Radical Islam and the Treatment of Women
Shahid Mehdi, an Islamic Scholar stated in a televised interview that women who refuse to wear headscarves are "asking for rape." Did he say this in Saudi Arabia? No, this statement was issued in Copenhagen. And if you consider the sharp rise in the reported rapes and beatings of Scandenavian women by "immigrants," you may assume Mehdi's followers believe this policy applies to western women. Charges of rape in Sweden have tripled in the past 20 years and there are 6 times as many reported rape cases involving children under 15. A study by Ann Christine Hjelm, a lawyer, found that 85 per cent of the convicted rapists were born on foreign soil or by foreign parents.
On David Horowitz's Front Page I found this story about two girls who were attacked on their way to a New Years Eve party in Sweden. Malin and Amanda were assaulted, raped, and beaten savagely by four Somali immigrants.
Sharon Lapkin reports a story from Australia about a Muslim man who:
...told the court he had committed four attacks on girls as young as 13 because they had no right to say “no.” They were not covering their face or wearing a headscarf, and therefore, the rapist proclaimed: “I’m not doing anything wrong.”
Many Islamofascists believe that it is just a matter of time until the West belongs to them. And as the multiculturalism of the West psychologically empowers their totalitarian ambitions, they grow bolder. Its not much of a stretch for one of these radicals to look at an unveiled Norwegian or Swedish girl and see nothing but an object, a piece of infidel property or loot to be pilfered.
Still, its evidently worse for females in Saudi Arabia as James Woolsey relates:
Religious police in Saudi Arabia forced some young girls fleeing a burning school back inside to their deaths because they were not properly veiled. This is a fanaticism that knows no bounds.
And Lapkin reports that in some parts of Pakistan "gang rape" is an "officially sanctified method" of controlling social values and punishing crime. When a young man committed an offense against a Pakistan farming village, the village council ordered that his sister be taken to a hut where she was raped repeatedly by four men.
So where is the outrage? You might expect it to come from liberal women's groups, but generally they save their outrage for "Things Republican." Any "crusade" they might start against the mistreatment of women by radical Islam might be construed as aligning themselves with the Bush administration... so thats not going to happen.
And while I'm sure moderate Muslims cringe upon hearing such horror stories, their voices are silent.
We hear of the beheading of hostages, but some how these attacks on women and girls, justified by religious beliefs is much more troubling. The barbarism described above is indicative of the kind of evil that threatens our world. And since it will not be defeated by understanding words or placating gestures, the liberals and multiculturalists of Europe are no match for it. This evil must be engaged consistently and preemptively because every foothold it acquires is a step towards our destruction. America needs to keep in power, and elect to power, representatives that understand just what we are up against... and remarkably many of our present leaders do not.
Friday, December 16, 2005
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Poor Hollywood
Try to control your grief as you read this snippet from Breibart.com:
Even a much-hyped giant gorilla, a geisha and a schoolboy magician won't be able to create a happy ending at the US box office, as Hollywood ends its most disappointing year in nearly two decades. Plunging movie ticket sales, after a string of uninspiring remakes and movie sequels coupled with an explosion of the DVD and video game markets, are keeping audiences at home and have sent Hollywood into a deep existential crisis.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/13/051213173239.bo5ciosh.html
I've taken a stand in my humble life... I will not use the phrase, "well duh..." no matter how appropriate the occasion. These financial difficulties that Hollywood faces are self-inflicted and due to their stubborn, narcissistic, and arrogant belief that they know what is good for us. I believe Hollywood makes movies for Hollywood... caring more about mutual sycophancy than public praise or box office receipts. So be it, and their red ink. Did it feel good to say all this? Oh yes... yes it did.
They could fix this with more family-friendly movies... more Church-friendly movies... but they won't. They've taken a stand, too.
Try to control your grief as you read this snippet from Breibart.com:
Even a much-hyped giant gorilla, a geisha and a schoolboy magician won't be able to create a happy ending at the US box office, as Hollywood ends its most disappointing year in nearly two decades. Plunging movie ticket sales, after a string of uninspiring remakes and movie sequels coupled with an explosion of the DVD and video game markets, are keeping audiences at home and have sent Hollywood into a deep existential crisis.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/13/051213173239.bo5ciosh.html
I've taken a stand in my humble life... I will not use the phrase, "well duh..." no matter how appropriate the occasion. These financial difficulties that Hollywood faces are self-inflicted and due to their stubborn, narcissistic, and arrogant belief that they know what is good for us. I believe Hollywood makes movies for Hollywood... caring more about mutual sycophancy than public praise or box office receipts. So be it, and their red ink. Did it feel good to say all this? Oh yes... yes it did.
They could fix this with more family-friendly movies... more Church-friendly movies... but they won't. They've taken a stand, too.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
The Secret Economic Boom
Once in a while its good to get your economic news from a source that isn't particulary interested in 1) making President Bush look like a complete loser and 2) creating a hand wringing atmosphere from which the Democrats can launch their 2006 campaigns.
The Wall Street Journal is a source like that. I found these "facts" there:
• The stock market has risen by about $4 trillion in value, and an estimated 40% of that gain is directly attributable to increases in the after-tax return on equities, thanks to the tax cut. (If the tax cut expires, the market will instantly give back those gains.) Housing values have soared so rapidly that the fear is we now face a bubble. Household net wealth has climbed by $10 trillion.
• Business investment--which had sunk into the abyss during the recession, falling by 21% between 2000 and 2002--has roared back to life. Spending is up nearly 25% over the past 30 months.
• Dividend payments to shareholders have doubled in two years, according to data gathered by the American Shareholders Association. The cumulative impact of the tax cut and the higher dividend payments has put $100 billion into the pockets of America's burgeoning investor class.
• The macro-economic signs all point to a solid, sustainable expansion. Employment is up 4.4 million and real GDP growth has averaged 4%--or twice the OECD average--since 2003. Today's unemployment rate of 5% means there are now roughly one million more Americans working than were projected before the tax cut.
• Oh, and yes, there was a $120 billion reduction in the budget deficit in 2005. That's because tax receipts rose by more than in any previous year in U.S. history, even adjusting for inflation. Receipts were up by $55 billion above projections in 2004; $122 billion above projections in 2005; and are already running well ahead of projections so far in fiscal 2006 (which began in October).
• Finally, we wonder if any of the faux debt-hawks in Congress noticed that thanks to the sizzling economy, states and localities are now running hefty budget surpluses, reversing years of red ink and painful service cutbacks. Even New York City--which for years looked like the U.S. version of debt-plagued Argentina--is back in the black.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007650
I confess to being a little shocked when I read this data. But I suppose that speaks to the efficiency of the mainstream media in their attempts to dress every positive story in a shroud.
Once in a while its good to get your economic news from a source that isn't particulary interested in 1) making President Bush look like a complete loser and 2) creating a hand wringing atmosphere from which the Democrats can launch their 2006 campaigns.
The Wall Street Journal is a source like that. I found these "facts" there:
• The stock market has risen by about $4 trillion in value, and an estimated 40% of that gain is directly attributable to increases in the after-tax return on equities, thanks to the tax cut. (If the tax cut expires, the market will instantly give back those gains.) Housing values have soared so rapidly that the fear is we now face a bubble. Household net wealth has climbed by $10 trillion.
• Business investment--which had sunk into the abyss during the recession, falling by 21% between 2000 and 2002--has roared back to life. Spending is up nearly 25% over the past 30 months.
• Dividend payments to shareholders have doubled in two years, according to data gathered by the American Shareholders Association. The cumulative impact of the tax cut and the higher dividend payments has put $100 billion into the pockets of America's burgeoning investor class.
• The macro-economic signs all point to a solid, sustainable expansion. Employment is up 4.4 million and real GDP growth has averaged 4%--or twice the OECD average--since 2003. Today's unemployment rate of 5% means there are now roughly one million more Americans working than were projected before the tax cut.
• Oh, and yes, there was a $120 billion reduction in the budget deficit in 2005. That's because tax receipts rose by more than in any previous year in U.S. history, even adjusting for inflation. Receipts were up by $55 billion above projections in 2004; $122 billion above projections in 2005; and are already running well ahead of projections so far in fiscal 2006 (which began in October).
• Finally, we wonder if any of the faux debt-hawks in Congress noticed that thanks to the sizzling economy, states and localities are now running hefty budget surpluses, reversing years of red ink and painful service cutbacks. Even New York City--which for years looked like the U.S. version of debt-plagued Argentina--is back in the black.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007650
I confess to being a little shocked when I read this data. But I suppose that speaks to the efficiency of the mainstream media in their attempts to dress every positive story in a shroud.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Peter Heck Corrects Local Dem over "Establishment Clause" Issues
Local radio phenom Peter Heck visited the county's Democrat Blog site to correct the mistakes that a local Dem had posted there. Mr Heck writes:
First, your statement that “all 85 of the Federalist Papers only mention God twice” (and that not seriously)…and both of those are attributable to Madison is wrong. Among other indirect references, Federalist #2, written by John Jay states, “With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs. This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence.” This is not an impersonal, “heaven only knows” reference. This is a God who has actively given a people, common in their religious practice (one can clearly assume this is Christianity) a nation out of a grand design. Gore Vidal has misled you.
Secondly, your statement that “there is quite a bit of evidence that our Founding Fathers were not Christians” also fails the test of historical accuracy. Of the 55 men who signed the Constitution, virtually ALL were PROFESSING followers of Christianity (29 Episcopalians, 9 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 Quaker/Anglican, and 1 possible Deist—Ben Franklin, who as the least religious of all the Founders called for daily prayer and contributed to all denominations!). Further, the Founders made their personal faith very evident in their writings. Besides founding the new nation, these men founded other organizations of note: the American Tract Society, the American Bible Society, the Philadelphia Bible Society, and the Christian Constitutional Society. And even more remarkable are their words…upon request I would be happy to supply you with quotes of our Founders like: John Jay “Unto Him who is the author and giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for His merciful and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by his beloved Son.” Or Alexander Hamilton “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.” Or John Adams “The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion.” Or George Washington “My most glorious God, in Jesus Christ my merciful and loving Father…direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ the Way, the Truth, the Life.” And we could keep going, but I think the point is made. Your statement that the Founders were not Christians is built upon misrepresentations of the Founders…not what they themselves professed.
Third, your pronouncement that the Constitution is a “godless” document merely because the word “God” does not appear in it reveals an elementary logic. Interesting that the words “separation of church and state” appear nowhere in any of the founding documents and yet you believe that the PRINCIPLE of separation was inherent in the document. Seems like a bit of a double standard. I could write for hours on this topic of a "godless constitution" and show you studies which demonstrate the remarkable percentages of direct Biblical references of our Founders in forming Constitutional principle, point out the intricacies of some of the systems and how they are uniquely Biblical. If you so desire, I will; but again, I want to be respectful and save space.
I found it interesting you quoted Hamilton’s biographer as saying they just forgot about God in forming the document. That's interesting since Hamilton himself said of the Constitution that, “For my own part, I sincerely esteem it a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.” And noted revolutionary war veteran, friend of the Founders, Noah Webster, whose writings and ideas contributed to the composition of Constitutional principle (specifically Article I, Section 8) said, “The brief exposition of the Constitution of the United States, will unfold to young persons the principles of republican government; and it is the sincere desire of the writer that our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion...” In other words, Bob, though the document obviously does not mention God, that is an impotent reason to suggest it is not founded upon the moral principles of the Bible. To do so demonstrates a failure to grasp the purpose of the Constitution.
The Constitution is a framework for the governing system in the United States, not a charter of liberties. In many ways, the Constitution serves as the canvas upon which the early administrations and Congresses were to paint upon. In other words, the Constitution is not the embodiment of the common law, but the form in which that law is to be developed and administered. A blueprint for a house does not contain direct reference to the nails, screws, and bolts used to strengthen and support the form; yet, any architect or builder will readily acknowledge they are necessary for the security of the structure. In the same way, the “blueprint” for the country (read Constitution) may not contain direct reference to the religious truth used to preserve and perpetuate its existence. Yet, the architects and builders of the new republic were clear about the vital nature of such enduring truth. If you would like quotes to support that fact, again, merely ask.
Finally, the Declaration of Independence mentions the Creator God four times, not twice. “…to which the laws of nature and nature’s God entitle them” , “…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” , “…appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions” , and “…with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.”
Bob, you flippantly discount the most significant and crucial element of this Declaration. And I point this out, because doing so is dangerous to all of us. I know you are concerned about civil liberties and rights…but your disregard for the significance of what the Founders are doing in the Declaration threatens those very liberties you hold so dear. The Founding Fathers, unlike nations founded upon the principles of humanism (that the modern left touts), rooted our most basic, fundamental, and precious rights in a transcendent moral authority that exists above and beyond man. Yes, government is a political institution. But it is not the final authority and arbiter of rights and liberties. The Founders said there is something beyond man and his institutions…a transcendent moral authority (Creator God) who gives man his most basic rights. That is why their revolution was justified…because the King was taking away rights and freedoms that he had no right to take away. Why didn’t he? Because they are a gift not of man, but of God. In other words, the whole idea, the whole root of liberties and freedoms in America is based in the foundation of a just and holy God that exists beyond man, and that man individually, corporately, and in government is to be held accountable to. Bob, that’s why America is the greatest defender of human rights in the world, because we understand…and have for 200 years that those rights are the gift of the Creator to the people…and no man has the right to take them away. If that isn’t resting an entire civilization and culture in absolute moral truths of the Bible, I don’t know what is.
Obviously, this post only scratches the surface of these issues. Thank you for the opportunity to post here. Please understand that while the founders were not desirous of a government run religion, they did recognize the importance of founding a republic firmly rooted in lasting moral principles. As John Quincy Adams stated so perfectly, “The highest glory of the American revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” Not in the sense that everyone had to be Christians…but in the sense that the absolute truths of the Bible were to be the foundation of our civilizations. We would be wise to follow in their footsteps and not be so arrogant as to assume we know better than they.
Another blogger, one Tom Smith, added this information to the discussion that he found in the Library of Congress:
"It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four.... Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers. Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist 'a wall of separation between church and state.' In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a 'national' religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government."
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html
Then Mr Smith "nails it" in his own words:
Evidence such as this demonstrates that if our Founders had intended the strict separation that Bob advocates, they were by far the worst violators of the document and principles that they themselves drafted.
With Peter Heck and Tom Smith on the job the Founder's intentions may be safe from those who wish to re-write history to suit their preferences.
Local radio phenom Peter Heck visited the county's Democrat Blog site to correct the mistakes that a local Dem had posted there. Mr Heck writes:
First, your statement that “all 85 of the Federalist Papers only mention God twice” (and that not seriously)…and both of those are attributable to Madison is wrong. Among other indirect references, Federalist #2, written by John Jay states, “With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs. This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence.” This is not an impersonal, “heaven only knows” reference. This is a God who has actively given a people, common in their religious practice (one can clearly assume this is Christianity) a nation out of a grand design. Gore Vidal has misled you.
Secondly, your statement that “there is quite a bit of evidence that our Founding Fathers were not Christians” also fails the test of historical accuracy. Of the 55 men who signed the Constitution, virtually ALL were PROFESSING followers of Christianity (29 Episcopalians, 9 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 Quaker/Anglican, and 1 possible Deist—Ben Franklin, who as the least religious of all the Founders called for daily prayer and contributed to all denominations!). Further, the Founders made their personal faith very evident in their writings. Besides founding the new nation, these men founded other organizations of note: the American Tract Society, the American Bible Society, the Philadelphia Bible Society, and the Christian Constitutional Society. And even more remarkable are their words…upon request I would be happy to supply you with quotes of our Founders like: John Jay “Unto Him who is the author and giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for His merciful and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by his beloved Son.” Or Alexander Hamilton “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.” Or John Adams “The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion.” Or George Washington “My most glorious God, in Jesus Christ my merciful and loving Father…direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ the Way, the Truth, the Life.” And we could keep going, but I think the point is made. Your statement that the Founders were not Christians is built upon misrepresentations of the Founders…not what they themselves professed.
Third, your pronouncement that the Constitution is a “godless” document merely because the word “God” does not appear in it reveals an elementary logic. Interesting that the words “separation of church and state” appear nowhere in any of the founding documents and yet you believe that the PRINCIPLE of separation was inherent in the document. Seems like a bit of a double standard. I could write for hours on this topic of a "godless constitution" and show you studies which demonstrate the remarkable percentages of direct Biblical references of our Founders in forming Constitutional principle, point out the intricacies of some of the systems and how they are uniquely Biblical. If you so desire, I will; but again, I want to be respectful and save space.
I found it interesting you quoted Hamilton’s biographer as saying they just forgot about God in forming the document. That's interesting since Hamilton himself said of the Constitution that, “For my own part, I sincerely esteem it a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.” And noted revolutionary war veteran, friend of the Founders, Noah Webster, whose writings and ideas contributed to the composition of Constitutional principle (specifically Article I, Section 8) said, “The brief exposition of the Constitution of the United States, will unfold to young persons the principles of republican government; and it is the sincere desire of the writer that our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion...” In other words, Bob, though the document obviously does not mention God, that is an impotent reason to suggest it is not founded upon the moral principles of the Bible. To do so demonstrates a failure to grasp the purpose of the Constitution.
The Constitution is a framework for the governing system in the United States, not a charter of liberties. In many ways, the Constitution serves as the canvas upon which the early administrations and Congresses were to paint upon. In other words, the Constitution is not the embodiment of the common law, but the form in which that law is to be developed and administered. A blueprint for a house does not contain direct reference to the nails, screws, and bolts used to strengthen and support the form; yet, any architect or builder will readily acknowledge they are necessary for the security of the structure. In the same way, the “blueprint” for the country (read Constitution) may not contain direct reference to the religious truth used to preserve and perpetuate its existence. Yet, the architects and builders of the new republic were clear about the vital nature of such enduring truth. If you would like quotes to support that fact, again, merely ask.
Finally, the Declaration of Independence mentions the Creator God four times, not twice. “…to which the laws of nature and nature’s God entitle them” , “…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” , “…appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions” , and “…with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.”
Bob, you flippantly discount the most significant and crucial element of this Declaration. And I point this out, because doing so is dangerous to all of us. I know you are concerned about civil liberties and rights…but your disregard for the significance of what the Founders are doing in the Declaration threatens those very liberties you hold so dear. The Founding Fathers, unlike nations founded upon the principles of humanism (that the modern left touts), rooted our most basic, fundamental, and precious rights in a transcendent moral authority that exists above and beyond man. Yes, government is a political institution. But it is not the final authority and arbiter of rights and liberties. The Founders said there is something beyond man and his institutions…a transcendent moral authority (Creator God) who gives man his most basic rights. That is why their revolution was justified…because the King was taking away rights and freedoms that he had no right to take away. Why didn’t he? Because they are a gift not of man, but of God. In other words, the whole idea, the whole root of liberties and freedoms in America is based in the foundation of a just and holy God that exists beyond man, and that man individually, corporately, and in government is to be held accountable to. Bob, that’s why America is the greatest defender of human rights in the world, because we understand…and have for 200 years that those rights are the gift of the Creator to the people…and no man has the right to take them away. If that isn’t resting an entire civilization and culture in absolute moral truths of the Bible, I don’t know what is.
Obviously, this post only scratches the surface of these issues. Thank you for the opportunity to post here. Please understand that while the founders were not desirous of a government run religion, they did recognize the importance of founding a republic firmly rooted in lasting moral principles. As John Quincy Adams stated so perfectly, “The highest glory of the American revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” Not in the sense that everyone had to be Christians…but in the sense that the absolute truths of the Bible were to be the foundation of our civilizations. We would be wise to follow in their footsteps and not be so arrogant as to assume we know better than they.
Another blogger, one Tom Smith, added this information to the discussion that he found in the Library of Congress:
"It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four.... Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers. Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist 'a wall of separation between church and state.' In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a 'national' religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government."
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html
Then Mr Smith "nails it" in his own words:
Evidence such as this demonstrates that if our Founders had intended the strict separation that Bob advocates, they were by far the worst violators of the document and principles that they themselves drafted.
With Peter Heck and Tom Smith on the job the Founder's intentions may be safe from those who wish to re-write history to suit their preferences.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
The Lion, the Dems, and the Church
I've spent some time visiting my county's Democrat Blog Site (no, I don't feel all that welcome there) over an issue involving The Peter Heck Show , and the issue has rapidly turned into a discussion on the Church and its attitude towards the Democrat Party. There was a comment posted suggesting that some Democrats had stopped attending Church because they no longer felt welcome.
Most ministers and Church officials that I'm familiar with stick with preaching and teaching what they believe are truths from the Bible... and comment on cultural concerns when these truths relate to them. But I've never seen any arm twisting from the pulpit when it comes to party affiliation. It wouldn't be polite and it would jeopardize their tax-exempt status. It may happen among members, and in Sunday school classes but I haven't seen it.
From what I've witnessed you have to be an African-American church to legally endorse candidates.
I think the source of discomfort for loyal church-going Democrats is when their national leaders embrace issues that conflict with traditional moral statutes from the Bible, and the Church speaks out against those issues. Because of Party loyalty these Christians may try to restructure their core beliefs to accommodate non-Biblical views... or question the importance of the issues... or somehow justify their vote through other issues voiced by their party.
Now I will admit that there is a new line thats been drawn in the sand out there, but it wasn't drawn by the Church. The Democrat Party has gone through some very dynamic changes in the past 4o years and its a little unreasonable to expect Christians to go against their "Play Book" and follow along.
It bothers me a little that a family might stop attending a church because of politics, but maybe its just as well. In this country there is a church for every belief and every philosophy. There are all sorts and degrees of liberal churches out there... and I contend that liberal religious beliefs and liberal politics pretty much go hand-in-hand. Liberal churches as a rule are not dynamic... in fact they're generally dying, but they are available.
But in every church, both liberal and fundamental, there are people who are moving towards God... people that are moving away from God... and people who merely fill a pew. (just in case there is really something "up there") But we should relax. When the Lion of Judah returns... He'll sort us all out.
I've spent some time visiting my county's Democrat Blog Site (no, I don't feel all that welcome there) over an issue involving The Peter Heck Show , and the issue has rapidly turned into a discussion on the Church and its attitude towards the Democrat Party. There was a comment posted suggesting that some Democrats had stopped attending Church because they no longer felt welcome.
Most ministers and Church officials that I'm familiar with stick with preaching and teaching what they believe are truths from the Bible... and comment on cultural concerns when these truths relate to them. But I've never seen any arm twisting from the pulpit when it comes to party affiliation. It wouldn't be polite and it would jeopardize their tax-exempt status. It may happen among members, and in Sunday school classes but I haven't seen it.
From what I've witnessed you have to be an African-American church to legally endorse candidates.
I think the source of discomfort for loyal church-going Democrats is when their national leaders embrace issues that conflict with traditional moral statutes from the Bible, and the Church speaks out against those issues. Because of Party loyalty these Christians may try to restructure their core beliefs to accommodate non-Biblical views... or question the importance of the issues... or somehow justify their vote through other issues voiced by their party.
Now I will admit that there is a new line thats been drawn in the sand out there, but it wasn't drawn by the Church. The Democrat Party has gone through some very dynamic changes in the past 4o years and its a little unreasonable to expect Christians to go against their "Play Book" and follow along.
It bothers me a little that a family might stop attending a church because of politics, but maybe its just as well. In this country there is a church for every belief and every philosophy. There are all sorts and degrees of liberal churches out there... and I contend that liberal religious beliefs and liberal politics pretty much go hand-in-hand. Liberal churches as a rule are not dynamic... in fact they're generally dying, but they are available.
But in every church, both liberal and fundamental, there are people who are moving towards God... people that are moving away from God... and people who merely fill a pew. (just in case there is really something "up there") But we should relax. When the Lion of Judah returns... He'll sort us all out.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
With our Backs to Sodom
I've often thought that if the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were alive today they would vacation in Los Angeles. This is the same Los Angeles whose entertainment industry tutors our teenagers, instructs our children, and babysits our toddlers.
When I was in Jr High, I accompanied my parents to a revival meeting where the preacher spoke about his home. He said that while he and his wife did not judge others, he struggled not to question the seriousness of the faith of those who had televisions in their homes. I'm sure, at the time, I desperately hoped my parents were not taking his message to heart. As a kid in the 60's our TV was my only window to what I thought was the real world, and my only balm for boredom. It was a monumental waste of time even then, but I can't remember it being disturbing.
When insomnia strikes me today I lie in bed and surf late-night cable programming where I see soft-porn videos being advertised and comedians broaching subjects that I'd be embarrassed to discuss in polite company. I see the Church belittled and adultery celebrated. I could go on, but maybe you've seen television.
Being "holier than thou" is the stuff that hypocrits are made of, but being holy is still our calling and should be our goal. Television and movies at their best are distractions from our most basic reality... that being the one relationship we have that is eternal. At their worst these entertainments are pollutants and pathogens that we willfully place between us and our Holy Creator.
Its physically impossible to turn your back to something that surrounds you. And I'll admit to being much more lost in this culture than I should be. But being cognizant of the danger is the first step towards survivng the influences of this decadent, faithless culture... and guarding our hearts by wisely choosing our entertainments is paramount in defusing its influences.
Paul wrote, "What fellowship can light have with darkness?* ...Whatever is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable... think on these things."**
Christianity in this rich country can easily become more a "lifestyle" than a commitment. But in the early morning before the television is turned on... when our minds are yet serious and lucid... as we read the Bible and kneel to pray... there is a moment to reach past our temporary little world... and ask for wings to ride above the evil and its noise.
*2 Cor 6, **Phil 4
I've often thought that if the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were alive today they would vacation in Los Angeles. This is the same Los Angeles whose entertainment industry tutors our teenagers, instructs our children, and babysits our toddlers.
When I was in Jr High, I accompanied my parents to a revival meeting where the preacher spoke about his home. He said that while he and his wife did not judge others, he struggled not to question the seriousness of the faith of those who had televisions in their homes. I'm sure, at the time, I desperately hoped my parents were not taking his message to heart. As a kid in the 60's our TV was my only window to what I thought was the real world, and my only balm for boredom. It was a monumental waste of time even then, but I can't remember it being disturbing.
When insomnia strikes me today I lie in bed and surf late-night cable programming where I see soft-porn videos being advertised and comedians broaching subjects that I'd be embarrassed to discuss in polite company. I see the Church belittled and adultery celebrated. I could go on, but maybe you've seen television.
Being "holier than thou" is the stuff that hypocrits are made of, but being holy is still our calling and should be our goal. Television and movies at their best are distractions from our most basic reality... that being the one relationship we have that is eternal. At their worst these entertainments are pollutants and pathogens that we willfully place between us and our Holy Creator.
Its physically impossible to turn your back to something that surrounds you. And I'll admit to being much more lost in this culture than I should be. But being cognizant of the danger is the first step towards survivng the influences of this decadent, faithless culture... and guarding our hearts by wisely choosing our entertainments is paramount in defusing its influences.
Paul wrote, "What fellowship can light have with darkness?* ...Whatever is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable... think on these things."**
Christianity in this rich country can easily become more a "lifestyle" than a commitment. But in the early morning before the television is turned on... when our minds are yet serious and lucid... as we read the Bible and kneel to pray... there is a moment to reach past our temporary little world... and ask for wings to ride above the evil and its noise.
*2 Cor 6, **Phil 4
Friday, December 09, 2005
Ann Coulter Welcomed at UCONN
In a typical display of liberal "tolerance," students at the University of Connecticut shouted-down Ann Coulter on campus Wednesday night forcing her to cut short her speech.
These champions of free speech used the sophisticated "boombox with loud music" argument to counter Coulter's conservative ideas.
Shown here is a UCONN student holding a poster which features the devastatingly clever and compelling "Hitler Moustache" argument in opposing Coulter's political stance.
Quoting the Dems
I found this story on Matt Drudge's site. He explains it this way:
The DRUDGE REPORT has learned from a top GOP operative that the Republican National Committee will provide state parties with a web video prior to release tomorrow afternoon that shows a white flag waving over images of Democrat leaders making anti-war remarks. The ad is in response to the controversial comments Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean and 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry made earlier in the week.
A Democratic strategist who had the web ad described to her said, “This is way over the top but we have no one to blame but Dean, Kerry and others who continue to pander to the anti-war activists within our party.”
The web video advances the Republican contention that the Democrats only have a “retreat and defeat” message on the war in Iraq. The video highlights the effect Democrats can have on the morale of U.S. soldiers.
One Republican strategist familiar with the ad said, “The Democrats, especially Howard Dean have a way of trying to turn the tables and say ‘that’s not what I meant’ – its just those ‘evil Republicans’ This video will make them crazy – it reinforces what they really believe with what they actually said – and that is devastating for the Democratic Party.”
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
How much does it cost to advertise during the Super Bowl? Thats a fund to which I would contribute.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
The White House Christmas Card
With certain impeachment pending, I ran to my bookshelves and retrieved the President's card with the two dogs and one cat sitting in the snow on the White House lawn. I feverishly searched for a "Christmas" message and found none.
But inside under the Presidential Seal were these words:
The Lord is my strength and my shield;
In him my heart trusts;
So I am helped and my heart exults,
And with my song I give him thanks.
Psalm 28:7 (RSV)
With derisive glee the MSM have been jumping about rejoicing that certain conservative Christian leaders have voiced disapproval over the official White House Christmas Card, in that it fails to include the word "Christmas." These same journalists would have complained if "Christmas" had been included, which I'm sure they would have preferred, but this was the only negative spin available so they instinctively and naturally pounced.
I would have preferred a Christmas message. But having the President of the world's only superpower send out the message that the God of Abraham is his strength and his shield is kind of special in itself. It may not be Christmassy... but I'll take it.
With certain impeachment pending, I ran to my bookshelves and retrieved the President's card with the two dogs and one cat sitting in the snow on the White House lawn. I feverishly searched for a "Christmas" message and found none.
But inside under the Presidential Seal were these words:
The Lord is my strength and my shield;
In him my heart trusts;
So I am helped and my heart exults,
And with my song I give him thanks.
Psalm 28:7 (RSV)
With derisive glee the MSM have been jumping about rejoicing that certain conservative Christian leaders have voiced disapproval over the official White House Christmas Card, in that it fails to include the word "Christmas." These same journalists would have complained if "Christmas" had been included, which I'm sure they would have preferred, but this was the only negative spin available so they instinctively and naturally pounced.
I would have preferred a Christmas message. But having the President of the world's only superpower send out the message that the God of Abraham is his strength and his shield is kind of special in itself. It may not be Christmassy... but I'll take it.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
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
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
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
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
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
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
Sunday, December 04, 2005
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."
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."
Friday, December 02, 2005
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.
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.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
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.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Merry C____________
Skye Puppy has a great post about the Happy Holidays vs Merry Christmas thing, including some intersting comments from a Rabbi Lapin. Good reading.
The Pupster wraps it up with this suggestion:
We talked about this, including the various stores that have instructed their employees to say "Happy Holidays," in our Bible Study class on Sunday. Our teacher had a good suggestion.
When you go into a store to do your Christmas shopping, ask to speak to the manager (a checkout clerk can't be counted on to relay the message). Ask the manager if the store's employees are wishing people "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays."
If it's the holiday greeting, then let the manager know how disappointed you are. "Oh, that's too bad. I don't want to buy holiday gifts. I'm doing my Christmas shopping." Then leave the store.
Our teacher expects to do most of his Christmas shopping this year at little boutique shops that wish him "Merry Christmas," rather than at the big stores who are afraid of December's "C word." I may be doing the same.
http://www.skyepuppy.blogspot.com/
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.
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?
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Senator Lieberman: Patriot
The Senator from Connecticut is torching his future in the Democrat Party for the sake of the nation and its war on terror. The entire article is a must-read.
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.
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.
Monday, November 28, 2005
The Real News from Iraqi Bloggers
I was reading a blog page that originates inside Iraq which had posted pictures of American and Iraqi soldiers together at an Iraqi Security Forces Graduation Ceremony. Many of the comments posted observed that these were the types of news and pictures that the mainstream media doesn't publish.
But one comment came from an anonymous radical Muslim:
Should have taken the pictures at closer range : sometimes, it´s hard to see the features of the faces of these traitors. Every single one deserves to die.
Free Iraq !
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.
Friday, November 25, 2005
Vote for your Republican Presidential Candidate Today!
Hugh Hewitt is taking a Thanksgiving Weekend poll to determine who conservatives want as their presidential candidate in 2008. Go to his site and vote, please. Its fast. Its fun. Its easy.
http://www.hughhewitt.com/
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/
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Steyn on Zarqawi
Mark Steyn makes a couple points about the bombing in Jordan and what it tells us about the war on terror and Iraq.
I don't know what Islamist Suicide-Bombing For Dummies defines as a "soft target" but a Jordanian-Palestinian wedding in the public area of an hotel in a Muslim country with no infidel troops must come pretty close to the softest target of all time. Even more revealing, look at who Zarqawi dispatched to blow up his brother Muslims: why would he send Ali Hussein Ali al-Shamari, one of his most trusted lieutenants, to die in an operation requiring practically no skill?
Well, by definition it's hard to get suicide bombers with experience. But Mr Shamari's presence suggests at the very least that the "insurgency" is having a hard time meeting its recruitment targets.
True, he (Zarqawi) did manage to kill a couple of dozen Muslims. But what's the strategic value of that? And that worked out well, didn't it? Hundreds of thousands of Zarqawi's fellow Jordanians fill the streets to demand his death.
Did they show that on the BBC? Or are demonstrations only news when they're anti-Bush and anti-Blair? And look at it this way: if the "occupation" is so unpopular in Iraq, where are the mass demonstrations against that? I'm not talking 200,000, or even 100 or 50,000. But, if there were just 1,500 folks shouting "Great Satan, go home!" in Baghdad or Mosul, it would be large enough for the media to do that little trick where they film the demo close up so it looks like the place is packed. Yet no such demonstrations take place.
http://www.skyepuppy.blogspot.com/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/11/22/do2202.xml
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
You Gotta Love This WomanRush Limbaugh played a recording of "our Jean" speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives. Jean Schmidt, the freshman congresswoman from Ohio, is the lady who defeated Paul Hackett in the recent special election in Ohio.
Schmidt said:
A few minutes ago, I received a call from Colonel Danny Bopp, Ohio representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: "Stay the course." He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message that "cowards cut and run; Marines never do." Danny and the rest of America and the world want the assurance from this body that we will see this through.
At this point the Democrats roundly booed Congresswoman Schmidt. (and, in effect Colonel Bopp, too) This woman has guts.
McCain Begins to Look and Sound Presidential
"If we really want to do well in 2006, we need to have fiscal discipline like Republicans campaigned on. We have lost our way as a party. Our base is deflated and taxpayers don't see any difference between us and the Democrats."
John McCain is no public speaker, but these are the words of a conservative running for the presidency. At least he sounds conservative. Maybe its time we Republicans started to deal with the possibility that the Senator from Arizona may end up being our "lesser of two evils" candidate in 2008.
McCain and fellow-Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina were in Graham's home state campaigning for Republican state Attorney General Henry McMaster, when during an Associated Press interview he also said:
"The message in Iraq is we are making progress... we have to make progress and we regret the loss of every single young American. But the benefits of success are enormous."
Graham added:
"Democrats who have this cut-and-run strategy... the public doesn't want to follow that. They want to follow Republicans who understand the war is not going as well as it should but who understand that our security is better off with a successful outcome in Iraq."
Referring to Graham, McCain said:
"Some people have said this might be a very attractive vice presidential candidate."
I don't think so... what could Graham deliver to McCain's candidacy? South Carolina? If McCain didn't already have this conservative southern state he wouldn't be winning anything anyway.
Senator McCain, of the "gang of fourteen" fame, may desire to be president, but there will first have to be a great deal of fence mending with the conservative base of the Republican party before his run is feasible.
Maybe the fence mending has begun.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Murtha's Memory
Pennsylvania Democrat Congressman John Murtha announced this week that it was in the United States' best interest to withdraw its troops from Iraq in the next six months. I do not question Murtha's sincerity or his concern for the troops. But I do call into question both his common sense and his memory.
First of all Murtha, a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War knows that U.S. troops are going to be stationed in Iraq for as long as George Bush and his advisors deem their presence necessary. And, if he has been paying attention, he knows that no poll will help George Bush decide. So what should Murtha know that his words will accomplish?
His memory of the Vietnam War should help him understand that anti-war rhetoric, especially on the part of decision-makers in the government, encourages our enemies in Iraq to hang-on just as it did in Vietnam. His common sense should tell him that our enemies will see this as a sign of weakness and our allies will see this as a lack of resolve. His words hurt the efforts towards democratization in Iraq... and most importantly they place our troops in even greater danger. His common sense should tell him this.
On Friday the Republicans in the House brought "immediate withdrawal" up for a vote and it was overwhelmingly rejected 403-3. Like most Democrats, Murtha voted against the measure, saying it was not the thoughtful approach he said he had suggested... bringing the troops safely home in six months. Democrats derided the vote as a political stunt.
I admire the Republicans for trying, through this vote, to send a message to the fledgling Iraqi government... and to our enemies, but it is really just a band-aid placed on the wound that Murtha and other Democrats have inflicted on this nation and its war on terror. The Democrats are at war, but they choose not to fight terrorism... instead they make war on George W Bush and his ability to lead. The Democrat's war hurts our country and our troops... but somewhere I stopped accusing the Democrat Leadership of patriotism.
Hugh Hewitt posts this letter:
Congressman Murtha,
PO Box 780
Johnstown, PA 15907-0780
As a U.S. Army veteran of the Vietnam Era and the father of two sons, one a 6 year Army Veteran and the other a 13 year active duty soldier preparing for his 3rd tour in Iraq, I want you to know that I, and they, feel you have abandoned them today. We have great respect for your honorable service but your past service makes it even worse a betrayal of those who fight today!
My oldest son said it best after 9/11 when I told him “well the American people are behind you now”. His response was “yeah Dad….for how long?” It didn’t take the Democratic Party very long to abandon them. It took you a little longer but the betrayal is complete. We are winning this war everywhere except at home. You have forgotten what it felt like to be a soldier spit on by your fellow citizens. You join the ranks of those who want to drive military recruiters out of the schools. You sir, should be ashamed.
http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2005/11/13-week/index.php#a000557
Thursday, November 17, 2005
The Democrat's War
I think we've all wondered how the Democrat's war is effecting the men and women fighting our nation's war in Iraq. These are the Vice President's Remarks at the Frontiers of Freedom Institute 2005 Ronald Reagan Gala:
The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out. American soldiers and Marines are out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures - conducting raids, training Iraqi forces, countering attacks, seizing weapons, and capturing killers - and back home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie.
The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone - but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history. We're going to continue throwing their own words back at them. And far more important, we're going to continue sending a consistent message to the men and women who are fighting the war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other fronts. We can never say enough how much we appreciate them, and how proud they make us. They and their families can be certain: That this cause is right ... and the performance of our military has been brave and honorable ... and this nation will stand behind our fighting forces with pride and without wavering until the day of victory.
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?
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Thomas Sowell Is My Hero
The next time a Senate hearing addresses the latest call for a rise in the minimum wage and the liberal Senators like Teddy Kennedy begin preaching at us... I wish (...and if I were King this would happen) the conservative Senators would call in Thomas Sowell to give us all a little class in economics.
Note: This guy is on the short list of people I want to meet before I die.
T Sowell writes:
Let us go back a few generations in the United States. We need not speculate about racial discrimination because it was openly spelled out in laws in the Southern states, where most blacks lived, and was not unknown in the North.
Yet in the late 1940s, the unemployment rate among young black men was not only far lower than it is today but was not very different from unemployment rates among young whites the same ages. Every census from 1890 through 1930 showed labor force participation rates for blacks to be as high as, or higher than, labor force participation rates among whites.
Why are things so different today in the United States -- and so different among Muslim young men in France? That is where economics comes in.
People who are less in demand -- whether because of inexperience, lower skills, or race -- are just as employable at lower pay rates as people who are in high demand are at higher pay rates. That is why blacks were just as able to find jobs as whites were, prior to the decade of the 1930s and why a serious gap in unemployment between black teenagers and white teenagers opened up only after 1950.
The net economic effect of minimum wage laws is to make less skilled, less experienced, or otherwise less desired workers more expensive -- thereby pricing many of them out of jobs. Large disparities in unemployment rates between the young and the mature, the skilled and the unskilled, and between different racial groups have been common consequences of minimum wage laws.
Where minimum wage rates are higher and accompanied by other worker benefits mandated by government to be paid by employers, as in France, unemployment rates are higher and differences in unemployment rates between the young and the mature, or between different racial or ethnic groups, are greater.
France's unemployment rate is roughly double that of the United States and people who are unemployed stay unemployed much longer in France. Unemployment rates among young Frenchmen are about 20 percent and among young Muslim men about 40 percent.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Newdow's Money
Here's another reason to elect conservative presidents who will place strict constructionists on the Supreme Court:
Michael Newdow said Sunday that he planned to file a federal lawsuit this week asking for the removal of the national motto, "In God We Trust," from U.S. coins and dollar bills. He claims it's an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and "excludes people who don't believe in God."
Newdow, a Sacramento doctor and lawyer who is an avowed atheist, used a similar argument when he challenged the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools because it contains the words "under God." He took his fight to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2004 said he lacked standing to bring the case because he didn't have custody of his daughter.
http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/13854476p-14694282c.html
... kind of makes you sick, doesn't it.
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.
Monday, November 14, 2005
As Europe Lies Dying
The French government has demonstrated in the past few days that it is nothing but a weak and impotent collection of liberal buffoons. They simply haven't a clue how to handle the riots because, being Leftists... they've been doing everything right all along, and... this shouldn't have happened! Predictably, to the left of these liberals, the Greens, Communists, and human rights groups think the problem is not the gangs of arsonists but "the system"...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.
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
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
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Blogging Orewon the Liberal
I've been chatting back and forth with a seemingly bright guy, though liberal, that goes by the name "Orewon" here in the blogosphere. He currently has a post that explains his disdain for intelligent design being taught in the classroom. I would like to invite my fellow minions and friends from the KP site to visit 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.
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.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
France and the Democrat Party
Sometimes an example of how NOT to do things can be very helpful. If there is a country on this planet that mirrors the soul of the Democrat base in this country it would have to be France. Is there a country anywhere more liberal, more pacifist to the core, more sophisticated and "above it all" than France?
Because the U.S. demonstrated, or at least conveyed weakness in Vietnam, the Iran hostage crisis, and Somalia, Bin Laden misjudged our resolve and attacked us in the 90's and ultimately on 9-11. Ofcourse things did not turn out the way Osama anticipated. Now the country in which his operation was based is voting for its leaders and he is living, presumably, in a cave. Now, instead of fighting Democracy by attacking the U.S. homeland, he is fighting to keep democracy out of Iraq. We're still fighting him, but we're doing it on foreign soil and moderate Muslims are fighting beside us.
So before we turn our government over to the appeasing, pacifist, "lets just get along" purveyors of weakness in the Democrat party, lets take a look at France. The French appeased Islam by betraying the U.S. over the Iraq invasion. The French appeased Islam by embracing Arafat. The French appeased Islam by turning over sovereignty of large portions of its cities to Muslim immigrants.
So, when radical Islam looks at the French does it see a friend? No, it sees weakness and an opportunity to exploit it.
No matter how many times the left-leaning press denies or suppresses it, the riots on French streets are a religious and cultural war. The rioters are not the assimilated French Muslims of the 20th century. They are unhappy, disaffected Muslim youth who are ready to terrorize France and the rest of Europe until they become a world to their liking. The liberals of Europe may appease and "try to understand the anger" right up until the moment they realize all is lost. There are those out there in the blogosphere that believe we are in the first seconds of a cultural and political avalanche that will change Europe forever. Even if the few conservatives left cry for change, the left will counter with a cry of "fascism." (See "Will France Remain French" below)
American liberals and Democrats look at Iraq and see America making enemies. They look at detainees at Guantanimo with compassion and demand legal representation. They undermine the war at home, spend most of their energy going after the President, and approach the war on terror with an academic detachment that is interpreted by radical Islam as nothing less than...weakness.
George Bush has provided the leadership necessary to protect this country. It hasn't been pretty, but it has been what is needed to keep us free. Perhaps liberals need to look at the Iraqis to remember something this nation learned over 200 years ago.
Iraqis are having to fight and risk their lives to hold up that famous purple finger. Its a dangerous and violent birth for their democracy. But maybe for freedom to survive, it must have a painful birth. In this century western culture faces a much more dangerous threat than communism. Our survival depends on the simple recognition that freedom often survives only with the shedding of blood. This is a lesson that the Left will never embrace.
Sometimes an example of how NOT to do things can be very helpful. If there is a country on this planet that mirrors the soul of the Democrat base in this country it would have to be France. Is there a country anywhere more liberal, more pacifist to the core, more sophisticated and "above it all" than France?
Because the U.S. demonstrated, or at least conveyed weakness in Vietnam, the Iran hostage crisis, and Somalia, Bin Laden misjudged our resolve and attacked us in the 90's and ultimately on 9-11. Ofcourse things did not turn out the way Osama anticipated. Now the country in which his operation was based is voting for its leaders and he is living, presumably, in a cave. Now, instead of fighting Democracy by attacking the U.S. homeland, he is fighting to keep democracy out of Iraq. We're still fighting him, but we're doing it on foreign soil and moderate Muslims are fighting beside us.
So before we turn our government over to the appeasing, pacifist, "lets just get along" purveyors of weakness in the Democrat party, lets take a look at France. The French appeased Islam by betraying the U.S. over the Iraq invasion. The French appeased Islam by embracing Arafat. The French appeased Islam by turning over sovereignty of large portions of its cities to Muslim immigrants.
So, when radical Islam looks at the French does it see a friend? No, it sees weakness and an opportunity to exploit it.
No matter how many times the left-leaning press denies or suppresses it, the riots on French streets are a religious and cultural war. The rioters are not the assimilated French Muslims of the 20th century. They are unhappy, disaffected Muslim youth who are ready to terrorize France and the rest of Europe until they become a world to their liking. The liberals of Europe may appease and "try to understand the anger" right up until the moment they realize all is lost. There are those out there in the blogosphere that believe we are in the first seconds of a cultural and political avalanche that will change Europe forever. Even if the few conservatives left cry for change, the left will counter with a cry of "fascism." (See "Will France Remain French" below)
American liberals and Democrats look at Iraq and see America making enemies. They look at detainees at Guantanimo with compassion and demand legal representation. They undermine the war at home, spend most of their energy going after the President, and approach the war on terror with an academic detachment that is interpreted by radical Islam as nothing less than...weakness.
George Bush has provided the leadership necessary to protect this country. It hasn't been pretty, but it has been what is needed to keep us free. Perhaps liberals need to look at the Iraqis to remember something this nation learned over 200 years ago.
Iraqis are having to fight and risk their lives to hold up that famous purple finger. Its a dangerous and violent birth for their democracy. But maybe for freedom to survive, it must have a painful birth. In this century western culture faces a much more dangerous threat than communism. Our survival depends on the simple recognition that freedom often survives only with the shedding of blood. This is a lesson that the Left will never embrace.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Will France Remain French?
Recently Paris and some 20 surrounding cities have been plagued with rioting. It started in a poor suburb east of Paris named Clichy when Muslim youths were stealing parts from cars parked on the street. The police came, chased the youths, and two young Muslims ended up in an area cordoned-off around an electric pylon where they were subsequently electrocuted.
Amir Taheri writes in the New York Post:
Once news of their deaths was out, Clichy was all up in arms.
With cries of "God is great," bands of youths armed with whatever they could get hold of went on a rampage and forced the police to flee.
The French authorities could not allow a band of youths to expel the police from French territory. So they hit back — sending in Special Forces, known as the CRS, with armored cars and tough rules of engagement.
Within hours, the original cause of the incidents was forgotten and the issue jelled around a demand by the representatives of the rioters that the French police leave the "occupied territories." By midweek, the riots had spread to three of the provinces neighboring Paris, with a population of 5.5 million.
These areas are basically slums made up of Muslim immigrants, mainly from North Africa. Part of the reason why the areas are so poor is that the Muslims have driven out shopkeepers that sold pork or alcohol and have closed down cinemas, theaters, dancehalls, and other establishments associated with the "sinful" French culture. So instead of assimilting into the culture of France these immigrants have made parts of France Muslim and basically kicked out the French.
Taheri continues:
As the number of immigrants and their descendants increases in a particular locality, more and more of its native French inhabitants leave for "calmer places," thus making assimilation still more difficult.
In some areas, it is possible for an immigrant or his descendants to spend a whole life without ever encountering the need to speak French, let alone familiarize himself with any aspect of the famous French culture.
The result is often alienation. And that, in turn, gives radical Islamists an opportunity to propagate their message of religious and cultural apartheid.
This story has been covered by the American press, but in the spirit of political correctness you're usually two or three minutes in before you hear its a Muslim problem.
Ironically, no other country has tried harder to appease the Muslim world than has France. When Chirac opposed the invasion of Iraq I'm sure he figured he would be a hero to Islam. Looking at Paris today it is obvious that appeasement doesn't work.
The population of unassimilated Muslims, through birth rate and immigration, is rising in France much faster than that of the French. Will there one day be civil war? Are these riots the beginning? And when the French ultimately surrender will the Muslims tear down the Cathedrals? Will they destroy all the western art in the Louvre? If France becomes a Muslim-run nation will liberals in America finally realize we are at war?
When Hugh Hewitt interviewed Mark Steyn on the subject of the Muslin riots in Paris, Steyn had this to say about our future:
"I'm sometimes accused of being terribly pessimistic when I speak in North America. And I always tell Americans and Canadians, that the one great advantage people have... there may be a lot of bad news in the world, but the one advantage North Americans have, is that Europe is ahead of you in the line. And you have to learn what's happening. You have to confront honestly what's happening with these disaffected Muslim populations in Europe."
America, liberals and all, needs to wake up and see the opportunity we have in Iraq. If we are successful maybe Iraq, and some day its neighbors, will be the prosperous and free democracies while France and much of Europe struggle in a Muslim theocracy.
http://www.nypost.com/commentary/53917.htm
http://www.radioblogger.com/#001126
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.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
The Democrat's Little Stunt
Betsy Newmark of Betsy's Page presents in depth the story of the Senate Democrat Walk-Out yesterday and sums up with:
Don't be dismayed about what the Democrats did yesterday. It is actually a sign of the weak hand that they're playing. They lost the hope of a Rove indictment or of Libby's indictment being tied to the intelligence leading to the war. All the criticism of Bush's actions about Katrina have been diluted by information of how local and state officials were themselves at fault in so many ways. The nomination of Alito had shifted the conversation and stemmed some of the President's drop in the polls as conservatives return to the fold. The story was shifting to the actions that Bush was announcing yesterday about combatting avian flu. So, all they can do is pull a PR stunt to try to drag the storyline back to their turf. It might have worked for one day, but the Democrats need something positive for their agenda and they haven't been able to come up with a positive agenda for five years.
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Alito's Way
As always the most difficult chore in selling a conservative judge to the public is explaing how upholding a badly written, or unpopular law, is the right thing to do. This takes more than a sound bite. This takes participation... thinking, on the part of those being persuaded.
Alito was the lone dissenter in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The law in question stated that a woman must notify her spouse before seeking an abortion, unless special circumstances made this notification an "undue burden" or dangerous. This case will no doubt be the major rallying point for those who wish to thwart this nomination.
In writing his position Alito Stated:
"Whether the legislature’s approach represents sound public policy is not a question for us to decide. Our task here is simply to decide whether Section 3209 meets constitutional standards."
This is a man who understands the role of the Supreme Court.
(Patternico's Pontifications goes into detail here: 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
