Pocket Full of Mumbles

What's done is done, and this puppy's done. Visit me over at Pearls & Lodestones

My Photo
Name:
Location: South East, United States

Friday, December 30, 2005

Rise Up! Defend Your Faith!!

Make Them Show Their True Colors!!!

Two stories, neither acknowledged by Mainstream Media news, clearly shows a concerted effort by Liberal America to attack, with the express intent to suppress entirely, Christianity, those who espouse its teachings, and practice their faith... Contrary to the letter and spirit of the First amendment.


Judge Reaffirms:
No 'Jesus' Prayers

Indiana House of Representatives can't have clergy mention savior
Posted: December 29, 2005

"An Indiana federal judge yesterday reaffirmed his decision to forbid prayers to be offered that use Jesus' name in the state House of Representatives... [judge] Hamilton said that "using Christ's name or title" or referring to a "savior" amounted to a state endorsement of religion."

This one will be appealed to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, and will, if necessary, go to the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington D.C.



Navy Chaplain Still Fasting for Right to Pray
December 30, 2005, Associated Press

"Lieutenant Gordon James Klingenschmitt [stationed in Norfolk, VA] has a new three-year contract as a U-S Navy chaplain, but is continuing the water-only fast he started a week ago Tuesday.

Klingenschmitt says he's been ordered not to pray publicly in the name of Jesus while he's in uniform -- and won't eat again until he can.

He's urging President Bush to sign an executive order that would let all military chaplains pray according to their beliefs rather than being restricted to generic prayers."
[Emphasis Mine]


So let me get this straight... As Americans we have "freedom" of speech, and "freedom" of religion, but not the "freedom" to speak the name of 'Jesus' or exercise our faith, if that faith is Christianity.

How can I say this? Well, Judge Hamilton in the first story didn't single out Buddhists, or Taoists, or Hindus, or Muslims... He singled out Christians. Which, while trying to follow his perception of the so-called 'Establishment' clause, he violates the 'Free Exercise' clause.

It's stands to reason-- to me at least --that if by adhering to one, you violate the other, your interpretation of the whole is fundamentally flawed. Liberalism therefore-- and by extension, Democrats, has misinterpreted the First Amendment.

But do they misinterpret, or do they deliberately twist the First Amendment? Liberal Democrats are not stupid, or rather, not intellectually challenged. They know what they are doing, and why they are doing it. This makes them especially dangerous.

There is only one real solution here, and that is to do what Lieutenant Klingenschmitt is doing: Take a stand against the Anti-Free Speech, Anti-Religious Left. Law Makers in Indiana should make every effort to pray in Jesus' name, and challenge this federal judge, David Hamilton-- force his hand and make him punish the law breakers... Imagine that! By practicing one's Christian faith, in America, Land of the Free-to-Worship-as-one-pleases we become Law Breakers!

I say, "Stand up, and force it to go to the U.S. Supreme Court!"

If President Bush is indeed a Christian, he should sign the Executive Order for which Lieutenant Klingenschmitt is fighting. Our Constitution is at stake in both these cases. Being a Christian is more than simply standing up for the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, and all Christendom, being a Christian means standing against injustice in all its varied forms.

Truth and Justice sees only Black and White... Evil injects Shades of Gray.


Here's more

Thursday, December 29, 2005

Songs Worth Acquiring --

"Toast"
--Streetband

"Like Fugitives"
--Roseanne Cash

"Wordless Chorus"
--My Morning Jacket

"Wherever You Are"
--David Mead

"I'll Give You My Skin"
--Indigo Girls (Featuring Michael Stipe)

As heard on Radioio


Here's more

Craige McMillan Makes a Great Case

For prosecuting the New York Times and Government Employees who leak classified intelligence.

"What is the difference between the New York Times latest "expose" on the National Security Agency's terrorist monitoring, and a soldier who alerts the enemy so that his fellow soldiers can be ambushed, captured or killed?"

What indeed? Hubris seems to be The Times' underlying sin.

"You cannot prosecute a war or engage in a foreign policy with which we disagree."

And that's the Left in a nutshell.


Here's more

How Much Uglier?

3 Quotes from William Rusher's
Get Ready for Impeachment
Posted at WorldNetDaily
December 29, 2005


"The hatred that many Democrats feel toward George W. Bush is truly searing -- quite the equal, it is only fair to say, of the hatred many Republicans felt for Bill Clinton."

"Many Democratic partisans will, of course, regard this as tit-for-tat: a condign repayment for the Republicans' impeachment of Clinton."

"American voters, casting their ballots next November, will have to decide, among other things, just how much uglier they want American politics to get."


Personal Note: I also found the statement, "Nancy Pelosi... might well feel that a successful impeachment, even if followed by an unsuccessful trial in the Senate, would go far to restore the pre-Clinton balance between the parties," to be quite interesting. It would certainly fit with the 'equal-measure-of-hatred' model the Left has adopted for all things Bush, and goes a long way toward sealing the assertion that 'Democrats care only about pulling Bush down' in stone. It's petty. And it hurts our nation. And whether the Left realizes it or not, it hurts them as well, if not more so.

In regard to the first quotes mention of Republican hatred for Clinton, personally speaking, I harbor no hate toward Mr. Clinton... Disgust and embarrassment in full measures, but not hatred. He is, after all, a man, and subject to all the temptations, poor judgment, and baser impulses to which we are all subject. Did he deserve the Impeachment? Yes. Should he have been removed from office? I don't believe so-- and thankfully, the Senate rejected the notion --especially considering who we would have ended up with. The old analogy, "Out of the frying pan, into the fire," comes quickly to mind, and I don't even want to think about the aftermath of 9-11 under a Gore Presidency.

Consider also the love-fest this Christmas morning between Russert, Brokaw, and Koppel:

RUSSERT: And they were not questioning whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

BROKAW: No. No. No.

RUSSERT: That seemed to be a uniformly held belief.

BROKAW: Right. Yeah.

KOPPEL: Nor did the Clinton administration beforehand.

BROKAW: No.

KOPPEL: I mean, the only difference between the Clinton administration and the Bush administration was 9/11.

BROKAW: Right.

KOPPEL: If 9/11 had happened on Bill Clinton's watch, he would have gone into Iraq.

BROKAW: Yeah. Yeah.


On Clinton's watch? Which translates to Gore's watch? Judging by all the rumor and innuendo surrounding Clinton's shifty-ness, and brutal suppression of opposition, not to mention a fawning media, he might well have been pretty effective in Iraq. Or at least perceived as such. So, yes, I'm pretty thankful Bill wasn't thrown out of the Oval office. Democrats, I fear, will be far more vindictive should they take the House and Senate, which doesn't seem likely given their current reputation for spinelessness.


Here's more

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Hey France, Leave Iraq or We'll Kill the Hostage!

Just one problem... France has no military presence in Iraq. What we're these idiots thinking?

Hmmmmmm.

Intercepted cell phone conversation -- somewhere in Baghdad...

Abdel, Aziz here...

Azzizzzz! WHAZZZZZUP!

I am bored Abdel. Let's do something.

I could get my cousin Hammeed's car and we could cruise for honeys.

Nah.

I could get my cousin Hammeed's car and we could look for a demonstration.

Nah.

I know, get your rifle, and I'll get my cousin Hammeed's car and we'll kidnap a foreigner. We could get on television!

Do we have to feed him?

Nah.

Where would we put him?

We'll take him back to my cousin Hammeed's house and keep him in the basement. Oh! See if you can get your brothers video camera!

...

On a more serious note, let's hope they realize their mistake and release the Frenchman. France may not have supported the U.S.'s decision to topple Saddam, but that doesn't mean this man deserves what he's gotten.


Here's more

"The loving eyes of God look on the human being, considered full and complete at its beginning..."

'Thine eyes
did see my
substance,
yet being unperfect;
and in thy
book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.' Psalm 139:16

"...It is extremely powerful, the idea in this psalm, that in this 'unformed' embryo God already sees the whole future... In the Lord's book of life, the days that this creature will live and will fill with works during his time on earth are already written."

--Pope Benedict XVI

While I find a lot to disagree with doctrinally in the Catholic faith, I can't disagree with this Pope's message. He's right on the money. I find it appalling that people can champion deathrow inmates while remaining silent on the issue of law-sanctioned murder-mills, otherwise known as Abortion Clinics.

UPDATE:

On a personal note... that is one creepy picture.


Here's more

Tuesday, December 27, 2005

Al Jazeera a Puppet of the Mossad???

What? Israel controls Al Jazeera?

Consider the following excerpts from this Iraqi Shiite Imam Sheik Jalal Al-Din Al-Saghir, which aired December 16th on Al-Furat TV, Iraq...


Shiite Iraqi Imam Blasts 'Israel Controlled' Al-Jazeera TV for Insulting Ayatollah Al-Sistani

"It comes as no surprise to me that the "Saddam orphans," who have taken over Al-Jazeera TV, and that the money of the criminal Saddam, which nutures Al-Jazeera TV... It comes as no surprise to me that their vileness could reach such a low level.

"It comes as no surprise to me that lunatics who used to live off the oil vouchers which they sucked from your blood and resources, could fall into the swamp of abomination to which Al-Jazeera TV fell.

"It comes as no surprise to me that a TV channel known to be guided by the Mossad, and agencies whose purpose is to damage Arabs Islamic interest - Al-Jazeera TV... It comes as no surprise at all that it could stoop to such a level.

"It comes as no surprise to me that the midget-state of Qatar, which is clearly supported by Israel - this gang that now sits on the (Qatari) throne...

"It comes as no surprise to me that it could shoot arrows of hate at the Iraqi people on a daily basis, as well as arrows inciting to civil strife and terrorism.

"This behavior of theirs comes as no surprise to me. But it does come as a bitter surprise to me that the Iraqi Foreign Ministry could stand idly by while such a crime takes place.

[...]

"How many times has Al-Jazeera TV arrived at the scene of terrorist attacks even before the terrorists themselves? Their cameras were in place before the crimes were committed."
[Emphasis Added]


This is Rich! Al Jazeera is a puppet of the Mossad, and thereby, Israel? The Sheik must have been really riled to make that claim, but then he did say Al Jazeera was "known to be guided". What I want to know is "known by whom?"

As far-fetched as this sounds, what really caught my eye was the last statement... That Al Jazeera has the inside track on terrorist attacks, so much so they are able to be set up with cameras rolling before the strike itself.

How much of this is "common knowledge", and how much is just anger? It seems to lend credence to the belief that Al Jazeera is indeed a willing mouthpiece for the Terrorists.

I find it odd that the Sheik accuses Al Jazeera of the very thing we on the right accuse the MSM... Inciting violence, public discord, civil strife. Perhaps we worry too much about Al Jazeera and not enough about our own home-grown propagandist outlets... Our own Terrorist mouthpieces.


Here's more

Monday, December 26, 2005

God, a babe in Mary's arms vs. Santa...

I just happened to be off on Christmas Eve and by chance turned the channel and caught the local weather guy tracking Santa for the all the kiddies-- who, beyond plausibility, were apparently all watching TV weather for just that reason --when I see Santa's location (6:30pm central, or GMT-6) as the Azores. Just one problem, though. The bright spot on the map indicating Santa's location was sitting squarely over the Canary Islands. What's the problem with that, you ask? Well, the Azores are about a thousand miles northwest. The only reason I know this is because I spent 10 months on the island of Terceira, mid way in the island chain. I don't know why it should have bothered me that the map was wrong, but it did.

On top of the aforementioned flawed map, I'm told the map showing Santa in Atlanta was also wrong-- the web address hadn't updated prior to air, so an arbitrary location was related to all the excited kiddies in S.E. Alabama. "Santa is in Atlanta! That's right next door!"

Does anyone see the problem here? Not only is Santa a lie we tell our children every year, but the station I work for resorted to lying about the whereabouts of our lie! (not the weather guy, he didn't build the graphics) But then, every time any station tracks Santa, it's essentially the same thing: Lying about the whereabouts of a Lie, when it would be far easier to tell the truth and tell the kiddies that Christmas is really about the celebration of the miracle of God taking on human form to live a sinless life, that He might sacrifice that life to redeem fallen man. It's a beautiful story, with every bit of mystery and excitement as Santa, but more... It's completely true.

In all fairness, I recognize that the whole idea of Santa is fun, and is in the spirit of giving. Smashing the illusion of Santa for children who unquestioningly believe could be a cruel and devastating blow to that innocent trust. But better to not tell the children about Santa in the first place. After all, what picture, what story, could possibly be more beautiful than God, a babe in Mary's arms?


Here's more

Christmas with the Liberals

Yes, I knew all along that my family was overwhelmingly liberal-Democrat, but I didn't think anything of it... Still don't, they are family after all and this is America; they can suffer from all the delusions they choose. I was a bit dismayed however at how parrot-ish they all sounded. For all my talk of wanting people to learn to think for themselves, I was shocked to discover my own family was in serious need of the very same lessons.

This is what comes from watching CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, etcetera, ad nauseum, without even attempting to question the assertions being pumped into ones head. People lie. People distort. It's who we are: looking out for ourselves and our agendas by any means necessary.

Short list of distortions I listened to yesterday:

...Bush is spying on average Americans
...Fox News is the worst most slanted news source
...Hillary Clinton will be America's salvation in '08
...Under Bill Clinton, American's made more money

I chose to be civil and keep the harmony of Christmas unsullied by rhetoric and sophistry. But I was amazed by it all. This is what comes from living apart from the family these last 17 years. I've had the luxury of learning what was important to me, without familial influence.

As for myself...

Capital Punishment, while flawed, should not be done away with-- or commuted, while at the same time Abortion is steadfastly championed. Where's the logic of sparing the guilty while condemning the Innocent?

Bush has all the authority he needs through the Constitution and US Code to spy on folks for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence to protect America and its citizens.

Hillary Clinton can't be any more honest about what she stands for than Bill can keep it in his pants.

Lot's of people made money during Clinton's era... Many more lost everything they owned. Clinton's administration was not a shining beacon of hope for the huddled and unwashed masses of America, it was as corrupt as they come.

The Mainstream Media does not care about telling the American people the truth. They care about their own agenda, their own social reconstruction program, and rewriting history. And they get away with it because the average American doesn't know the truth about most anything. Government schools churn out cultural illiterates by the tens of hundreds of thousands. If the populace is ignorant of truth, the Media can relate whatever "truth" they desire with impunity. Fox News is hated because they are fair and balanced. They don't defend the President on every issue. This is News I'm speaking of, not punditry. All networks have opinion makers, but not all networks report the News of the day fairly.

And while I won't speak ill of my family, no one else, as far as I'm concerned is off the hook. Idiocy does not become you, and if no one else is willing to tell you you're strutting around naked, it then falls to me to save you from embarrassment.


Here's more

Saturday, December 24, 2005

President Bush's Job Approval Reaches 50%

This from Rassmussen:

President Bush Job Approval
(Updated Daily by Noon Eastern)

Strongly Approve 26%
Somewhat Approve 23%
Somewhat Disapprove 14%
Strongly Disapprove 36%



Bush Job Approval

Saturday December 24, 2005--Forty-nine percent (49%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. That's up five points since the President's speech on Sunday night [Dec 18, 2005].

Yesterday was the first time since July that the President's Job Approval has reached the 50% mark. He earns approval from 81% of Republicans, 24% of Democrats, and 39% of those not affiliated with either major political party.


Here's more

Two Sheikhs -- Two Very Different Assessments

This from Sheikh Abu Yahya Al-Libbi, aka Muhammad Hassan Qayed, an al Qaeda member recently escaped from Bagram prison in Afghanistan:

"...the infidel Crusader forces have brought their cavalry and infantry. They are destroying [Muslim] homes, killing their sons, and arresting their elderly and their women, with whom they are filling their prisons in Abu Ghreib, Bagram, Qandahar, and Guantanamo."

"America's nose will be rubbed in the mud. America will be humiliated just like the empires before it,"

"This is the religion of Allah, of the one and only. When he desires something, he says 'become' and it comes into being. So what reason do we have to despair or be afraid? We have only two options: either we live a life of pride and strength in our religion and on our land, doing whatever we want, and worshipping our God as he ordered us, or else we are destined to Paradise."


Contrast that bit of fanatical fatalism with the observations of another Muslim, Sheik Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi, who has a firmer grasp on the reality of Islam...

"We use trains and planes, but they are not our trains or planes. The (Westerners) manufacture them and export them to us. True, we can buy the most magnificent things in the world, products for our homes and for ourselves. Our people can buy the most luxurious cars, Rolls-Royce or Mercedes 500 or 700, models S, M, and L with all the luxuries. We own them, but we don't manufacture them. We don't even produce a single [screw] in any of these cars. Others do this for us.

"The income of the entire Arab world, including the oil-producing countries, does not reach the that of a European country, such as Spain. Spain --– let alone Germany, France, Britain, or Italy. Just Spain, which is at the bottom of the list of industrial countries... The income of the entire Arab world does not reach it. How come? Because we don't work, and if we do work, we don't do it professionally.

"They conducted a survey of the average time that a government employee spends working in a certain Arab country. The average was 27 minutes a day. 27 minutes! The rest of the time he drinks coffee, reads newspapers, and goes on errands here and there. Only a small number of people work. The rest do not.

"In the mid 1970s I went to Germany. We arrived during in the morning. I asked the guy who took me from the airport to the convention hall... As I was passing through the empty streets, I asked him how come the streets were not busy, like in our countries. He said: "People are at work." After 7 p.m. he took me back to the hotel, and the streets were empty. I said to him: "What's going on, the streets are empty again." He said: people are back home from work, and they are exhausted. All they want is to eat their dinner, watch the news, and then go to bed, because early next morning they have to wake up for hard work. They commute more than an hour to work and back, and spend an hour at lunch. They work non-stop.

"We are a nation that doesn't work. How can we develop if we don't work? When we do work, we don't do it professionally. We keep saying "Don't worry, later, later..." Islam teaches us to do things professionally. Doing things professionally is a religious duty. The Prophet said that Allah ordered to excel in everything. He imposed excellence and professionalism. Professionalism must be followed in everything. "If you kill, do it properly, and if you slaughter, do it properly." Even when killing, you must do well.

"Unfortunately, we do not excel in either military or civil industries. We import everything from needles to missiles. This is our nation. We still haven't manufactured an engine in our Arab countries. We assemble parts, but have no manufacturing industries. India has manufactured a car, and even a plane, while we still go around in circles like a bull who turns a grinding mill or a water wheel until it reaches exactly where it started.

"How come the Zionist gang has managed to be superior to us, despite being so few? It has become superior through knowledge, through technology, and through strength. It has become superior to us through work. We had the desert before our eyes but we didn't do anything with it. When they took over, they turned it into a green oasis. How can a nation that does not work progress? How can it grow?"

--Excerpts from a sermon by Sheik Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi on Qatar TV
April 15, 2005


When Islam takes over the world... what will she do with it?

I'd rather not find out.


Here's more

A Bit of Christmas Levity....

Someone invariably sends me this every year around Christmas time. It's my turn to pass it on... It's good for a chuckle.


"The Physics of Santa Claus and his Reindeer"

"No known species of reindeer can fly. BUT there are 300,000 species of living organisms yet to be classified, and while most of these are insects and germs, this does not COMPLETELY rule out flying reindeer which only Santa has ever seen.

"There are two billion children (persons under 18) in the world. BUT since Santa doesn't appear to handle the Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist children, that reduces the workload to 15% of the total — 378 million according to Population Reference Bureau. At an average (census) rate of Rudolph 3.5 children per household, that's 91.8 million homes. One presumes there's at least one good child in each.

"Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west (which seems logical). This works out to 822.6 visits per second.

"This is to say that for each Christian household with good children, Santa has 1/1000th of a second to park, hop out of the sleigh, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left, get back up the chimney, get back into the sleigh and move on to the next house. Assuming that each of these 91.8 million stops are evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false but for the purposes of our calculations we will accept), we are now talking about .78 miles per household, a total trip of 75½ million miles, not counting stops to do what most of us must do at least once every 31 hours, plus feeding and etc.

"This means that Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second, 3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man-made vehicle on earth, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second - a conventional reindeer can run, tops, 15 miles per hour.

"If every one of the 91.8 million homes with good children were to put out a single chocolate chip cookie and an 8 ounce glass of 2% milk, the total calories (needless to say other vitamins and minerals) would be approximately 225 calories (100 for the cookie, give or take, and 125 for the milk, give or take). Multiplying the number of calories per house by the number of homes (225 x 91.8 x 1000000), we get the total number of calories Santa consumes that night, which is 20,655,000,000 calories. To break it down further, 1 pound is equal to 3500 calories. Dividing our total number of calories by the number of calories in a pound (20655000000/3500) and we get the number of pounds Santa gains, 5901428.6, which is 2950.7 tons.

"The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium-sized lego set (two pounds), the sleigh is carrying 321,300 tons, not counting Santa, who is invariably described as overweight. On land, conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even granting that "flying reindeer" (see above) could pull TEN TIMES the normal amount, we cannot do the job with eight, or even nine. We need 214,200 reindeer. This increases the payload (not even counting the weight of the sleigh) - to 353,430 tons. Again, for comparison - this is four times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth. 353,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance - this will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as spacecraft re-entering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer will absorb 14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy. Per second. Each.

"In short, they will burst into flame almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them, and create deafening sonic booms in their wake. The entire reindeer team will be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second. Santa, meanwhile, will be subjected to centrifugal forces 17,500.06 times greater than gravity. A 250-pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of his sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force.

"In conclusion: If Santa ever DID deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he's dead now."


Have a Merry Christmas everyone!


Here's more

Friday, December 23, 2005

The New York Times has committed felonies...

When will someone in Washington stand up to this rogue, treasonous, paper and prosecute them?

U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 798

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes,
transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information -

(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or

(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or

(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section - The term ''classified information'' means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution; .....


There's more, of course. Check it out if you'd like, but I've posted the relevent part here.

The New York Times has become... bloated... with self-importance and self-righteousness. They feel they can print whatever they choose without consequence. Earlier this month they printed a story detailing the CIA's use of secret prisons in European countries. This was a state secret, leaked to the Times, and printed by the Times. I ranted about this story in an earlier post, The Real Insurgency.

Now, just last week the New York Times discloses a secret program to eavesdrop on calls to foreign countries, specifically with links to al Qaeda. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez has called this a classified program...

"The President confirmed the existence of a highly classified program on Saturday. The program remains highly classified; there are many operational aspects of the program that have still not been disclosed and we want to protect that because those aspects of the program are very, very important to protect the national security of this country."


Thanks to the Times, a vital tool in tracking down the terrorists is compromised. Just whose side is the New York Times on? It's a safe bet they're not on America's side.

Like Democrats, The Times is only concerned with damaging the President, to pull down a sitting president in a time of war. That called a "coup". Insurrection. Treason. And for what? Power. Democratic power. They have twice now deliberately released classified information to the detriment of this nations ability to conduct the War on Terrorism and defend our Homeland.

Congress needs to investigate, and prosecute the New York Times for devulging state secrets... for treason. Someone needs to hang for this.


Here's more

How Long Before Democrats Claim a Victory...

Over the hated Bush for this bit of news...?

Bush Cutting U.S. Troop Levels in Iraq

Ah, I can hear the Media now... "The President has wisely bowed to pressure from Congressional Democrats who fear the continued presence of such a large number of U.S. troops in Iraq will only spur continued violence by insurgents, and needlessly raise the American death toll."

But the truth is, insurgent attacks are down, and Iraqi forces are 'stepping up' to defend their country, its citizens and fledgling democracy. But Democrats will refuse to see it because they simply can't allow the hated Bush a single victory.


Here's more

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Senator Ted Kennedy Has An Opinion!!!

What Else is New?

A few choice quotes from:

On wiretapping, Bush isn't listening to the Constitution
--Edward M. Kennedy, Boston Globe,

Thusday, December 22, 2005

"The President is not above the law; he is not King George."

Really?! What an astute observation, Senator! Judging by your reference, and the Democratic aversion to continued Liberty and Freedom in America, one might think you and your ilk were Tories.

"...every phone and computer in America should now come with a warning label: Warning: the privacy of your communications can no longer be guaranteed, by order of President Bush."

Every child born in America should come with a label: Warning, the life and liberty of this child can no longer be guaranteed, thanks to spineless, Liberal Democrats, and the eventual overthrow of America by foreign entities which harbor extreme ill-will toward this nation.

"The president has the constitutional obligation to protect and defend the American people. That is obvious -- but he also took an oath of office, to ''preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." With his arrogant usurpation of power and refusal to follow well-established wiretapping laws, I believe that this president is not living up to that oath."

Wrong Senator. The President of the United States has, by oath, the obligation, and responsibility to defend the Constitution of the Untited States of America from all enemies foreign and domestic... Even if those enemies turn out to be Senators or Newspapers, or Reporters, or average citizens like me. The protection of the American People comes through protecting the Constitution. The President doesn't protect Americans, the Constitution does. I'm splitting hairs, I know.

"Yesterday the vice president cut short his trip to the Middle East to break the tie in a vote on an irresponsible budget proposal that will hurt America's families, yet he couldn't find the time to level with the American people and tell them exactly where the president has the authority to spy on them."

Chastising the Vice President for doing his Constitutional Duty? My, we've become quite the anarchist, haven't we?! As to where the president's authority lies... US CODE TITLE 50, CHAPTER 36, SUBCHAPTER I § 1802. You're a Senator for goodness sake! You should know this, or at least have enough integrity and honesty to recognize the truth.

"I hope the president doesn't continue to hide behind such transparent and irrelevant justifications. Congress has amended the 1978 FISA law over time, most recently with the passage of the PATRIOT Act -- and there is no reason to think we wouldn't do so again -- if we knew what the administration is doing."

The US CODE is "transparent and irrelevant"? Funny how the sole survivor of Chappaquiddick can be outraged over the president's so-called dissembling, and ignore his own storied past.* Furthermore, how can anyone reason that the Senate would amend the PATRIOT Act, when your leader, Senator Reid, crowed on national televion that "...we've killed the Patriot Act!" To applause, no less!! Democrats are not interested in protecting Americans, only in re-gaining power. You act like deposed kings struggling to take back what you feel is your rightful place, the Throne and Crown of American Government. Well, Mister Senator, America is not a monarchy; you and yours are not kings, and you have no right to power if you're not even willing to defend this country against all enemies foreign and domestic. Oh, and get elected, of course!

"The president has failed to provide a sufficient legal basis for his actions; instead he and his Cabinet spent the week refusing to negotiate with Congress and opposing bipartisan efforts to extend the PATRIOT Act for three more months."

The president has "provided sufficient legal basis", and can't be held to account for your lack of honesty, integrity, and inabililty to recognize truth when its paraded in front of you. Furthermore, "extend" the PATRIOT Act for "3 more months"? Three months. Three? Just three? Will terrorists cease to desire America's utter destruction in under 3 months? You're insane!

"Think of the chilling effect on free speech and academic freedom when a government agent shows up at your home -- after you request a book from the library."

Think of the chilling effect on free speech and academic freedom when America falls into anarchy, when terrorists succeed in detonating multiple nuclear devices in multiple U.S. cities, destroying our infrastructure, government, economy, and ordered society. Think about the chilling effect on free speech and academic freedom when Washington DC ceases to be the seat of our government, the embodiment of the Constitution of the Untied States of America and becomes instead the seat of a radioactive wasteland. Is the goal of re-gaining power at any cost, to even pulling down an American president, worth the end of America as we know it? In truth, the Democratic Left, of which you are a part, is actively attempting a coup against the legitimate leader of this country. And as such, you're all traitors, deserving only a trial, and execution by public hanging.

Pull your head out of your ass!!! America needs you in the Senate, protecting America and its Citizens, not your own petty ambitions! Not hanging from a scaffold.

___________________
* If President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard is fair game; his DUI; his "supposed" drug use... So, then is Senator Kennedy's vacillation at Chappaquiddick... "Save the drowning woman trapped in 15 feet of water? Or save my political, possible future presidential asperations? Save a drowning girl, or call my lawyer? Save a life, or protect my ass?"

Bush's DUI didn't kill anyone. Ted Kennedy's, on the otherhand...

The irresponsible actions of the American Left, likewise, if left unchecked, will kill many more than the 2,100+ American troops in the War on Terror. Where's your sense of Decency? Where's your Honor? Where's your Patriotism?


Here's more

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Government: The Necessary Evil

"To be governed is to be watched, inspected, directed, indoctrinated, numbered, estimated, regulated, commanded, controlled, law-driven, preached at, spied upon, censored, checked, valued, enrolled, by creatures who have neither the right, nor the wisdom, nor the virtue to do so."

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
19th century French anarchist-socialist


Here's more

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

The Ignorance, or Deceit, of the Reasoned

I can't believe the outright ignorance of elected officials and the American Media. I say ignorance because I would like to think they aren't merely being deceitful to further their already obvious agenda. While the latter is far more likely, the former can't be discounted. After all, who can be expected to know every bit of US Code there is? Even I had to search it out, but it's there... President Bush's authority to wiretap without "court order".

Here are more than a few opinions on this subject-- none of which will meet BenT's rigorous standards --and a bonus from the US Code.


Thank You for Wiretapping
OpinionJournal.com
Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Clinton Used NSA for Economic Espionage
NewsMax.com
Monday, December 19, 2005

Bush's Spying: Scandalous, or Echo of Clinton-Era "Echelon"?
Newsbusters.org
Monday, December 19, 2005

On the Whole, Well Done
NationalReview.com
Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches
NationalReview.com
Tuesday, December 20, 2005

And lastly, this from the US Code:

US CODE TITLE 50, CHAPTER 36, SUBCHAPTER I § 1802
...choose "no thanks" on the page that opens..."


Don't bother commenting if you won't bother reading, at the very least, US CODE TITLE 50...

The President is well within his right as President to do what he's done. There's a good reason why the Constitution doesn't give authority to Congress for the prosecution of Wars. There's a good reason why that power is given solely to the Commander in Chief, irrespective of his party affiliation.

The New York Times is in Heap Big Doo doo for revealing National Secrets... yet again. Some dogs can't be taught anything.


UPDATE: HISTORICAL PRECEDENT

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12139
May 23, 1979
President James Earl Carter, Jr.
Key Phrase: "...without a court order,"

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949
February 9, 1995
President William Jefferson Clinton
Key Phrase: "...without a court order,"

The Hypocrisy of the Left is without bounds; knows no measure; is conceived in hatred of the Right.


Here's more

Saturday, December 17, 2005

And just what is wrong with American Media?

As a whole, they are completely out of touch with Mainstream America. The Media-- Print and Television --really believe their take on the world is the righteous truth, and all us peons, the unwashed masses, should be grateful for their benevolent instruction.

Thomas Lifson nails it with this statement:

"A sudden loss of status and influence is a profound shock to most people who have spent their lives aimed at the acquisition and enjoyment of socio-political standing. Relieved of the ability to shape the consciousness and behavior of others, a certain number unburden themselves of the inner restraints which kept them from openly voicing the condescension and scorn they have for those whom they regard as their social, intellectual, and moral inferiors."

This is where the Liberal Media mindset is; struggling to understand its 'untimely' fall from grace. With an arrogance beyond mere hubris Mike Wallace summed up Media's disdain for what it does not understand:

"What in the world prepared you to be the commander in chief of the largest superpower in the world? In your background, Mr. President, you apparently were incurious. You didn't want to travel. You knew very little about the military... Why do you think they nominated you?... Do you think [your election] has anything to do with the fact that the country is so [expletive] up?"

Unbelievable! And this is the height of Mr. Wallace's Hypocrisy: "You knew very little about the military..." The truth is, Mr. Wallace knows very little about the Military. Has he ever served? Even as a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard, a reservist, George W. Bush understands more about the military than does Mike Wallace... More than most liberal democrats and media elites who also have never served a day in our Military's uniform. Embedding with a Marine or Army Unit does not suddenly imbue with wisdom or otherwise make a Journalist an authoritative voice. One can't review a cake without first eating a slice. To do so would be dishonest, at best.

The Hollywood Elites don't get it either. They are, incredibly, of the belief that their opinion is somehow graced with superior intellect and clarity. They couldn't be further from the truth. They know nothing of the Military, or Christians, or Conservative Republicans, they just played them on T.V. [Sarcasm Mine]

Exhibit A: A full page ad from last Mondays New York Times..

"The World Can't Wait; Drive Out the Bush Regime!"

"YOUR GOVERNMENT, on the basis of outrageous lies, is waging a murderous and utterly illegitimate war in Iraq, with other countries in their sights.

"YOUR GOVERNMENT is openly torturing people, and justifying it.

"YOUR GOVERNMENT is moving each day closer to a theocracy, where a narrow and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will rule.

"The Bush regime is setting out to radically remake society...in a fascist way, and for generations to come. We must act now... There is not going to be some magical 'pendulum swing.' People who steal elections and believe they're on a 'mission from God' will not go without a fight. There is not going to be some savior from the Democratic Party. This whole idea of putting our hopes and energies into 'leaders' who tell us to seek common ground with fascists and religious fanatics is proving every day to be a disaster, and actually serves to demobilize people."

Massive, nationwide demonstrations are called for in January... "to create a political situation where the Bush regime's program is repudiated... Bush is driven from office... and the direction of society is reversed."

Reversed!? Isn't that what they did 30-plus years ago? Changed the direction of this society? Can't they see the failure of their social agenda? The Welfare State? Sexual Open-ness? Abortion? Religion driven from the Public Square? Americans were once a proud, hard working people before Liberals began their social engineering experiments, with personal morality and responsibility the first casualties. And now our society is run amok with the foolish and dangerous concept of Political Correctness, and Multi-Culturalism. Thanks to Liberalism, America would rather spare a 4-time killer like Stanley "Tookie" Williams from his Just reward, than spare the life of an innocent, unborn child. In 40 years we have slipped into a generation of conscience-seared moral degenerates. Reversed!? God in Heaven, I hope so!

Furthermore... Openly torturing? Theocracy? Bush regime? Fascist? People who steal elections? Religious fanatics? Sounds like Hysteria to me. Delusional hysteria.

In addition to the Revolutionary Communist Party, Queers for Economic Justice, Signers of the New York Times ad included Martin Sheen, Margot Kidder, Casey Kasem, Edward Asner, Ed Begley, Jr. and Jane Fonda.

My advice to these nice folks... Just because you're greatly [or marginally, as the case may be] famous doesn't mean you grasp the concept of Truth any better than the rest of us. Please don't insult our intelligence by suggesting otherwise.


Here's more

A Surprisingly Accurate Assessment

is made by Robert Kaplan in an interview with The American Enterprise Magazine Online. His take on our Military's morale, motivation, and strength of character is refreshing; so few in the media understand what it means to be 'Military'. Mr Kaplan gets his understanding honestly, by actually having spent years associated and imbedded with American Military personnel-- or so it would seem, for even the big names in nightly news don't get what Kaplan gets.

Here's a few choice comments...

TAE: For all the talk of American imperialism, isn’t the main “foreign influence” in Iraq today—the main outside threat to Iraqi self-determination—the international jihadis who make up the al-Qaeda resistance?

Kaplan: Absolutely. One of the big myths of the Left is that we have troops around the world propping up dictatorships. This reflects a 1970s time-warp mentality. In every case I can name—from the Philippines to Georgia, from sub-Saharan Africa to the Middle East—we’re stationed at the request of newly elected, internationally recognized, democratic governments. And this makes sense: You can’t have a stable democracy without a professional military.

If the United States were to pull out of Iraq you would have a real bloodbath, plus a reversal in a lot of the positive trends towards liberalization we’ve seen in Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Lebanon, Egypt, Yemen, Dubai, and many others. I mention all these places individually because they’re not getting enough coverage in the media. Even Syria—despite all the trouble we’re having—is a much less autocratic place now than it was four years ago. None of this would have been possible if the United States had cut and run Mogadishu-style once things got rough in Iraq.


TAE: If we gave you only two options, would you say that over the last three years in Afghanistan and Iraq the U.S. has achieved more than we should have expected, or less than we should have expected?

Kaplan: In Afghanistan we’ve achieved more than we should have expected. You have to compare today’s Afghanistan to the high-water mark of its own governance in the 1950s and 1960s under King Zahir Shah. Even then, the government did not control the whole country and did not extend its writ into villages and towns. By that standard, we’ve achieved a lot more than anyone could have expected. And among the Afghan people, there’s relatively little anti-Americanism.

In Iraq, we’ve achieved a lot more than we have in Haiti or Kosovo—but still achieved less than we should have expected. My litmus test for Iraq is the flak jacket. As long as we still have to wear flak jackets all the time, then we’re not where we need to be.


TAE: You’ve argued that Democrats will not be trusted to wield the sword of U.S. national defense so long as a fierce U.S. combat soldier who draws inspiration from the Bible is something that makes them uncomfortable. Why are the Democrats seen as so weak on national security, and will that change?

Kaplan: Look at last year’s election, which, to a certain extent, was a referendum on the Iraq war. More than 70 percent of active-duty military personnel, Reserve, and Guard voted for the Republicans. And from my anecdotal experience—which was with the front line infantry and the Special Forces, who have always been more conservative—the Republicans probably received more than 90 percent of the vote.

With numbers like those, you have to ask yourself why. It wasn’t for policy reasons; a lot of people in the barracks will openly say that Bush and Rumsfeld made a number of mistakes. It was cultural. People in the military don’t feel like the Democrats are one of them. They feel as if the Democrats are from another America—from the same America as the elite media.

So the Democrats have a cultural hurdle to overcome, and it’s essential for the well-being of our democracy that they overcome it. A two-party democracy is only as strong as the opposition party, and if the opposition party simply can’t get elected, then the party in power starts performing worse and worse because it doesn’t feel the competition. It’s happened in other democracies, and I’m afraid of this happening in the U.S.

It’s also important that the military doesn’t become associated for too long with one political party. But for that to change, the Democrats must overcome their cultural problems. And generally speaking, that means changing their skewed ideas of what it means to be a Southerner or an evangelical in uniform.


TAE: You’ve argued that Democrats will not be trusted to wield the sword of U.S. national defense so long as a fierce U.S. combat soldier who draws inspiration from the Bible is something that makes them uncomfortable. Why are the Democrats seen as so weak on national security, and will that change?

Kaplan: Look at last year’s election, which, to a certain extent, was a referendum on the Iraq war. More than 70 percent of active-duty military personnel, Reserve, and Guard voted for the Republicans. And from my anecdotal experience—which was with the front line infantry and the Special Forces, who have always been more conservative—the Republicans probably received more than 90 percent of the vote.

With numbers like those, you have to ask yourself why. It wasn’t for policy reasons; a lot of people in the barracks will openly say that Bush and Rumsfeld made a number of mistakes. It was cultural. People in the military don’t feel like the Democrats are one of them. They feel as if the Democrats are from another America—from the same America as the elite media.

So the Democrats have a cultural hurdle to overcome, and it’s essential for the well-being of our democracy that they overcome it. A two-party democracy is only as strong as the opposition party, and if the opposition party simply can’t get elected, then the party in power starts performing worse and worse because it doesn’t feel the competition. It’s happened in other democracies, and I’m afraid of this happening in the U.S.

It’s also important that the military doesn’t become associated for too long with one political party. But for that to change, the Democrats must overcome their cultural problems. And generally speaking, that means changing their skewed ideas of what it means to be a Southerner or an evangelical in uniform.


TAE: Why do so many reporters, academics, and some everyday Americans think that people who go into the Army or Marines must be folks who didn’t have bright prospects in college or the civilian work force?

Kaplan: To be diplomatic, I think it’s class prejudice and snobbery. Because most of the people I meet in the lower ranks aren’t poor or from the ghetto—they’re the solid working class, which does still exist. They’re from non-trendy places in between the two coasts, or from working-class urban neighborhoods.

Look, for example, at one of the Special Forces teams I was with in Algeria. The executive officer, a graduate of The Citadel, was from a farming family in Indiana. The master sergeant was from a farming family in New Hampshire. The warrant officer grew up in an Italian section of Queens, New York. That’s America. Whites in the barracks get very insulted if you confuse them with so-called white trash, and African Americans in the barracks get tremendously insulted if you confuse them with people in the inner city. With both groups, some of them may have come from the underclass, but they’ve long since separated themselves from it. They have no class envy.


TAE: Do you think part of the problem that elites have with George Bush is the fact that he comes across as so American?

Kaplan: Definitely. The reality is that President Bush comes across as a kind of throwback, an archetypal figure from an earlier America. So no matter what he says, post-national elites in Washington and New York are going to feel culturally alienated by him. That’s something he just has to deal with.


Here's more

Pithy Review: King Kong

In a word? WOW!!! I had major Vertigo watching Naomi Watts standing on the top of the Empire State Building.

Anyone who, after seeing this film, still prefers the old Black and White, is hereby branded a poor judge of film, never to be taken seriously again. Peter Jackson's Kong is as faithful to the original as any modern film could be. In every way it appeared as though Jackson had gathered cast and crew and sent them all back to the 1930's. Where Jackson failed in his interpretation of The Lord of the Rings, he excelled in King Kong, nor is there a single poor performance by any actor in this 3 hour giant. Truly Magnificent!!!

WOW!!!


Here's more

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Happy Purple Thursday Everyone!!!

Did you vote? Please tell me you went out and voted! No, not today. Last November! By voting Bush, and thereby the war in Iraq, you deserve to hold your purple fingers high. You voted in today's historic Iraqi election! Congratulations!

The Iraqi people thank you. This nation thanks you. But more importantly, Freedom thanks you!


Here's more

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Can Anyone Honestly Say This is a Good Thing?

That Iran is 3 months away from being a nuclear power? Get ready to condemn Israel, folks. Israel is going to have to do what no other governing body [including the great United Nations] is willing to do: Bomb Iran.

Seriously. Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Nuclear power, fine... But not weapons. It's a recipe for global disaster no rational nation wants to see made.


Here's more

Monday, December 12, 2005

This from the Chicago Tribune...

on the death of Senator Eugene J. McCarthy, 89, on Saturday, December 10, 2005...

"As a senator, Mr. McCarthy was an unabashed liberal unafraid to take on Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.) and his alarmist warnings about the communist menace. More often, Mr. McCarthy was viewed by peers as something of a ruminator and a curmudgeon."


Only one problem... Joseph McCarthy died in 1957, a year before Eugene McCarthy was elected to the Senate.

The problem is with the title 'Senator'. As a 'Senator' Eugene McCarthy never 'took on' Senator Joseph McCarthy. But as a Congressman, well, that's a horse of a different color... Congressman Eugene McCarthy may very well have been an unabashed liberal, unafraid to take on Senator Joseph McCarthy.

And the Media wonders why we have a problem with their "credibility".


Here's more

The Left's Declared War on America

by Bob Parks
at Bob Parks Black & Right

I just love this guy's straight-forwardness. I have nothing but respect for anyone who stands up and says exactly what he means. And means exactly what he says.

One thing he says at the end that really hits home, "From now on, I get my news from the troops.., I couldn't agree more.

It's a great read, and it'll only take you... 5 minutes tops. Check it out.


Here's more

Saturday, December 10, 2005

So where was I...?

I remember I was working the Crew Boats out of Morgan City, Louisiana, and I was just in from a run out into the Gulf. I was somewhere in Texas-- Port Aransas, Cameron Pass, I don't remember --and was on a pay phone talking to my Mom. On a side note-- I can't imagine how some men can go through their days, weeks and months, without missing their mothers, or wanting to make sure that connection is well-tended, but that's me. Anyway, it was my mother who told me John Lennon had been murdered. Not assassinated, which implies political motives. Just Murdered.

I didn't cry-- that I remember, but it did strike me that any hope of a Beatles reunion was now dead. John was not the most important of the Beatles, though perhaps the most influential-- I recognize the brilliance of John's vision, but I much preferred McCartney's pseudo-optimism and Harrison's fatalism. I know, color me strange, but as even a single Beatle lay dead on any street, in any bed, in any hospital, the dream of a Beatles reunion is, quite effectively, dead.

John's music is certainly not my favorite of the four, though he was on the road to redeeming himself with 'Double Fantasy'. The depressing Mother, the brash Woman is the Nigger of the World, and the horrid, though good-intentioned, Give Peace a Chance, just couldn't compare to Harrison's Isn't it a Pity, or McCartney's Maybe I'm Amazed. But Imagine! A Beautiful song indeed, but completely wrapped up in eastern and soviet communist failures-- though I'm quite sure that was not his intention. Imagine describes an impossible Utopia. Furthermore, I can't imagine a world without God, and Heaven... I am after all human.

What I'm particularly amazed of is how few people seem to realize the importance The Beatles music has had on Music today. Bob Dylan and Elvis Presley, and Johnny Cash round out my list of Most Influential. Where would music be today without John, Paul, George or Ringo?

But that's where I was. And this is where I am.


Here's more

Thursday, December 08, 2005

The Essence of Terrorism

"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities, has the power to make you commit atrocities."

--Voltaire


Here's more

Seizing the Inheritance...

What does it say about the efficacy of every religious faith in world besides Judaism and Christianity -- which espouses the same God -- that all these other faiths, including those claiming no faith at all, find it necessary to stamp out these two? What is the rest of the world afraid of? What do they hope to extinguish? What do they hope to prevent?

Mat 21:33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: [34] And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. [35] And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. [36] Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. [37] But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. [38] But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. [39] And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. [40] When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? [41] They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

John 16:2 ...yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

Didn't mean to preach at you... But my God said this is the way it would be. That doesn't mean I should just sit back and take it, that I shouldn't speak out about it. But there is only one God. For, by the very definition of God, there is only room in this universe for one, and Islam doesn't worship Him. The Roman Catholic Church has become a nest of heretics. Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormon's and Hindus and Buddhists, etc., et al, are lost.

This is why Christianity and Judaism are vilified. God said it would be so. And God cannot lie.


Here's more

The Only Tumor in Palestine is Anti-Semitism

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a stellar solution to the Israel problem... Since Germany and Austria feel so guilty about massacring Jews during WWII, perhaps they should give over a few provinces to the "Zionist Regime" so Jews can build a colony-- effectively ending the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Bravo!!! At last, a solution that'll work! Until Austrians and Germans rise up in opposition to being forced off their lands and out of their homes.

Here are a few choice quotes from this intellectual giant:

"Now that you believe the Jews were oppressed, why should the Palestinian Muslims have to pay the price?"

"Why did you come to give a piece of Islamic land and the territory of the Palestinian people to them?

"You oppressed them, so give a part of Europe to the Zionist regime so they can establish any government they want. We would support it... So, Germany and Austria, come and give one, two or any number of your provinces to the Zionist regime so they can create a country there which all of Europe will support and the problem will be solved at its root."

"Why do[es Europe] insist on imposing themselves on other powers and creating a tumour so there is always tension and conflict?"

The man is insane. No, I take that back. He's quite rational; in full control of his mental faculties, which is what makes him extremely dangerous. The "Islamic People" have no right to the land they say Israel occupies. It is God's land to give, and he has given it to the Jews; the descendants of Abraham, the descendants of Isaac, the descendants of Jacob. God scattered them to the four winds almost 2,000 years ago, but as promised, God has brought them back. Where else but Judea, Samaria, Galilee, or Jerusalem should the Jews go? They have come home, and the squatters think they can claim ownership to what God has already given to the descendants of Israel. Where else should the Jews go?

I know!!! Let's quickly perfect deep-space colonization and put all the Jews on an orbiting space station,

"We're Jews in Space!
Flyin' around and saving the Human Race...!
[Thank you, Mel Brooks!]

or better yet, let's just send them all to the moon! Yeah, that'll do just fine.

UPDATE: This from Arutz Sheva...

"UN Ceremony Includes Map of 'Palestine' in Place of Israel"

The United Nations held a "Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People" last week. A large map of "Palestine," with Israel literally wiped off the map, featured prominently in the festivities.

The ceremony was held at the UN headquarters in New York and was attended by Secretary General Kofi Annan and the Presidents of the UN Security Council and the General Assembly.

During the festivities, a map labeled a "map of Palestine" was displayed prominently between UN and PLO flags. The map, with "Palestine" written in Arabic atop it, does not include Israel, a member of the UN for 56 years. The map does not even demarcate the partition lines of November 29, 1947, marking a Jewish state alongside an Arab state. The partition was dictated by the UN General Assembly itself.

With the map hanging behind him, Secretary-General Annan addressed the public meeting at UN Headquarters.

At the start of the ceremony, the dignitaries present asked attendees to observe a moment of silence. "I invite everyone present to rise and observe a minute of silence in memory of all those who have given their lives for the cause of the Palestinian people," the master of ceremonies said, "and the return of peace between Israel and Palestine."

Anne Bayefsky, who reported on the event for the Eye on the UN organization, said that the ceremony's wording was aimed at giving honor to the worst of Palestinian terrorists. "It was a moment ... crafted to include the commemoration of suicide-bombers," she wrote.

In response to the event, Bayefsky and her organization have once again asked the U.S. to withhold funding from the UN.


Here's more

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

No Concerted Effort to Quash Christmas?

If you believe that you're beyond hope. Truth will never find a home in that orb you call a head.

Students at Ridgeway Elementary School in Dodgeville, Wisconsin were given a new song to sing. Not Silent Night; not the song that tells of Christ's birth, no. These children were made to sing "Cold in the Night".

"Cold in night
No one in sight
winter winds whirl and bite
how I wish I were happy and warm
safe with my family
out of the storm..."

Here's a statement by Mathew Staver, Liberty Counsel president and general counsel:

"For those who deny that there is a war on Christmas, the Wisconsin school district is exhibit A... The law is clear --– Christmas is constitutional. When a public school intentionally mocks Christian Christmas songs by secularizing their content, they cross the line from a neutral position, which the Constitution requires, to a hostile position, which the Constitution forbids. Changing 'Silent Night' to 'Cold in the Night' -- come on, let's stop this madness! Does the school not realize that Christmas is a national holiday?"

What, exactly, are educators afraid of? If Christmas is truly a heinous ritual, and educators merely seek to spare our impressionable children from exposure to its evils, why then is Christmas a national holiday? Is the Public School system perhaps afraid students might glean the semblance of a moral compass by undue exposure to Christmas Carols? Do we really want a secularist society? Think really hard on this one, because here is what you're asking for by answering yes:

Aldous Huxley's Brave New World
George Orwell's 1984
Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451
Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged
Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto
Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf
And the yet to be released film, V for Vendetta

Human nature is a very scary land to traverse; deep dark woods filled with all kinds of evil, where the rare sunlit glades are difficult to find. Just look around you-- It's a jungle out there, and no amount of glitter or paint can hide that fact. Utopia doesn't exist, and can never exist in light of Man's propensity for selfishness, and evil.

Without faith in God, it is impossible to be, and live, free.


Here's more

If a man be a traitor to country...

...is any remedy worthy of redemption in the face of the larger crime against the world? Politics is soul-consuming, and blinding to greater truths, greater crusades. The rhetoric filling these pages and countless others on countless [except for Google] sites, amount to little unless they foster change, and the only change I see is vitriolic in nature. Selfish, hate-filled, vitriol, intaglioed in bright red weals across the breadth of our nations soul... As well as our own. What good can come of it? What good, if neither side chooses to bend?

There is such a thing as right and wrong, and the ideals they represent are immutable, unchanging, and incorruptible. Motive, however-- it's purity --hangs over our every action much like the sword of Damocles, and the fear of that slender thread breaking keeps us from being the willow. What do we fear to lose? What do we hope to gain? The slightest doubt may break that thread, and sever us and our hopes and dreams from the company of our peers. What is wrong is suffered out of fear. What is right is ill defended out of fear. Liberal. Conservative. One is right, the other is not.

Can the leader of a party undermine the sacrifices of men and women fighting under the auspices of that party's approval? If Democrats voted to send these men and women to war can they now sit back with impugnity and call their soldiers terrorists? Incapable? Broken? Living hand to mouth, and no better than Hitler's SS, or Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge? When is the Rubicon, that line of decency, crossed? And once crossed, is there any turning back? There was no turning back for Caesar, who paid for his decision at the end of Brutus' knife. Are the die then cast for good or ill? Willows bend, while mightier trees are brought low; snapped and uprooted by storm-winds that always come, soon or late.

Can Howard Dean survive the winds coming? Can Kerry? Can the Democratic party? Or its complicit media? More importantly, will this nation survive? And in the grander scheme of things, is this just natures way of thinning the forest? What is more important? The useless debate of trees that will not bend? Or the greater good the trees were meant to serve?

Howard Dean and others in his party fear that hovering sword. They fear that perception of weakness though they advocate the same, and they stubbornly refuse to bend; to see what is the best direction for all the energy and effort they expend. Poverty, Hunger, Depravity-- These are the things that need attention; not the petty desire for power. The Treason of Inattention, is a greater sin than Treason to Country, but neither can or will be excused.

It is the paragon of paradox's-- Reach for one and lose the other. Surely, the only way to win this battle is to sacrifice personal desire to serve the needs of others. And only willows can see the truth of this.


Here's more

Questions to Consider...

Wearing openly my 'Old Testament' Christianity with every expression of my ideological bent, why is it no one but me sees what I see? That's rhetorical, of course; no need to answer. I am, after all the only one who looks out from behind my eyes... Ergo, no one sees what I see.

Why is it my Christianity, flawed as the man who clings to it, is so offensive to those around me? My own hypocrisy looms large enough for anyone to see it, yet while I can see the truth of this why is it the rest of the world fails to see their own hypocrisies... Condemning me for the very sins their own hands work by rote?


Here's more

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

Could this Become Bush's Biggest Mistake?

Before the signing of the bill that made it difficult at best to file for bankruptcy, how many people knew before-hand that this bill would allow Credit card companies to raise, and in some cases double their minimum payments? For those who have minimum payments of $200 on a single card... I know, most people have more than 1 card, but for the sake of illustration, what happens to a person struggling to make his/er minimum payment when it suddenly jumps from $200 to $400? And since most people have at least 3 credit cards, what happens to those people who pay $500 a month in minimum payments when their minimums double?

We should all be thankful there isn't a Debtors Prison in our modern society, though it could be argued that Poverty is such a prison. A lot of people are going to be hurt by this; by companies who show little concern about how much, and to whom, they extend credit.


Here's more

Poor Tom...

Everyone hate him. The Left is awash in gleeful delight that poor Tom will still stand trial on money laundering charges. One problem though. Yes, he may yet stand trial, but what the Left is refusing to acknowledge is Ronnie Earle's crumbling case, and the fact that the judge is not finished ruling on various motions; specifically, the motion dealing with prosecutorial misconduct.

This case Mr. Earle is hoping to prosecute has been a witch-hunt from the beginning. Irrespective of evidence -- gossamer-thin at best, events clearly show, to those not suffering the effects of willful ignorance, that Mr. Earle's conduct in gaining the indictments he sought has been anything but worthy of a man with high ethical standards. Justice is supposed to be blind, but man certainly is not. Mr. Earle knows exactly what he's doing, and he wants it so bad he'll use any means, however dishonest, to get it. The end justifies his means.

Poor Tom. He had the sad misfortune of being a conservative Republican who knows how to get things done... And the Left hates self-sufficiency. Why else would they champion the welfare state? Why else would they fight so hard to keep the poor in a virtual state of slavery?


Here's more

Monday, December 05, 2005

Reminder: This is what America stands for.

"It is a common observation here that our cause is the cause of all mankind, and that we are fighting for their liberty in defending our own."

--Benjamin Franklin
   Letter to Samuel Cooper, 1777


"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

--John F. Kennedy
   Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961


Here's more

Wendy, name this movie....

"I find it hard to believe that a man who learned how to fly doesn't have a dream."


Here's more

Sunday, December 04, 2005

Few on the Left Seem to Want to Hear the Truth...

...They'd Rather Believe a Lie

To further illustrate Media's complicity in our "losing" effort in Iraq, and the broader War on Terror, consider the following "Opinion" offered by Mark Steyn, Chicago Sun-Times Columnist.


Dems Determined to Ignore Progress in Iraq
December 4, 2005

Sen. Joe Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, came out with a big statement on Iraq last week. Did you hear about it? Probably not. Everyone was still raving about his Democrat colleague, Rep. Jack Murtha, whose carefully nuanced position on Iraq is: We're all doomed unless we pull out by next Tuesday! (I quote from memory.)

Also, the United States Army is "broken," "worn out" and "living hand to mouth." If the reaction to Murtha's remarks by my military readers is anything to go by, he ought to be grateful they're still bogged down in Iraq and not in the congressional parking lot.

It's just about acceptable in polite society to disagree with Murtha, but only if you do it after a big 20-minute tongue bath about what "a fine man" he is (as Rumsfeld said) or what "a good man" he is (as Cheney called him) or what "a fine man, a good man" he is (as Bush phrased it). Nobody says that about Lieberman, especially on his own side. And, while the media were eager to promote Murtha as the most incisively insightful military expert on the planet, this guy Lieberman's evidently some nobody no one need pay any attention to.

Here's why. His big piece on Iraq was headlined "Our Troops Must Stay."

Continued here
...


Personal Note: Why is it Big Media cannot respond with this kind of insight and clarity? Quite simply, they have no stomach for Truth and Fairness; only Distortion, Lies and Deceit.


Here's more

A Prime Example of "Wilfull Distortion"

...to our Nation's Detriment.

I came across this article at RealClearPolitics today. To say I'm a bit miffed over it would be an understatement. Here then is my critique, not entirely point for point, but enough to have made my own point, that Liberalism can't win a war, nor can it teach anything of value to a starving nation.


All Over but the Pullback
Nixon Did It in Vietnam. Bush Will Do It in Iraq

--By Jonathan Rauch, The Washington Post
   Sunday, December 4, 2005

"Nixon recognized that, without U.S. military support, the government of South Vietnam would fall to the communist insurgency,..."
Insurgency!? It wasn't an insurgency! It was an organized military offensive by communists, and supported by communists in Russia and China. It was not an insurgency! Talk about revisionist history!

"American officials searching for a "breaking point" in Vietnam had found one, but what had broken was not the insurgency. It was U.S. public opinion: Americans no longer believed the war was worth it."
Again, it was not an "Insurgency"! If there was any insurgency it was within the American Media, spoon-feeding a naive American public with opinioned distortion and images of gore and brutality.

"...the evolving structure of public opinion about Iraq is making the current war effort there unsustainable."
You create public opinion! You deliberately paint a picture of car-bombs and homicide-attacks, completely ignoring all the progress and improvements being made on a daily basis. Your insurgency, against your own Nation, can't possibly be a case of misjudgment. It's obviously a deliberate effort to hurt America, and President Bush.

"The public has been souring on the Iraq effort for months,..."
Really! Could that be due to the rosy picture big media types like yourself have painted in shades of gore and loss?

"...not even the most stubborn of presidents could hold out for long against a decisive shift in the public's attitude toward the war. The structure of public opinion suggests that such a shift has taken place."
Shifts for which the American public has you, and thousands like you, to thank.

"...the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press asked a revealing series of questions about Iraq. Pew's respondents were more optimistic about eventual success in Iraq than were Gallup's, with 56 percent saying that efforts to establish a stable democracy will succeed."
Could it be Pew's questions were not slanted or leading? Could it be that Pew knows how to conduct a poll that honestly reflects public opinion? There is absolutely no way we can lose in Iraq unless the Media stirs up the American public in frothing outrage like they did for Vietnam. If America loses this war it'll be the Media that serves it up.

"If the public thinks success is still likely, why is support for the policy so weak? Because, apparently, the public no longer views success -- defined as building a stable democracy in Iraq -- as worth the effort."
Apparently you're blind to your own responsibility in this. No one's asking you to lie about what's happening in Iraq; brave men and women are dying there, as are Iraqis-- equally brave. You want to castigate FOX News for their claim of "Fair and Balanced" but you steadfastly refuse to balance your own coverage! There are plenty of positive stories to be found in Iraq. Why then can't you report them? Ratings? Viewership? The old adage, "If it bleeds, it leads"? You're Hypocrites!

"The United States went to war to get rid of Saddam Hussein and remove weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. Well, Saddam is gone, and Iraq is WMD-free. So why are U.S. forces still fighting?"
You've got to be kidding! Why are we still in Iraq? What are you doing writing for the Washington Post? Are you completely without any ability to reason? Or are you simply blinded by your own Liberal bias?

"In the Pew survey, respondents were just as likely to say that the American effort in Iraq is hurting the war on terrorism as they were to say that it's helping."
'hurting the war on terrorism' is a media concocted argument. How does what we're doing in Iraq hurt the War on Terrorism when that is exactly what we're fighting in Iraq... Terrorism(ists); not an insurgency, not a civil war... Terrorists!

"...two-thirds said they believe that the ability of terrorists to launch a major attack on the United States has not diminished since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."
Has anyone said, straight out, that what we're doing in the War on Terror, will diminish the Terrorists ability to launch a major attack on the U.S.? No! How does any nation keep a determined enemy from attacking and killing as many people as possible? They don't! They prepare as best they may, go on the offensive, and stike the enemy anywhere they can be found. President Bush said from the outset that this War on Terror would be long and difficult. Long. Difficult. Why can't the Media grasp this? The terrorists are spread across the globe! They must be fought wherever they can be found!

"Bush also says the Iraq effort will help democratize and stabilize the whole Middle East. The public is not buying that, either."
The Public isn't buying it because the Media isn't selling it! The Media refuses to see the progress already occuring in the broader Middle East-- In Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia. The public isn't hearing anything from Media about the shifts in attitude, and politics in the broader Middle East.

"The administration's fundamental problem is not that the public is discouraged by U.S. casualties, or that news from Iraq has been bad, or that the president needs to give better speeches. The problem is that many Americans see no stakes in Iraq sufficient to justify the military effort and diplomatic cost."
'discouraged by U.S. casualties' because media goes virtually orgasmic over death tolls and their so-called milestones. 'news from Iraq has been bad,' Hello! You write the news! There are a lot of good things happening over there, but you steadfastly refuse to report it!

"The public will not support a military operation that it has come to regard as social work on behalf of Iraqis, rather than security work on behalf of Americans."
'social work on behalf of Iraqis'-- Another Liberal Media construct crammed down the throat of the American Psyche over these last two years.

"...a combination of returning U.S. forces and lower oil prices come November, Rasmussen says, would be "Democrats' nightmare." "
And this is why Liberal Media so loves the gore they wade in. Power. It all boils down to Power. Democrats and Liberals want Power. They crave it, lust for it, have wet-dreams about it. They don't want to win in Iraq, protect the American Public, or serve the American Public's interests. They care only for their own.

"Right now, [President Bush has] nothing to say on Iraq that makes sense to the public."
What you really mean is it doesn't make sense to you. It doesn't make sense to Democratic and Liberal ideology. And since you don't understand it, you can't make the Public understand it.

---
Jonathan Rauch is a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution and a columnist for the National Journal. I'm not impressed.


Here's more

Saturday, December 03, 2005

Pithy Review: Aeon Flux






I'm a sucker for SciFi films... Well, the good ones anyway.

Translating an exceptional bit of animation to living actors is difficult at best, but with Aeon Flux, who relentlessly died at the end of every Liquid Tele short; who was so... Uniquely drawn, its translation to film was the best that it could be in all but one respect.

Being a fan of the original animation, it was the artist's style that made it so very enjoyable, and no matter who wore the black tights in this film adaptation, it was never going to live up to that. So, in order to enjoy the film, I had to set aside some expectations-- which I rarely have trouble doing, so the translation wasn't a problem for me. But BenT, who bitterly disagrees with me politically, who also occasionally joins me at the theater, afterwards hit on the "one respect". He said the film didn't give the feel or sense of a city populated by millions, and he was right. The city felt too empty.

Despite the one objection, I thought the film was very original in concept and story; I couldn't detect any echo from a previous film, aside from plot motivation; i.e., "Man versus Nature", "Man versus Technology", etc. Aeon Flux, for me, further underscored the irrelevance of movie critics. It's nice when critics like what you like, but more often than not I tend to like the films Critics don't. In my own estimation, critics are for people who don't know what they like.

Aeon Flux was worth the price of admission + the price of a medium popcorn and diet drink. But don't take my word for it-- I'm the critic here.


Here's more

3 Quotes From...

"Hit '‘Em Again, Harder"
--By J. Peter Mulhern
   December 3, 2005


"As it happens, the Democrats aren'’t sincere. They aren'’t anywhere in the vicinity of sincerity. When they call for withdrawal from Iraq, as Nancy Pelosi did again in a response to the President'’s speech, they are damaging their country. As the President pointed out, this is obvious. No Democrat has even tried to argue that scheduling a withdrawal would not have the consequences the President outlined. We must conclude that the Democrats know they are working counter to America's interests at the same time they present themselves as patriotic public servants. This is the antithesis of sincerity."

"We can'’t lose in Iraq; the balance of forces favors us overwhelmingly. We can, however, lose the political battle at home. Everything depends on the President'’s ability to fight that battle. If he is going to do that effectively he has to start treating the Democrat Party as the domestic enemy that it is."

"If the President is trying to sweeten his image by avoiding any direct attack on his domestic enemies he is going to be disappointed. His enemies include the entire Democrat establishment (with the sole exception of Senator Lieberman), all the major daily newspapers and all three of the old line television broadcasting networks. Their hatred for him is white hot. They will remain implacably hostile even if he blows them kisses and throws roses at their feet. They will view everything he does and everything he says through the prism of their hostility. He has nothing to lose by telling the truth about them. He might as well be hanged for a sheep as a goat."


Personal Note: What a great read! And it needed to be said. It's a shame no one in the White House is saying this to the President; or if someone is, that President Bush is not listening. It's enough for now that the President has begun to fight back, but it's equally important that he not give his opponents even the hint of the benefit of a doubt. They are all, quite simply, subversives and traitors to the Constitution they swore to defend...

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

The Democratic Party is between a rock and a hard place with this one, and they only have themselves to blame. They have been caught in their own craftiness, and I firmly believe they will pay a hefty price for it in the end. But now is not the time for the President to ease up. If your opponent is struggling to stay on his feet, you don't back off... You close in and finish it.

"Make them pay through the nose for their defeatism, Mr. President. Remember Al Gore sweating and frothing at the mouth as he bellowed that you "“betrayed this country."” Throw it back at them with interest.

Attack until they stop twitching and then attack some more. If this seems unpresidential, the Vice President can do it. But one way or another, it'’s past time for a serious offensive on the home front.

Fortune favors the bold."


Okay, okay... 4 Quotes. So sue me.


Here's more

Friday, December 02, 2005

The Real Insurgency

If America loses this war in Iraq it won't be due to al Qaeda in Iraq, or any Iraqi insurgency. It won't be from Car bombs, truck bombs, IED's, or homicide bombers. It will be because we succumbed to our own home-grown insurgency.

The New York Times* yesterday printed a story detailing the locations in Europe where CIA planes carrying terrorist prisoners have landed. If the New York Times feels the need to tell us all about the CIA and their ferrying of prisoners, fine, that's legitimate, but I don't need to know where these planes land. Bill O'Reilly is one of the biggest mouths out there, but he's dead right on this-- telling the world where CIA planes land exposes those countries to potential terrorist attacks, and gives the terrorists all the justification they need to spread the love of Jihadism. What The New York Times has done, is not only foolish, it's criminal. WWII's Tokyo Rose was imprisoned for less. Government censoring of the media is never a good idea, but the media and certain politicians should utilize a little common decency-- to say nothing of common sense! --and censor themselves.

The Democratic leadership in this country is no better. Take John Murtha's most recent statement, that American Troops in Iraq are "broken, worn out" and "living hand-to-mouth." How does a statement like this help us win the war? Let's look back at Vietnam for a moment...

"We were not strong enough to drive out a half-million American troops, but that wasn't our aim. Our intention was to break the will of the American government to continue the war."

--North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap, 1990


Compare that with this possible statement 18 months from now...

"We were not strong enough to drive out one-hundred fifty thousand American troops, but that wasn't our aim. Our intention was to break the will of the American government to continue the war."

--Abu Musab al Zarqawi, Leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, 2007

It's clear that John Murtha's will is broken. It's clear that Nancy Pelosi's will is broken. It's clear that Ted Kennedy had little will to begin with, and John Kerry can't decide one day to the next whether he has the stones necessary for any fight.

All rhetoric aside, the mainstream media and politicians are engaged in a deliberate subversive struggle against America's Interest in this war. Each day that passes sees another democrat on television telling the terrorists that their strategy is working... "American troops are broken, worn out. Your efforts at defeating us are working. Keep it up and you will soon win."

According to John Murtha, "Staying the course is not a policy," but he fails to see that "cutting and running" isn't an option. The Democratic party may have a desire to see America win, but they don't have the will. The best thing these Democrats could do at this point would be to bow out, and let stronger wills finish what must be finished.

The real insurgency is occurring here, in our own country.


----
*The NYT requires a paid subscription. Go instead to Cleveland.com


Here's more