count on your fingers the scenes outside that one squad room.
10) Frazier
Sophistication with belly-laughs.
11) Newhart
Bob Newhart at his second-best. Started on video-tape, later filmed.
12) Taxi
Danny Devito teams with Christopher Lloyd again... first played together in "One Flew Over
a Cookoo's Nest."
Honorable Mention:
1) Mash
In the top ten till Henry and Trapper John left. Then it became a weekly sermon with a couple laughs mixed in.
2) The Practice
Little known, short-lived Danny Thomas vehicle... every episode a gem.
3) Night Court
Great characters
4) Best of the West
The first time I remember seeing Christopher Lloyd. Only 13 episodes. Very funny.
5) Everybody Loves Raymond
The Alito Siege Begins
The Alito confirmation begins today with Democrats already threatening to filibuster the confirmation vote if the nominee doesn't say he'll uphold Roe vs Wade, (I know, but thats what they mean) and Republicans saying they will remove the filibuster option for judges from their rules if their hand is forced.
This may not be pretty?
I think we know that the decorum that will be displayed by panel Democrats will be directly proportional to their character and sense of fairness... which suggests that anything goes for these reprobates.
And I am equally confident that many Republicans, suffering from their unrequited love affair with the press, will be as concerned with appearances as they are with the actual qualifications of Alito.
I'm torn. I want to watch... I want to look away. I'm interested... but I hate getting angry. I love seeing Teddy-Ted getting intellectually destroyed (not exactly a Herculean feat), but when the press doesn't report it that way and the public is too stupid or too ignorant to get it... its a hollow satisfaction.
But the one truth that stands above all else is that this confirmation process is face-time for some of the biggest egomaniacs that have ever walked the halls of Congress. And the biggest difference between the two Parties' approach is that the Democrats know they can count on the media to edit the proceedings for public consumption in a way that will show these Dems in the best light.
The Alito confirmation begins today with Democrats already threatening to filibuster the confirmation vote if the nominee doesn't say he'll uphold Roe vs Wade, (I know, but thats what they mean) and Republicans saying they will remove the filibuster option for judges from their rules if their hand is forced.
This may not be pretty?
I think we know that the decorum that will be displayed by panel Democrats will be directly proportional to their character and sense of fairness... which suggests that anything goes for these reprobates.
And I am equally confident that many Republicans, suffering from their unrequited love affair with the press, will be as concerned with appearances as they are with the actual qualifications of Alito.
I'm torn. I want to watch... I want to look away. I'm interested... but I hate getting angry. I love seeing Teddy-Ted getting intellectually destroyed (not exactly a Herculean feat), but when the press doesn't report it that way and the public is too stupid or too ignorant to get it... its a hollow satisfaction.
But the one truth that stands above all else is that this confirmation process is face-time for some of the biggest egomaniacs that have ever walked the halls of Congress. And the biggest difference between the two Parties' approach is that the Democrats know they can count on the media to edit the proceedings for public consumption in a way that will show these Dems in the best light.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Robertson Update
Here is the quote. . .
Robertson said:“In the book of Joel, the prophet Joel makes it very clear that God has ‘enmity against those who divide My land.’ God considers this land to be His. When you read the Bible, He said this is my land. For any Prime Minister of Israel who decides he will carve it up and give it away, God said, “No, this is Mine.”
I don’t find this terribly outrageous. Did this occur on a slow news day?
I also found this:
“According to his [Robertson’s] spokesperson, Angell Watts, Robertson is simply reminding his viewers what the Bible has to say about efforts made to divide the land of Israel.
She also expressed Dr. Robertson’s outrage at People for the American Way, who have a clear left-wing political agenda and who, on an ongoing basis, lift his comments out of context and widely circulate them in an attempt to discredit him.”
Ahhhh. . . A left-wing group going after a Christian and taking his comments out of context. Shouldn’t this be the story?
Perhaps the other conservative Christians were misled as I was. Its obvious that Robertson expressed his opinion about scripture and related it to a man he knew. . . liked. . . respected. . . prayed with. . . There was nothing hateful or mean-spirited in it.
Here is the quote. . .
Robertson said:“In the book of Joel, the prophet Joel makes it very clear that God has ‘enmity against those who divide My land.’ God considers this land to be His. When you read the Bible, He said this is my land. For any Prime Minister of Israel who decides he will carve it up and give it away, God said, “No, this is Mine.”
I don’t find this terribly outrageous. Did this occur on a slow news day?
I also found this:
“According to his [Robertson’s] spokesperson, Angell Watts, Robertson is simply reminding his viewers what the Bible has to say about efforts made to divide the land of Israel.
She also expressed Dr. Robertson’s outrage at People for the American Way, who have a clear left-wing political agenda and who, on an ongoing basis, lift his comments out of context and widely circulate them in an attempt to discredit him.”
Ahhhh. . . A left-wing group going after a Christian and taking his comments out of context. Shouldn’t this be the story?
Perhaps the other conservative Christians were misled as I was. Its obvious that Robertson expressed his opinion about scripture and related it to a man he knew. . . liked. . . respected. . . prayed with. . . There was nothing hateful or mean-spirited in it.
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Piling onto Pat
Let me first say that I do not agree with Pat Robertson that God punished Ariel Sharon for his Gaza policy by striking him down with a massive stroke.
And let me further state that Mr. Robertson and his organization have comforted multitudes of hurting people on this side of the "Jordan" ...and has facilitated the eternal salvation of many more throughout the world. In this context Pat's comments about Sharon are at most a footnote... and an embarrassing and damning faupax only to those with a very secular world-view.
And, the opinions of a 75-year-old preacher, concerning Old Testament teachings and current events, is news only because it suits the secular media's agenda to broadcast it as news.
More troubling to me are the Christian blog-sites that are castigating Mr Robertson in a disrespectful way. Hey guys, God has shown Pat a great deal of favor in his life... I'd take it easy on this particular servant.
How do we handle Pat? We disagree with him publicly and defend him personally as we would defend our own father.
Later that same morning...
Here is the quote...
Robertson said:
“In the book of Joel, the prophet Joel makes it very clear that God has ‘enmity against those who divide My land.’ God considers this land to be His. When you read the Bible, He said this is my land. For any Prime Minister of Israel who decides he will carve it up and give it away, God said, “No, this is Mine.”
I don't find this terribly outrageous. Did this occur on a slow news day?
I also found this:
"According to his [Robertson's] spokesperson, Angell Watts, Robertson is simply reminding his viewers what the Bible has to say about efforts made to divide the land of Israel.
She also expressed Dr. Robertson’s outrage at People for the American Way, who have a clear left-wing political agenda and who, on an ongoing basis, lift his comments out of context and widely circulate them in an attempt to discredit him."
Ahhhh... A left-wing group going after a Christian and taking his comments out of context. Shouldn't this be the story?
Let me first say that I do not agree with Pat Robertson that God punished Ariel Sharon for his Gaza policy by striking him down with a massive stroke.
And let me further state that Mr. Robertson and his organization have comforted multitudes of hurting people on this side of the "Jordan" ...and has facilitated the eternal salvation of many more throughout the world. In this context Pat's comments about Sharon are at most a footnote... and an embarrassing and damning faupax only to those with a very secular world-view.
And, the opinions of a 75-year-old preacher, concerning Old Testament teachings and current events, is news only because it suits the secular media's agenda to broadcast it as news.
More troubling to me are the Christian blog-sites that are castigating Mr Robertson in a disrespectful way. Hey guys, God has shown Pat a great deal of favor in his life... I'd take it easy on this particular servant.
How do we handle Pat? We disagree with him publicly and defend him personally as we would defend our own father.
Later that same morning...
Here is the quote...
Robertson said:
“In the book of Joel, the prophet Joel makes it very clear that God has ‘enmity against those who divide My land.’ God considers this land to be His. When you read the Bible, He said this is my land. For any Prime Minister of Israel who decides he will carve it up and give it away, God said, “No, this is Mine.”
I don't find this terribly outrageous. Did this occur on a slow news day?
I also found this:
"According to his [Robertson's] spokesperson, Angell Watts, Robertson is simply reminding his viewers what the Bible has to say about efforts made to divide the land of Israel.
She also expressed Dr. Robertson’s outrage at People for the American Way, who have a clear left-wing political agenda and who, on an ongoing basis, lift his comments out of context and widely circulate them in an attempt to discredit him."
Ahhhh... A left-wing group going after a Christian and taking his comments out of context. Shouldn't this be the story?
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Compassion for Gays
Peter Heck wrote a great post about how liberals claim to have compassion for the Gay community but do nothing to discourage their wreckless and sometimes fatal lifestyle.
He writes:
The reality is that just like physical laws, our universe is governed by moral laws. When those laws are broken, serious consequences prevail. If the cultural elites would spend more time loving and caring for homosexuals, attempting to steer them away from a deadly lifestyle choice...they might be more believable when they claim to have the best interest of homosexuals in mind.
I would only add this: When an Indy-Car driver goes head-on into a wall and dies, I'm sorry for him. But I'm not sorry in the same way as when a woman dies of breast cancer. When a mountain climber falls to his death I feel bad, but not in the same way as when an old person falls and dies of a brain hemorrhage.
Neither the race car driver nor the mountain climber want me to step in and stop them or discourage them from what they enjoy doing because they have made the choice and decision that their activity and its rewards are worth the risk. The common expression is,"Well, they died doing what they most enjoyed." And there you go.
The gays and the liberals have all this worked out. Homosexuals do what pleases them and the liberals support their passive death-wish by calling their behavior an "alternate lifestyle." Then when they die of hepatitis or AIDS the liberals weep and and blame Republicans for underfunding research.
I'll agree that the Christian approach to homosexuality is more compassionate, but I think Mr Heck would agree that its the liberals who are giving Gays exactly what they want.
And by the way, there is a cure for mountain-climbing deaths. Its called staying off the mountain.
Peter Heck wrote a great post about how liberals claim to have compassion for the Gay community but do nothing to discourage their wreckless and sometimes fatal lifestyle.
He writes:
The reality is that just like physical laws, our universe is governed by moral laws. When those laws are broken, serious consequences prevail. If the cultural elites would spend more time loving and caring for homosexuals, attempting to steer them away from a deadly lifestyle choice...they might be more believable when they claim to have the best interest of homosexuals in mind.
I would only add this: When an Indy-Car driver goes head-on into a wall and dies, I'm sorry for him. But I'm not sorry in the same way as when a woman dies of breast cancer. When a mountain climber falls to his death I feel bad, but not in the same way as when an old person falls and dies of a brain hemorrhage.
Neither the race car driver nor the mountain climber want me to step in and stop them or discourage them from what they enjoy doing because they have made the choice and decision that their activity and its rewards are worth the risk. The common expression is,"Well, they died doing what they most enjoyed." And there you go.
The gays and the liberals have all this worked out. Homosexuals do what pleases them and the liberals support their passive death-wish by calling their behavior an "alternate lifestyle." Then when they die of hepatitis or AIDS the liberals weep and and blame Republicans for underfunding research.
I'll agree that the Christian approach to homosexuality is more compassionate, but I think Mr Heck would agree that its the liberals who are giving Gays exactly what they want.
And by the way, there is a cure for mountain-climbing deaths. Its called staying off the mountain.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Praying in the Name of Jesus
Back on November 30th Judge David Hamilton ruled that the Indiana State House could not open its work day with prayers that mentioned Jesus. Hamilton's ruling was based on a 1983 Supreme Court decision, Marsh vs. Chambers, which upheld prayer in the Nebraska Legislature after references to Jesus had been removed.
So I guess our legislators are allowed stand up, close their eyes, and talk to no one in particular about ways in which no one in particular might bless their efforts.
It was thoughtful of Judge Hamilton to ESTABLISH rules about how we approach God. Most people would be so short-sighted as to give everyone the freedom to pray in his own way, but where would we be then? Not to worry... our Judge David Hamilton has already ESTABLISHED his understanding of religion and how it relates to government. Thanks, Dave.
So the Indiana State Legislature is back in session today. House Speaker Brian Bosma has said, "we will find a way to have prayer within the (judge's) order in one fashion or another." Maybe they could end their prayer: In the name of Joseph and Mary's kid who happens to be the Son of the God of Abraham...
Sorry, Dave... still too specific?
It would please me if today the desinated prayer person would stand up before the legislative body in Indianapolis and mention the name of Jesus about ten times. He could always run out immediately afterwards and hide from Dave and his ACLU stormtroopers.
But maybe its time for our judicial system to find some Christians in contempt of their rulings. Maybe this judiciary which rules by personal preference needs to find out how the public feels about their efforts to change this country into the People's Republic of China. Maybe its time for men to be jailed for speaking the name of Jesus.
You see, I think this situation calls for civil disobedience... but then I am a dark and mighty ruffian in whom submission can find no purchase.
In Jesus' name I blog, Amen.
Back on November 30th Judge David Hamilton ruled that the Indiana State House could not open its work day with prayers that mentioned Jesus. Hamilton's ruling was based on a 1983 Supreme Court decision, Marsh vs. Chambers, which upheld prayer in the Nebraska Legislature after references to Jesus had been removed.
So I guess our legislators are allowed stand up, close their eyes, and talk to no one in particular about ways in which no one in particular might bless their efforts.
It was thoughtful of Judge Hamilton to ESTABLISH rules about how we approach God. Most people would be so short-sighted as to give everyone the freedom to pray in his own way, but where would we be then? Not to worry... our Judge David Hamilton has already ESTABLISHED his understanding of religion and how it relates to government. Thanks, Dave.
So the Indiana State Legislature is back in session today. House Speaker Brian Bosma has said, "we will find a way to have prayer within the (judge's) order in one fashion or another." Maybe they could end their prayer: In the name of Joseph and Mary's kid who happens to be the Son of the God of Abraham...
Sorry, Dave... still too specific?
It would please me if today the desinated prayer person would stand up before the legislative body in Indianapolis and mention the name of Jesus about ten times. He could always run out immediately afterwards and hide from Dave and his ACLU stormtroopers.
But maybe its time for our judicial system to find some Christians in contempt of their rulings. Maybe this judiciary which rules by personal preference needs to find out how the public feels about their efforts to change this country into the People's Republic of China. Maybe its time for men to be jailed for speaking the name of Jesus.
You see, I think this situation calls for civil disobedience... but then I am a dark and mighty ruffian in whom submission can find no purchase.
In Jesus' name I blog, Amen.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
NEA... Show Us the Money...
From the Wall Street Journal Editorial page:
If we told you that an organization gave away more than $65 million last year to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Amnesty International, AIDS Walk Washington and dozens of other such advocacy groups, you'd probably assume we were describing a liberal philanthropy. In fact, those expenditures have all turned up on the financial disclosure report of the National Education Association, the country's largest teachers union.
Under new federal rules pushed through by Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, large unions must now disclose in much more detail how they spend members' dues money. Big Labor fought hard (if unsuccessfully) against the new accountability standards, and even a cursory glance at the NEA's recent filings--the first under the new rules--helps explain why. They expose the union as a honey pot for left-wing political causes that have nothing to do with teachers, much less students.
We already knew that the NEA's top brass lives large. Reg Weaver, the union's president, makes $439,000 a year. The NEA has a $58 million payroll for just over 600 employees, more than half of whom draw six-figure salaries. Last year the average teacher made only $48,000, so it seems you're better off working as a union rep than in the classroom.
According to the latest filing, member dues accounted for $295 million of the NEA's $341 million in total receipts last year. But the union spent $25 million of that on "political activities and lobbying" and another $65.5 million on "contributions, gifts and grants" that seemed designed to further those hyper-liberal political goals.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007761
Its just too wonderful that unions have to disclose how they waste their member's money.
And if I was a teacher and NEA member I'd want to know why these pompous left-wing swindlers were sending my hard-earned money to Jesse Jackson and the Gay lobby. I could certainly think of better ways they could represent my interests as a teacher.
Surely those teachers who are not rabid leftists, and there may be many, could find a more pleasing group to represent them... and get them cheap insurance, cheap hotel rooms, or whatever else this liberal "sugar daddy," posing as a union, does.
From the Wall Street Journal Editorial page:
If we told you that an organization gave away more than $65 million last year to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Amnesty International, AIDS Walk Washington and dozens of other such advocacy groups, you'd probably assume we were describing a liberal philanthropy. In fact, those expenditures have all turned up on the financial disclosure report of the National Education Association, the country's largest teachers union.
Under new federal rules pushed through by Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, large unions must now disclose in much more detail how they spend members' dues money. Big Labor fought hard (if unsuccessfully) against the new accountability standards, and even a cursory glance at the NEA's recent filings--the first under the new rules--helps explain why. They expose the union as a honey pot for left-wing political causes that have nothing to do with teachers, much less students.
We already knew that the NEA's top brass lives large. Reg Weaver, the union's president, makes $439,000 a year. The NEA has a $58 million payroll for just over 600 employees, more than half of whom draw six-figure salaries. Last year the average teacher made only $48,000, so it seems you're better off working as a union rep than in the classroom.
According to the latest filing, member dues accounted for $295 million of the NEA's $341 million in total receipts last year. But the union spent $25 million of that on "political activities and lobbying" and another $65.5 million on "contributions, gifts and grants" that seemed designed to further those hyper-liberal political goals.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007761
Its just too wonderful that unions have to disclose how they waste their member's money.
And if I was a teacher and NEA member I'd want to know why these pompous left-wing swindlers were sending my hard-earned money to Jesse Jackson and the Gay lobby. I could certainly think of better ways they could represent my interests as a teacher.
Surely those teachers who are not rabid leftists, and there may be many, could find a more pleasing group to represent them... and get them cheap insurance, cheap hotel rooms, or whatever else this liberal "sugar daddy," posing as a union, does.
Monday, January 02, 2006
Lethal Peace
I've long believed that the U.S. needs to stay militarily engaged in the Middle East and that Iraq is as good a place as any. On the other side of the political spectrum the Leftists, Democrats, and Anti-War crowd insist that it is time to disengage from Iraq and start bringing our troops home. Evidently to their way of thinking the danger is over, we can finally relax since 9/11 is ancient history, and the United Nations can handle the terrorist problems in the future. More importantly, this liberal conglomerate has changed the domestic political landscape making it doubtful that the U.S. government would preemptively engage a hostile and threatening country... at least not until there was another devastating attack on our soil.
With every word that proceeds from the mouth of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I believe we can imagine the source and nature of the next attack.
With Iran's nuclear future left in the hands of United Nations negotiators, our future is a very troubling one. The liberal media and the Democrats have effectively made any move against Iran political suicide for any American president, so unless Israel saves us by inserting sanity into the equation and taking matters into their own hands, Al Qada may possess Iranian-made nuclear devices in the not-so-distant future.
If I was Bin Laden or Zarqawi this is how I would use them: I would place one device in a large American city and the rest in Israel. I would announce to the world that there were two nuclear devices in two American cities that would be detonated one after the other if the U.S. did not remove all their troops from the Afghanistan, Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East. Our government would not comply so at that point much of Washington, Los Angeles or maybe Chicago...would be erased.
I would let the horror sink in for a couple of days while the U.S. government promised to find the source of the weapons and threatened retaliation... but where would they strike and what good would it do?
Next I would threaten to detonate the second device if my demands were not met.
As the inevitable retreat of U.S. troops began, I would start on Israel.
Even with all our weapons and soldiers, we are only as powerful and effective as our political system allows us to be. Its sad that the radical base of a party that controls neither the White House nor either body of Congress can team with the liberal media to effectively emasculate our defense and foreign policy. I suggest that it may be a very "lethal peace" that they procure.
Do you think maybe if a nuclear bomb was detonated on American soil the Democrats might approve of the NSA wiretaps? It would definitely be harder for them to convince the country that we are not at war.
I've long believed that the U.S. needs to stay militarily engaged in the Middle East and that Iraq is as good a place as any. On the other side of the political spectrum the Leftists, Democrats, and Anti-War crowd insist that it is time to disengage from Iraq and start bringing our troops home. Evidently to their way of thinking the danger is over, we can finally relax since 9/11 is ancient history, and the United Nations can handle the terrorist problems in the future. More importantly, this liberal conglomerate has changed the domestic political landscape making it doubtful that the U.S. government would preemptively engage a hostile and threatening country... at least not until there was another devastating attack on our soil.
With every word that proceeds from the mouth of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I believe we can imagine the source and nature of the next attack.
With Iran's nuclear future left in the hands of United Nations negotiators, our future is a very troubling one. The liberal media and the Democrats have effectively made any move against Iran political suicide for any American president, so unless Israel saves us by inserting sanity into the equation and taking matters into their own hands, Al Qada may possess Iranian-made nuclear devices in the not-so-distant future.
If I was Bin Laden or Zarqawi this is how I would use them: I would place one device in a large American city and the rest in Israel. I would announce to the world that there were two nuclear devices in two American cities that would be detonated one after the other if the U.S. did not remove all their troops from the Afghanistan, Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East. Our government would not comply so at that point much of Washington, Los Angeles or maybe Chicago...would be erased.
I would let the horror sink in for a couple of days while the U.S. government promised to find the source of the weapons and threatened retaliation... but where would they strike and what good would it do?
Next I would threaten to detonate the second device if my demands were not met.
As the inevitable retreat of U.S. troops began, I would start on Israel.
Even with all our weapons and soldiers, we are only as powerful and effective as our political system allows us to be. Its sad that the radical base of a party that controls neither the White House nor either body of Congress can team with the liberal media to effectively emasculate our defense and foreign policy. I suggest that it may be a very "lethal peace" that they procure.
Do you think maybe if a nuclear bomb was detonated on American soil the Democrats might approve of the NSA wiretaps? It would definitely be harder for them to convince the country that we are not at war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
