Peter Heck on the Hostages

OK, OK... I know I already posted one of Mr Heck's pieces on my site today, but this is so insightful and good and well-written and timely... did I say insightful? ... that I had to include it here. Heck writes:

The plight of the Christian Peacemakers Team taken captive in Iraq has captivated much of the mainstream media. It would be nice if this occurred for altruistic reasons. Unfortunately, after watching a Nightline special on the story last night, the mainstream media seems interested to use it for one objective: partisan politics.

Though admittedly an inference on my part, the implication seemed to be quite apparent throughout the special: these are innocent people who have been taken captive by misunderstood freedom fighters who are merely trying to wrest control of their country away from the occupying American forces. In other words, it’s President Bush’s fault.

I don’t react to these people’s captivity and (God-forbid) impending doom with a sense of joy, happiness, or “you should have known better” contentment, any more than I do when cowardly nations who have attempted to appease these radical Islamists are attacked by the same. Indeed, we all should be praying for the captives’ release.

But as I watched this daughter last night speak directly to her father’s captors, saying something to the effect of, “Please release him and understand he is working for the same goals in Iraq you are,” I was overcome with sorrow for her and those like her. Americans who still do not understand that this is a war with people who cannot be pacified, cannot be appeased, cannot be placated, are hopelessly lost. These are murderous fascists intent on brutalizing and destroying anyone who stands in the way of their evil agenda. There can be no compromise or understanding with such evil.

The fact that these Islamo-fascists have captured and are undoubtedly preparing to execute a group of people who were in Iraq to castigate and criticize the American military efforts prove this reality. It’s the same lesson that Spain and France have and are learning the hard way. This truth should be met with universal indignation against such evil butchers, and a collective resolve to wage and win the war on terror. But that happens only when American left and their allies in the mainstream media recognize the truth that is before their eyes: radical Islam is our enemy, not George Bush. 2005-12-07
http://peterheck.com/betasite/mainphp.php

Dean and Jerry...er Kerry

Two of my favorite bloggers have great posts about the Democrat's madcap poster-boys for defeat. Skye Puppy discusses their latest outrageous performances and says this about Dean's "target" suggestion:

Unfortunately, Howard Dean and others of his ilk don't understand the basic facts about the terrorists. We can't get the target off the backs of American troops, no matter where they are. And we can't get the target off the backs of all of the rest of the Americans and all the rest of the world's "infidels." We need to leave our troops where they are and let them kill Zarqawi and his thugs right there in Iraq.
http://skyepuppy.blogspot.com/2005/12/kerry-and-dean-on-iraq.html

The entire post is great reading, per usual from Skye Puppy, and she ends with a poll that encourages us to believe that a modicum of sanity remains in this country despite the efforts of the Dems and the MSM.

Peter Heck has always displayed a remarkable talent for verbally kicking Howard Dean's butt... and this is one of his better efforts:

In searching around the internet briefly this morning, I came across a story from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. It seems that two larger pieces of the Titanic’s hull have been found by researchers and apparently suggest that the Titanic sank much faster than previously thought. Whereas original estimates said that the stern of the ship slipped into the icy black waters in about 20 minutes, the new discovery seems to indicate that this process would have happened much faster.

But what struck me as I read this story was that the link right above it made reference to Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean and his recent…and might I say unbelievable (even for Howard Dean’s standards)…proclamation that the U.S. would not win the Iraq war. Surely, as this man continues to embarrass the party with continually fanatical observations, the more moderate stream of Democrats are regretting the day they ever allowed him to ascend to the chairmanship of their party.

In speaking to a Democrat friend recently, I brought up the Chairman, to which my friend rolled his eyes, shook his head, and said, “Well…he could raise money…we thought that would be a good thing.” Money is important in politics, it’s true. But the sources from which Dean derives his funds (far left, radical groups) have now become the backbone and power structure of the Democratic Party. The result has been a fractured and inconsistent stance from Democrats on nearly every issue…in other words, Dean is effectively splitting and rupturing the Party before our very eyes.

I guess the only question that remains is: after the Dean iceberg, will the Party sink as fast as the Titanic? With Hillary screeching at hecklers and trying to figure out who to pander to, John Kerry making bizarre statements about U.S. soldiers “terrorizing kids and children” all to placate the now-established radical base, and Joe Lieberman’s once mainstream voice being considered “foolish” in the Democratic Party, all signs are certainly pointing to a rapid descent.2005-12-06
http://peterheck.com/betasite/mainphp.php

The Founding Fathers and Today's Court

I found this great article from Peter Heck that is a must-read: http://peterheck.com/betasite/faithfounders.html Read the whole thing and tell me how in the world the court justifies removing religious symbols based upon the writings of the "Founders."

Mr Heck's entire site is both humorous and informative. I recommend it.
http://peterheck.com/betasite/mainphp.php

The Anti-War Legacy

There is a line in the movie "Patton" that I think applies today. The general is standing before troops who will soon be sent into battle and he says, "Thirty years from now, when you're sitting around your fireside with your grandson on your knee and he asks you, "What did you do in the great World War II," you won't have to say, "Well... I shoveled sh__ in Louisiana."

On September 11, 2001 the adults in our government finally recognized that we were at war with radical elements of the religion of Islam. There were indications of this fact in the '90s, but it took the attacks and deaths of 9/11 to stir the U.S. Government into action.

Since then our military has removed the Taliban government in Afghanistan, destroyed Alqada's base of operations, and given that country back to its people. It has removed a mass murderer from power in Iraq and is in the process of protecting the seeds of democracy there.

Because of America's resolve in the face of this threat, Islamic governments no longer see us as a "paper tiger" and are not so anxious to harbor groups intent upon terrorism. And although recent fretful overtures from leading Democrats have diluted their fears, none of these nations wish to risk being the next target of the U.S. military. And with every bomb from Zarqawi and every vote by the Iraqi and Afghan people, Middle East attitudes are slowly being transformed.

These amazing accomplishments of George Bush and the American Military have transpired in a domestic atmosphere of personal attacks and media-manufactured negativity. President Bush has been lampooned on network television, viciously attacked by Democrats, and undercut by feckless cowards in his own party. The military has heard elected representatives say that they have gone to war for a lie and that they can't win.

But some day this war on terror will be over. The Middle East will look different with a democratic Iraq... and maybe a democratic Iran. The history will be written about how George Bush saved this country by standing firm and taking the fight to the terrorists and the countries that harbored them.

And when we are asked what role the Democrats, mainstream media, and other members of the anti-war movement played in the struggle, we will recount the attacks on the Commander-in-Chief in a time of war for political gain... the questioning of our morality that saddened the families of soldiers while their loved ones fought so far from home... the way they encouraged our enemies by dividing our country, weakening the resolve of so many... or maybe we will just smile and say, "They shoveled sh__ in Washington."

Bachelors Die Young

I don't take credit in life for very many things, inasmuch as I've done little of note, and many of the things I have done I'd like to forget. But I do take credit for the following brilliant saying:

"Bachelors die young, and old maids live forever."

So you see, my life has not been wasted.

Is the saying perfect? ...No. "Forever" is an exageration that doesn't fit and "old maid" is insulting to many mature unmarried women whom I have known and admired. But other than that... its brilliant!

The saying falls into the same category as certain other immutable truths like, "Jesus saves", "it takes one to know one", and "they call a doctor's business a practice for good reason." But its "bachelors die young" that particularly interests me.

I will turn 52 in January and I am amazed at times that I have remained single lo these many years. That wasn't my plan. I'm not gay. (not a "nancy-boy," as we say in Greentown) No, I have met and dated many females (of my species) who have stirred my heart and yet... here I am... facing an imminent and lonely death with no gold band on my ring finger. How did this happen?

I've been told I'm too picky. Nonsense! Plain Janes in my past abound. Abound, I tell you! But it brings up an interesting point. Women complain that men are only interested in a pretty face and a nice body. But this phenomenon is no more common or relevant than the occurences of women who choose or reject men based on the amount of their income... especially the second time around. So for every man who is a pig looking for "Barbie," there is a woman who is strictly mercenary.

And I? ...I look into a woman's soul. At least for awhile.

Does it hurt that women find me unattractive? Does it pain me that I am the kind of man that women prefer not to marry? Well... certainly not as much as it used to.

As I rapidly approach the last great precipice I note that my values have changed. When I was young I valued fast women, fast cars, and fast food. My values now are Jesus, mutual funds, and roughage. (Actually, I'm so regular that it sometimes frightens me, but here I try to relate to the bowels of lesser men) Its not that I'm no longer looking for a soft bosom on which to lay my head, (that certainly inspires an image, doesn't it?) but my search for said bosom in no way resembles the almost mythically heroic juggernaut that possesses men in their youth. And, more to my point here, God in his infinite wisdom and mercy has provided a way that single, childless men may avoid rusting away in a nursing home with no visitors. And here it is:

Through bad diet, lack of familial responsibilty or purpose, or the simple lack of stimulation to the immune system that intimacy affords... bachelors die young.

Am I wringing my hands over my sad fate? Not me! I pace, instead. I also have arguments alone in my house (while pacing) with people who have ticked me off. (I do both parts) And, my friend, these are arguments I almost always win. But this is not germane to the discussion.

In the immortal words of that great American writer, Kurt Vonnegut, in his beloved "Cat's Cradle", in his inimitable style, (try saying inimitable before your first cup of coffee...) Vonnegut writes:

"We do doodily do,
What we must, muddily must,
Muddily do, muddily do,
Till we bust, bodily bust."

Bachelors bust early. Bachelors die young.

President Bush Explains Reality

President Bush spoke Wednesday at the Naval Academy and said:
Their [the terrorist's] objective is to drive the United States and coalition forces out of Iraq, and use the vacuum that would be created by an American retreat to gain control of that country. They would then use Iraq as a base from which to launch attacks against America, and overthrow moderate governments in the Middle East, and try to establish a totalitarian Islamic empire that reaches from Indonesia to Spain. That's their stated objective. That's what their leadership has said.

This is an enemy without conscience -- and they cannot be appeased. If we were not fighting and destroying this enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle. They would be plotting and killing Americans across the world and within our own borders. By fighting these terrorists in Iraq, Americans in uniform are defeating a direct threat to the American people. Against this adversary, there is only one effective response: We will never back down. We will never give in. And we will never accept anything less than complete victory.

Contrast these words of reality with never-ending attacks of negativity from Democrats and the media. It is obvious that the Left refuses to recognize that there is a world-wide war going on in which we are the target... regardless of what we think, say, or do. It may be pretty to think that all we need do is walk away... but we would be followed and attacked.

And the Democrat leadership? Its of the utmost importance that these weak-willed, disloyal, Eurowussie-wannabees never be allowed to lead this country.

Merry C____________

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

The Pupster wraps it up with this suggestion:

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

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

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

Our teacher expects to do most of his Christmas shopping this year at little boutique shops that wish him "Merry Christmas," rather than at the big stores who are afraid of December's "C word." I may be doing the same.
http://www.skyepuppy.blogspot.com/

Max Boot on "White Flag Democrats"

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

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

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

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

A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq today, aside from sparking a Balkans-style civil war in which hundreds of thousands might die, would confirm this baleful impression and encourage Islamo-fascists to step up their predations.
"Things may develop faster than we imagine," Al Qaeda's deputy commander, Ayman Zawahiri, apparently wrote to Abu Musab Zarqawi, the top terrorist in Iraq. "The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam — and how they ran and left their agents — is noteworthy." Even more noteworthy is that so many Democrats seem so sanguine about letting history repeat itself.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-boot30nov30,0,520033.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

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

Senator Harry Reid Leaks

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

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

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

Earlier this month, Mr. Reid was eager to keep discussions of intelligence matters under wraps. For little apparent reason, he invoked a seldom-used rule that forced the Senate to go into secret session to debate complaints about pre-war intelligence concerning Saddam's weapons programs. ...
http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=5953&s=blog

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

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

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

Senator Lieberman: Patriot

The Senator from Connecticut is torching his future in the Democrat Party for the sake of the nation and its war on terror. The entire article is a must-read.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007611

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

War and the Media

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

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

Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale -- with 44 percent saying morale is hurt "a lot," according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.
Their poll also indicates many Americans are skeptical of Democratic complaints about the war. Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to "gain a partisan political advantage."
A plurality, 49 percent, believe that troops should come home only when the Iraqi government can provide for its own security, while 16 percent support immediate withdrawal, regardless of the circumstances.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/26/AR2005112600745.html

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

Can it be that many national reporters are so afflicted by Bush hatred that they can’t let go long enough to report stories straight? Could be. Consider the entire backward-looking thrust of so much reportage, focusing sharply on what happened in 2002 and 2003, less on the stake we have in prevailing in Iraq. If we lose in Iraq, it will be the first great victory for global jihad, with tremendous consequences for the U.S. Can the media get over their obsession with Bush and focus on that?
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/johnleo/2005/11/28/176879.html

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

The Real News from Iraqi Bloggers

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

But one comment came from an anonymous radical Muslim:

Should have taken the pictures at closer range : sometimes, it´s hard to see the features of the faces of these traitors. Every single one deserves to die.
Free Iraq !
http://justsooni.blogspot.com/2005/11/side-by-side.html

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

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

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

Vote for your Republican Presidential Candidate Today!

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

Steyn on Zarqawi

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

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

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

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

Did they show that on the BBC? Or are demonstrations only news when they're anti-Bush and anti-Blair? And look at it this way: if the "occupation" is so unpopular in Iraq, where are the mass demonstrations against that? I'm not talking 200,000, or even 100 or 50,000. But, if there were just 1,500 folks shouting "Great Satan, go home!" in Baghdad or Mosul, it would be large enough for the media to do that little trick where they film the demo close up so it looks like the place is packed. Yet no such demonstrations take place.
http://www.skyepuppy.blogspot.com/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/11/22/do2202.xml

You Gotta Love This Woman


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

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

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

McCain Begins to Look and Sound Presidential

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe the fence mending has begun.

Murtha's Memory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My oldest son said it best after 9/11 when I told him “well the American people are behind you now”. His response was “yeah Dad….for how long?” It didn’t take the Democratic Party very long to abandon them. It took you a little longer but the betrayal is complete. We are winning this war everywhere except at home. You have forgotten what it felt like to be a soldier spit on by your fellow citizens. You join the ranks of those who want to drive military recruiters out of the schools. You sir, should be ashamed.
http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2005/11/13-week/index.php#a000557

The Democrat's War

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

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

The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone - but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history. We're going to continue throwing their own words back at them. And far more important, we're going to continue sending a consistent message to the men and women who are fighting the war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other fronts. We can never say enough how much we appreciate them, and how proud they make us. They and their families can be certain: That this cause is right ... and the performance of our military has been brave and honorable ... and this nation will stand behind our fighting forces with pride and without wavering until the day of victory.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051116-10.html

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

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

Thomas Sowell Is My Hero

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Newdow's Money

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

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

Newdow, a Sacramento doctor and lawyer who is an avowed atheist, used a similar argument when he challenged the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools because it contains the words "under God." He took his fight to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2004 said he lacked standing to bring the case because he didn't have custody of his daughter.
http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/13854476p-14694282c.html

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

As Europe Lies Dying

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

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

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

As to where Britain falls in this grim scenario, I noticed a few months ago that readers had started closing their gloomier missives to me with the words, "Fortunately I won't live to see it" — a sign-off now so routine in my mailbag I assumed it was the British version of "Have a nice day". But that's a false consolation. As France this past fortnight reminds us, the changes in Europe are happening far faster than most people thought. That's the problem: unless you're planning on croaking imminently, you will live to see it."
http://jewishworldreview.com/1105/steyn110905.php3

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

But a talented ambitious Chinese or Indian or Chilean has zero reason to emigrate to France, unless he is consumed by a perverse fantasy of living in a segregated society that artificially constrains his economic opportunities yet imposes confiscatory taxation on him in order to support an ancient regime of indolent geriatrics.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/11/15/do1502.xml

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

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

A Man of Character

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The whole process of trying to ferret out the personal agenda through the confirmation process isn't an endeavor that I think is worth the price we are paying," said Thomas. "I think the only thing it does is rats out the agenda of the people asking the questions."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175365,00.html

Star Parker On California's Assault On the Family

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

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

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

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

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

Poor black kids, already coming from broken homes, are forced into broken schools where they are taught the very values that will increase the probability that they will stay poor, as will their children. And liberals think they are our friends?"
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/StarParker/2005/11/14/175236.html

Blogging Orewon the Liberal

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

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

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

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

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

France and the Democrat Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will France Remain French?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

America, liberals and all, needs to wake up and see the opportunity we have in Iraq. If we are successful maybe Iraq, and some day its neighbors, will be the prosperous and free democracies while France and much of Europe struggle in a Muslim theocracy.
http://www.nypost.com/commentary/53917.htm
http://www.radioblogger.com/#001126

Tradition, Head Fakes, and John Paul Stevens

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Democrat's Little Stunt

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

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

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

Alito's Way

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

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

In writing his position Alito Stated:

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

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

(Patternico's Pontifications goes into detail here: http://patterico.com/2005/10/30/3872/alitos-dissent-in-casey/)

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

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

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

"Himself" Settles In

Four weeks ago the planet wobbled on its axis, the stars re-aligned, and the earth's crust shifted as He, whose minions refer to simply as "Himself", returned to the air-waves. It was indeed an event of cataclysmic proportions. Such power... such ominous grace... such an odd young man. Is this force new and monumental? Absolutely. Is it human? Perhaps. Will Howard and surrounding counties ever be the same? Maybe on the weekends... in Oakford.

Of his legion of minions I perhaps have known Mr Heck for the longest period of time. I remember one eve in Greentown when I asked him the meaning of life. He placed his hand on my shoulder, looked off into the distance and whispered, "plastic bed-sheets." Long I've struggled with the gravity of his reply. You see, at some point, early in Mr Heck's formative years, a significant portion of his mind ventured out into the nether regions of the ozone layer... and liked it there... And, at last check had summoned insufficient motivation to return. What made him the way he is? Was it his family, his diet, or was that 4-minute baptism just too darn long? Yes sir, I'd like to know.

Himself recently e-mailed me and asked if I had any suggestions for the show. "CHANGE NOTHING!" I cried. Do you change Mona Lisa's smile? Do you re-make Casablanca? Do you eat spaghetti with refried beans? (you can, but things turn ugly very quickly)

But though his hush puppies be worn, his pocket protector be frayed, his glasses be taped at the bridge of his nose... well, I've forgotten my point.

Anyway, continue to listen to "Himself" on 1350AM at 3PM Monday through Friday.

Don't Arrest This Poor Woman

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Cindy Sheehan, the military mother who made her son's death in Iraq a rallying point for the anti-war movement, plans to tie herself to the White House fence to protest the milestone of 2,000 U.S. military deaths in Iraq.
"I'm going to go to Washington, D.C. and I'm going to give a speech at the White House, and after I do, I'm going to tie myself to the fence and refuse to leave until they agree to bring our troops home," Sheehan said in a telephone interview last week as the milestone approached.
"And I'll probably get arrested, and when I get out, I'll go back and do the same thing," she said.

This poor woman is obviously sincere and I believe it would be the height of insensitivity to arrest her and take her away from the White House fence. After all, she says that she will go right back once she is released. I feel the government should respect her wishes and allow her to demonstrate her strong convictions. Oh sure, there are laws to be enforced... I'm just saying put off enforcing them... maybe until March.

Remembering Karla

This coming February will mark the 8th year since Karla Faye Tucker Brown was put to death in Texas by lethal injection. Looking at the face above its hard to imagine that this smiling, attractive woman brutally killed two human beings with a pick-axe. Her story isn't that uncommon as murderers go. She was neglected as a child. She turned to drugs. She killed, she was caught, she received a fair trial, and ultimately she was put to death. Justice was served. But ofcourse none of this is the dramatic part of Karla's story.

A theologian could write a thousand pages about the power of the gospel and how Jesus changes lives, but no amount of words could be as eloquent and moving as 15 minutes with this simple woman from Texas.

If you saw any of her interviews from death row... heard her talk about her conversion and her ministry to her fellow inmates... heard her talk about her faith... then you remember her. You remember how you were drawn to her... you remember how she made you feel.

Its hard to deal with the fact that we put to death a woman who had changed so dramatically and who so obviously loved the Lord. Its hard to imagine what earthly good could come from silencing such a voice.

Silenced she was, but not before she gave witness to a miracle... not before she influenced countless lives and touched countless hearts. These were her last words on this earth:

"I am going to be face to face with Jesus now. . . . I love you all very much. I will see you all when you get there. . . . I will wait for you."

Karla Faye Tucker Brown, February 3, 1998

No Evidence Against Delay? No Matter

In a nutshell: Corporations gave $190,000 to DeLay's PAC. Legal. The PAC sent the money to the Republican National State Elections Committee which subsequently placed it in an account for corporate donations. Legal. The following October this Republican Committee sent a similar amount of money, from a non-corporate account, to seven Texas Republican candidates. Legal.

Prosecutor Ronnie Earl says that there is a document that proves that the director of the DeLay PAC, John Colyandro, sent a list of the seven Republican candidates to the Republican committee asking that $190,000 be contributed to their campaigns, and that this list was sent about the same time as the money.

Earle claims that there is a relationship between the money sent, and the request by Colyandro, and that this constitutes money laudering.

When DeLay's lawyers asked to see this document, Ronnie Earl produced a "copy" of a printout of an Excel spreadsheet which mentions 17 candidates and $230,000. There is no signature and no date. When asked, Earl's team said it was a "similar list" to the one which was mentioned in the indictment. Huh?

So how can Earle prove that this list, that they can't produce, was authored by Colyandro and that DeLay knew about it?

According to the Houston Chronicle, everything falls upon the three-year-old memory of the former RNC deputy director Terry Nelson, who allegedly received the list. But it is yet to be seen how this implicates DeLay in any way.

OK. The judge that issued the warrant for DeLay, Judge Bob Perkins, has contributed money to a PAC opposed to DeLay's PAC... and he has also given money to moveon.org. These charges come in a very Democrat county whose Democrats are quite peeved at DeLay's re-districting accomplishments.

So where is the evidence of a crime? Where is the evidence against DeLay? The Liberal Media broadcasts the mug shot and and repeats the charges, but they don't talk about the lack of evidence. Maybe they're too busy talking about another "no-crime" issue involving a man named Rove.

The National Review's Spuriell says that Ronnie Earle clearly has no case and that the charges will be thrown out if they ever reach a courtroom.

Star Parker on the "Millions More Movement"

I first heard Star Parker speak in an interview with James Dobson on "Focus on the Family." This African American Woman has an unbelievable life story that includes recovering from drug addiction. Here she addresses the effects of the current liberal black leadership:

Do poor blacks really need to hear "millions more" excuses why black men can't be faithful to one woman and be responsible for the children they bear? Or why they can't get an education because white people hate us?

Do poor blacks really need another venue for hip-hop multimillionaires to explain, in four-letter epithets, that blacks suffer because George W. Bush doesn't care about them? This while these moguls get richer by the day peddling black booty on BET, inspiring black kids to live the life that guarantees to keep them poor?

Despite Farrakhan's supposed objective to "empower" poor folks, he should understand, as more and more blacks are beginning to understand, that he, and other long-standing traditional black leaders, really promote quite the opposite.

Poor blacks do not need to be "mobilized" to turn even more responsibility for their lives over to others. They need to go to school and take care of their families. The place where this needs to take place is within a couple-mile radius of where they live. It certainly won't take place on the National Mall in Washington.

Am I suggesting that blacks in America today do not have to contend with the burden of racism? Of course I am not. What I do claim is that the most damaging racism in our community is what it hears from its own leaders. It is the message that black citizens cannot and should not be treated as free and personally responsible individuals.
http://www.townhall.com/print/print_story.php?sid=171486&loc=/opinion/columns/StarParker/2005/10/17/171486.html

I have never been black or poor, so I have no relevant conception of the difficulties facing this minority group. But I can recognize that Jesse and Louis are preaching racism and hatred, and Star is preaching personal responsibility. One sermon is a prescription for losers and the other points the way towards success.

Read about Star Parker's life and conversion here:http://www.christianitytoday.com/tcw/7w4/7w4022.html

Remembering 9/12/01

Peter Heck writes the following about the incessant negativity from the Democrats and the liberal media in context to the president's low approval ratings:

"Every moment Americans turn around they are bombarded with the negativity that pervades so much of the discussion on the current situations in the United States. Whether it’s the sensationalizing of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo abuse, the absurd exaggerations on the Katrina disaster, the misery portrayed in the Middle East, the “conviction” of key administration officials before they’ve ever been charged with anything, or the reported “cronyism” employed in the choice of Supreme Court justices, Americans have had little to sink their teeth into beyond the bitter taste of anti-American, anti-Bush sentiment being served from mainstream media sources."
www.peterheck.com

The negative attacks have been vicious and constant, however today's negativity pales to that which I felt personally on 9/12/01. I had watched the Twin Towers burn and then fall, and told a young friend, "Today our lives have changed forever." I wondered how many more attacks would take place in the following months and how many more Americans would die. I wondered if the stock market would crash, dissolving my retirement savings. I wondered if there would be an oil embargo with the return of gas lines and shortages.

I look around today and my world certainly isn't perfect. But there have been no more major attacks on the homeland. Al-Qada has been smashed in Afghanistan. Libya is dismantling its WMD. The Palestinians have a new leader and Egypt is holding elections. In Iraq a despot is gone and democracy is struggling forward. At home the economy is sound.

If you had shown a snapshot of 10/17/05 to me on 9/12/01, I would have been surprised and very relieved. I would also have believed that the right man was in the White House.

We are a very spoiled and forgetful nation. Even with the bombardment of negativity from the Left, we should remember how we felt on 9/12/01 and be thankful to God for giving us the right leader in this difficult chapter of our nation's history.

Somewhere We Stopped Kneeling

I get up every morning at 4 AM and read at least one chapter from the Bible. Then I get down on the floor on my knees and elbows with my face in my hands and pray. If I had a mat I'd look Muslim. I assume this position for the following two reasons:

1) It allows me at the beginning of every morning to establish in my mind my relationship to God, and

2) I think He likes it.

I attended a Bible study several years ago that always ended with a time of prayer. These were good and devout people and so I felt no compunction when I asked one night if we could have our prayer time on our knees. We did, but not before there were a couple of smirks and uneasy smiles. It seemed obvious that I'd made my friends uncomfortable. This seemed odd because I remembered Thursday night prayer meetings from my childhood where the same kind of people knelt to pray... and I vividly remember my parents getting on their knees which left a lasting impression.

When I look back through the Old and New Testaments I'm struck by the way the faithful men and women held the Lord in such reverence and awe. These people were not humorless, but they stressed, and took very seriously, the holiness of their Creator... and their respect and admiration more often than not manifested itself in some physical expression of humility... bowing, kneeling, or lying prostrate.

To the 21st century Christian it all seems so primitive and overly demonstrative. These are actions that I would not feel comfortable displaying in public. While I've often been moved emotionally and spiritually at church, I confess I'm much too proud and dignified to emote in any physical display. I'm not suggesting that staid, quiet, and dignified worship is wrong, but it still may be symptomatic of a spiritual shortcoming.

It should probably come as no surprise that the richest Christians in the world should be the most prideful... the most unfaithful and forgetful in the Kingdom. We are insulated from the most common discomforts, waltzing through life on our own terms... proud and independent. We can buy our way into a million different entertainments and distractions that leave us making appointments and space for God. We have a way of organizing everything into its proper place, with balance and our sense of propriety as our guide. God is there... right where we put Him. He is an important part of this tapestry that is our life... and He is there, right where we decided it was appropriate, expedient, and convenient to weave Him in.

Considering that its easier for a camel to go through the needle's eye than it is for us to enter heaven, proud is perhaps the last thing we should be. When we consider how selfishly forgetful we are... how much like the world... how negligent, inattentive, and casual our homage... Maybe we should humbly thank God every day for making us a beautiful bride... thank him daily for His ultimate sacrifice that made us a people He could bear to look at.

And consider that it might please Him if at least once a day we stepped away from our pride and dignity long enough to kneel and give Him that which is His due.

Biopoietic Justice

So life rose from the sea did it? I've been reading attempts to justify this claim since 1972 and I just can't seem to piece together the sequence of events in my mind. Maybe its just me... Maybe I need a modern-day Brothers Grimm to stitch together the tale... throw in an occasional ogre and troll, and then maybe I could follow it.

But until then, this is my attempt at dispelling Creationism, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity... that sort of stuff:

For the first or archetypical cell to get the ball rolling towards producing all the varied forms of plant and animal life around us... it first had to somehow come into existence... and it had to consist of the following basic chemical structures.

1) DNA... this stuff is the blueprint and template for the complex chemical structures that make up the cell.

2) Messenger RNA... this stuff reads the DNA and copies the template or instructions for making the complex chemical structures in the cell.

3) Ribosomes... these are the factories where the messenger RNA goes to manufacture the complex chemical structures... structures like Ribosomes, for instance.

4) Chloroplast... This is the power source that runs the factory... that produces chloroplasts that couldn't exist without being produced by the factory... that needs energy from the chloroplasts... well... lets move on.

5) Cell Membrane... This is a complex and active wall that keeps bad things out of the cell and lets in the good stuff. The cell can't function without it! Ofcourse the proteins that make up the cell membrane have to be synthesized by the factory... which runs on the energy produced the chloroplasts... which are produced in the factory... well... lets move on.

See, I feel I've lost the reader already and I haven't even reached the part where all this came about in a universe where the molecular tendency is towards randomness.

But then, if I had any talent for writing fairy tales I'd probably already be producing children's books like the ones they use in public schools.

Maybe tomorrow I'll start working on a non-fiction version of the "chicken and the egg" silliness.
Which came first, the ribosomal RNA which produces the proteins for the cell wall, or the cell wall which protects the chemical integrety of the cell... allowing the ribosomal RNA to function.

The Liberal Mantra... Bush Lied

I invite everyone to click on Bryan Alexander's "Right Thinking" in the Links on the right of this page and read his "Get a Life!" post. In Bryan's article he asks why liberal groups continue in their efforts to destroy this president. Good reading as usual from Bryan.

I contend that liberals continue this attack because it feels good. They believe it will help them politically... but they do it because it feels good. Its endless and exhausting negative rhetoric alienates the voters they wish to court... but it feels good. It hurts the war effort and encourages our enemies... but it feels good.

This recipe for losing at the polls, this sacrifice at the "Blame America First" altar, this acrid well... this bitter fount... this self-defeating spiteful psalm will not be silenced... because it feels good.

The "Life After Roe" Secret

It occured to me, as I wrote in the previous post, that the Left has won the battle over abortion and that Roe has become much less important than it was 30 years ago. If Roe is overturned any subsequent changes in abortion laws will be incremental and regional. So why is there such hysteria on the Left over this issue?

Among feminist groups the anger probably goes all the way back to the suffragettes. The road to equality for women has not been an easy one. As a man its hard for me to appreciate the "glass ceiling", the sexism, the condescending and patronizing attitudes suffered by women who fought for a fair and level playing field.

But the fight over Roe is much more emotional, personal, and heated in nature than that in other women's rights issues. For the far-feminist-Left, Roe is an icon that represents freedom from every form of patriarchal tradition. A man no longer has the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body or anything else... and he'd better not forget it. Roe is a banner... a matter of pride.

Have you noticed that the liberal media never discusses what would happen if Roe was overturned? No analysis. No conjectures. If the feminists mention the possibility there is always the warning of the return to "back-alley abortions" and countless deaths... which ofcourse would not happen because the overturning of Roe would not make abortion illegal. But no one is talking about that.

I don't think the Left or the liberal media want to talk about, or debate life after Roe. If the outcome was openly and calmly discussed, it would be difficult to inspire moderate pro-choice individuals to join in the hysteria of the far Left. The line thats been drawn in the sand by NOW, NARAL, and other groups would lose its definition and gravitas. Roe is like the drilling for oil in ANWAR; it has little more meaning than just another fight for power that the Left doesn't intend to lose. Its more a battle for status, authority, and ownership than it is for the issue itself.

There is more than one reason to overturn Roe. For the purist, its the rejection of judicial tyranny and faulty constitutional interpretation. For the conservative Christian its the first small step of many small steps towards limiting and discouraging abortion and winning the hearts of young women.

But the first step towards overturning Roe may involve discussing the life after Roe secret. And the truth might help set us free.

Overturning Roe

Last evening I listened to the Wednesday edition of Focus on the Family with Dr James Dobson. The intent of the broadcast was to allay the concerns of conservative Christians over the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Dr Dobson mentioned several reasons, all I had heard before, why he supports this nomination. He also said there were things he was told in confidence that he did not feel free to repeat, -reasons that evidently indicated that Miss Miers was a strict constructionist and could be trusted by his audience.

Dr Dobson became very emotional towards the end of the radio broadcast and twice used the phrase "the blood of so many babies"... which obviously indicates his main concern and what he feels lies in the balance with next justice added to the court.

Now I am not a lawyer and I am certainly no constitutional scholar, so I may need some help with this. If my understanding of this issue is wrong or you feel my predictions are wrong, please leave a comment.

If Roe vs Wade is overturned, I predict the following will happen the very next day:

Nothing.

Police will not be heading out to arrest abortionist physicians. Abortion clinics will not be closed. The laws will not revert to pre-Roe statutes.

One year after Roe is overturned abortion will still be legal in every blue state and almost every red state. In a few of the more conservative areas in the "Bible Belt" state legislatures will have passed laws that strictly limit or ban the procedure. Pro-Choice groups will be protesting there as they pass out bus tickets and plane tickets to poor pregnant women so that they may travel to the nearest city where abortion is legal.

Except in the case of a really barbaric procedure such as partial birth abortion, Federal legislators will conveniently and perhaps cowardly agree with the Court that abortion is not a Federal issue and leave it to the state legislatures to sort things out. The tenth amendment will rule the day.

There will be talk of a constitutional amendment banning all abortion, but like today there will be insufficient support for it.

I have a great deal of respect for Dr James Dobson. There is not a more humble and sincere Christian leader in this country but I believe he is wringing his hands for little purpose. While I believe that abortion is morally wrong and that Roe is bad constitutional law and should be overturned, abortion is here to stay because it is part of our culture now. Its just so very convenient, and there is insufficient will in this sad hedonistic country to make it go away.

There are many goals in the "Left's" playbook that will never be achieved without the help of a liberal, activist court... and the importance of each nomination cannot be overstated. But Roe has become less important than the change that it has wrought in this country's thinking and character. There would be a few less abortions if Roe was overturned, but it would be just the first step in a very short trip.

I am not personally pleased with these conclusions, but I think it is important that the Conservative Christian Right begins to talk about the realities of this situation. The truth would work in our favor serving to defuse the hysterics displayed by NOW, NARAL, and other rabidly pro-abortion groups. Overturning Roe would be a good first step on principle if nothing else, but it is sobering to consider that it represents the easy part of the road ahead.

The President's Pick

When I first heard about the president's choice and saw Harriett Miers I wondered if this woman was meant to be a sacrificial lamb who would be rejected and filibustered by Senate Democrats... making his next choice harder to reject. Then I heard that Harry Reid had suggested her as an acceptable choice and I got worried. The more I read on the internet, I began to wonder less about Harriet Miers... and wondered more, 'Who IS this guy in the White House?'

There were many good men and women that the President could have selected who had more impressive credentials and more assuring paper trails for concerned conservatives. But instead we get Harriet Miers?

Yesterday on the Peter Heck Show, Mr Heck, known to some simply as 'Himself', approached the subject with calm and balance. He obviously was not thrilled with the choice, but neither did he criticize it. Later I heard Dr James Dobson interviewed by Brit Hume. Dr Dobson also had reassuring words to say about Miss Miers, and was cautiously optomistic.

Like Mr Heck and Dr Dobson I pray for President Bush every day... and it may be spiritually impertinent to worry when he makes a decision I don't understand. So we will see. There is perhaps no other person whose heart and beliefs George Bush knows better than Harriet Miers. So this nominee may serve as a window into the heart and motivations of George Bush.


Update:
Here is an interview with Harriet Mier's pastor which is very reassuring: http://muscleheadrevolution.com/

Don't Make My Child Learn About Judges

My blog friend (and talented writer), Bryan Alexander, has written an informative piece about the need for a marriage amendment. http://r-thinking.blogspot.com/

Now we know about the power grab by the courts and how they rule with no consideration for the Constitution or the will of the people. But maybe we're approaching this problem the wrong way.

Sometime after Joshua died the Lord "raised up judges" (Jdg 2:16). Now this sounds very Judeo-Christian and Biblical to me.

Maybe we can get the court system to declare itself unconstitutional through the establishment clause.

Whats the ACLU's phone number?

Evan's Base

I remember when Evan first ran for governor. He ran against Lt Gov John Mutz, who was basically the brains and workhorse behind Governor Orr. Mutz had proved himself in so many ways and deserved to be rewarded with the top job.

Then came Evan Bayh who had done nothing.

That fall I was talking with the lady who cuts my hair and I asked her about the election. She said, "Well I know who I'm voting for in the Governor's race!" She said Evan and I asked her why. She said, "I don't know, I just like him." It reminded me of when my Grandmother McRoberts said she'd voted for JFK because he was... "such a good looking man!"

When voters display this level of sophistication you need not wonder how politicians win elections while sporting a voting record that in no way resembles the preferences of the states they represent.

Ofcourse now that he is a Senator, Evan seals the deal every six years by misrepresenting himself. Then, he is the "moderate." (A Democrat is a moderate when, every six months or so, he votes differently than Teddy Kennedy.)

However now that he is running for the presidency he is an ultra-liberal... lest moveon.org spank. Will this cost him his Senate seat in Indiana? No. I predict that he will be re-elected because like JFK , he is such a good looking man.