Saturday, December 31, 2005

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!

Open Thread!

The message of a picture.

This photo won the 2005 Pulitzer Prize as part of a package submitted by the Associated Press. It is described this way:

A gunman, center left, holds a pistol to the head of an Iraqi election worker lying in Baghdad's Haifa Street on Sunday. The man kneeling at right is also an election worker who was pulled from the car.

This is the story behind the photograph.

One of the Pulitzer photographs carried the credit line "stringer." Fearing deadly reprisals, the photographer remained unidentified after he photographed insurgents, pistols in hand, murdering election workers. Tipped by a colleague about burning vehicles in a city street, the photographer went to the scene and found two cars that were bombed. One continued to burn. Others in the street directed traffic away from the scene. The photographer left his cameras in his car some distance away and sought information from the crowd. "None of your business," he was told. He returned to his car, at which time an explosion nearly knocked him down. He turned and saw armed men in the intersection attacking election workers. Using his camera with 400-mm lens, he shot the scene as two of the election workers were shot to death in the intersection.

Tonight when you go to bed, I want you to think about those two election workers. I want you to think about how boring our voting process is. So much so that half of us don't even bother to vote. I want you to think about a people willing to risk a terrifying death to work at the polls. And they paid for it with their lives.

And I want you to think about another thing. The men who shot these people in cold blood do not deserve to walk on this earth. They are evil. We throw that word around alot here until it means nothing. But it does mean something. It means no conscience. It means deliberate innocent death. It means hating a free election so badly that they would drag men out of their cars and execute them in the middle of the street.

This is who we fight and this is why we fight.

via Alive In Baghdad

Some Stuff.

After two decades three big oil companies are back in Lybia. My goodness, things are a'changing. And as Ace says about Bush: "... he peacefully, diplomatically gets countries to renounce WMD's and terrorism for his oil buddies, too. Are there no limits to this man's nefarious machinations??" Heh.

In the "Nothing Sacred" segment. Ugh.

I will say that I may find things objectionable that many may find mild. That is because I haven't wandered into the nasty side of the internet. If you have, then my complaints might seem... quaint.

For my commenters who were mentioning concern over Iraqi civilian deaths, you might be interested in this.

via Ace

Peace Like A River (a milblog) sees an insurgency collapsing. For those worried about recruitment, maybe this will ease your mind.

Friday, December 30, 2005

Women Who Make the World Worse.

Kate O'Beirn has been a favortie NRO writer of mine forever. She talked to Kathryn Jean Lopez of NRO about her new book "Women Who Make The World Worse: and How Their Radical Feminist Agenda Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports." Who knew she was so funny too? Here is the interview. I love her.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: Kate, knowing you and your reputation, I was not surprised to read that you were a traitor to your sex even in law school. Does wanting to see other women fail just come naturally to you?

Kate O'Beirne: Having been raised with three sisters and educated by women in a girls-only high school and all-female college, it was jarring to find myself labeled as a traitor to my sex. Some of my best friends were women! But I never believed that men and women were interchangeable, that marriage was a patriarchal plot, or that women's equality rested on abortion rights. So wanting to see feminists fail came naturally to me.

Lopez: You mentioned the influence of the women in your background. But does being the mother of boys make you especially sensitive to women who make male lives worse?

O'Beirne: The men in our lives can shape our views on the most destructive ideology afoot. I have long thought that if high-school boys had invited homely girls to the prom we might have been spared the feminist movement. We live with the destructive feminist agenda because the fathers or husbands of so many of them, including Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Germaine Greer, and Jane Fonda, never failed to fail them. The views of these angry, abandoned women inform the modern women's movement.

Lopez: You write that "A battle was won when the ETA was defeated, but feminists went on to win the war." How did they win — it lost, for Pete's sake — and if they won why don't they act like winners?

O'Beirne: What feminists couldn't impose by constitutional amendment (thanks to Phyllis Schlafly) they have imposed through the schools, college faculties, and the culture, by judicial fiat and advocacy dressed up as legislation. Don't be fooled by their militant insistence that women's equality has been thwarted. These women are chronically dissatisfied and qualified for only one job: professional feminist. They are generously paid, largely by taxpayers, but also by corporations anxious to look good on "women's issues." The fact that American women are the most privileged women in the history of mankind (woops!) must be vehemently denied.

Because their goal of a sex-blind society is frustrated by biology (see my last chapter — "Mother Nature Is a Bitch"), feminists' schemes are increasingly coercive. In that sense, they are losers.

Lopez: You write that "The Jobs Rated Almanac reveals that twenty-three of the twenty-five jobs rated as the worst are over 90 percent male." I bet a man wrote that.

O'Beirne: That's just one of the many uncomfortable facts that feminists ignore in order to make their dishonest claims. Men make up 54 percent of the workforce, but account for 92 percent of job-related deaths. Jobs that are flexible, fulfilling, and safe (so typically favored by women) pay less. Feminists hate it when that happens.

Lopez: Seriously though, feminist always go on about unequal pay when most pay discrepancies simply make sense and are, in fact, fair, right? Why can't anyone get them to shut up?

O'Beirne: The persistent fable that women are denied equal pay for equal work has been a never-empty tank of gas that fuels feminism. A sympathetic public is largely unaware that the claim that women face widespread wage discrimination is a myth aggressively advanced by feminists. Disparities in wages exist between women with children and men and single women. This is not sex discrimination, but if that were better understood feminists would have to get real jobs.

Lopez: Abortion gets the rap as the topic you can't bring up in polite company, but daycare is pretty incendiary too. Talk about day care's healthy and developmental drawbacks and you're mommy warring. But our reticence to talk about it is a problem, isn't it?

O'Beirne: Any discussion of day care's drawbacks invites the wrath of the child-care industry and their friends in the media. Proponents of the male model of career success for women and substitute care for young children — typically working mothers themselves — use subterfuge and censorship to thwart the free choices women make. As you'll learn in Chapter 2, "Day Care Good; Mother Bad," the propagandists don't just insist that day care benefits children, they see stay-at-home mothers as a timid and fearful lot whose full-time attention damages their children.

Lopez: In 1977, Jean Stapleton, hanging out with Bella Abzug announced that Edith Bunker would support the ERA "if she understood it." Does that pretty much sum up what the feminist establishment thinks of many American women?

O'Beirne: The modern feminist movement has never enjoyed the allegiance of a majority of American women and that condescension represents feminists' explanation when confronted with the evidence. The rest of us are too stupid to recognize our oppression. One of the most celebrated feminists you'll meet in the book dismisses the surveys reporting that married women are happier than single women by attributing their contentment to being "slightly mentally ill."

Lopez: "Modern feminism's biggest enemies are the smallest humans." Without caricaturing the Left too much: What about "Her body, her choice?" People get into tough situations. Is it really fair to characterize it as a war against unborn children?

O'Beirne: Feminist fundamentalism holds that the battle of the sexes can't be won unless women make war on the tiniest enemies of their independence. How can we be the equal of men when our bodies betray us? These women aren't arguing that abortion must be available for the hard cases. They believe that women's fertility makes us inherently inferior to men, so there can be no restrictions at all on abortion. Lacking the public's support for their radical abortion agenda, they wrap their demands in a tissue of euphemisms and lies and fiercely fight to keep the issue in the courts insulated from public opinion. The majority of the public, including the majority of women, oppose the majority of abortions.

Lopez: Why do you raise questions about women in the military while we're at war? Don't we need every man or woman we can get in our overstretched military?

O'Beirne: In the lull of peacetime, regulations that kept women in uniform at a safe distance from combat were lifted. We are now paying the price and being made to think that our national defense rests on the ability to deploy teenage girls and single mothers. What a disgrace. In the name of a phony equality, the military shouldn't ask women to serve where they don't have an equal chance to survive. Experience with integrating the service academies and the great majority of military specialties has shown that women can't and don't meet the male physical standards. The institutionally self-confident Marine Corps hasn't integrated its basic training and has little trouble recruiting the kind of good men who recognize that women should be protected from physical threats.

Lopez: Do you want men to beat their wives? How can you be against the Violence Against Women Act?

O'Beirne: It's possible to recognize that physical abuse within a relationship shouldn't be considered a "private matter" and not support enacting an ideological agenda dressed up as legislation. The feminist conviction that marriage is inherently abusive and all men potential assailants won a federal imprimatur, and well over $1 billion, with this legislation that congressmen were too intimidated to resist. This program, packed with feminist pork, has the female psychologist who declared that "all female-male relationships [are] more or less abusive" on the public payroll training police, prosecutors, and judges.

Lopez: Was there ever a gender gap? There had to be a problem selling George W. Bush to women or the campaign would have never bothered with a "W Is for Women" gimmick, right?

O'Beirne: What can I say? Republicans can be dopey about the so-called gender gap. It was first aggressively promoted in 1980 when Ronald Reagan beat Carter among women voters, but by a smaller margin than his win among men. Hyping the supposedly intractable gender gap was useful to browbeat Walter Mondale into picking a female running mate. While Geraldine Ferraro was busy making history on the other ticket, Reagan was winning over women voters — by a margin of 56 to 44. As I show, convincingly I hope, there is no monolithic women's vote and there is no monolithic women's agenda.

Lopez: What's the worst thing that women who make the world worse do?

O'Beirne: They put us at war with the men in our lives, the fathers, husbands, and sons who love and support us. Because men don't like arguing with women and naively assumed that if they gave feminists what they wanted they would be left alone, the allegedly fierce patriarchy collapsed in the face of the feminist assault. The moral intimidation feminists inflict on men means that other women have to take on the modern, destructive women's movement. In the pages of my book you will meet some of the smart, admirable women who take on the feminists. The feminist message is crippling to our daughters, but we mothers of sons in particular have to defend our offspring. We are not raising unindicted co-conspirators in the gender wars!

Lopez: Has Hillary Clinton's work making the world worse only begun? Would a President Rodham Clinton unleash a destructive feminist nightmare on the world much worse than anything Geena Davis could ever portray?

O'Beirne: Oh boy. Hillary Clinton is a committed feminist. She's a true believer in the grievance agenda and promotes the myth of stunted progress for women's equality. She would reliably be one of the women who make the world worse by endorsing all of feminism's pet causes — strict sex quotas for college sports, "girl power" in our schools, the "epidemic" of domestic violence, abortion on demand (despite her phony rhetoric), universal, federally funded day care, enforced "equal pay for equal work" and women in combat. I have to lie down now.

The "Nothing Is Sacred" series continues.


— Cheap Monday jeans are a hot commodity among young Swedes thanks to their trendy tight fit and low price, even if a few buyers are turned off by the logo: a skull with a cross turned upside down on its forehead.
Logo designer Bjorn Atldax says he's not just trying for an antiestablishment vibe.
"It is an active statement against Christianity," Atldax told The Associated Press. "I'm not a Satanist myself, but I have a great dislike for organized religion."
The label's makers say it's more of a joke, but Atldax insists his graphic designs have a purpose beyond selling denim: to make young people question Christianity, a "force of evil" that he blames for sparking wars throughout history.

Why don't they just go ahead and make "Jew" jeans with lots of pockets for all the money they make. Or maybe a label with Auschwitz and a smiley face? Or a Muslim blowing himself up? Or a "black person" jean showing him hanging from a tree.

Come on! Why not? If we are gonna offend 1.2 billion people on this planet let's include the rest!!!

Why is it OK to offend Christians, but not anyone else?

Just Keep Us Safe.

The Washington Post has an article on Bush, the CIA, and covert operations.

"In the past, presidents set up buffers to distance themselves from covert
action," said A. John Radsan, assistant general counsel at the CIA from 2002 to
2004. "But this president, who is breaking down the boundaries between covert
action and conventional war, seems to relish the secret findings and the dirty
details of operations."

See now, this is the kind of President I want when we are fighting these kinds of monsters. He doesn't give a damn about what past Presidents did, he promised he would protect us and he did. And that is one fact no one, not even the Michael Moore types, can argue with.

There are complaints from former CIA officials that Bush will justify anything based on the resolution passed soon after 9-11:

... authorizing "all necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations, or persons [the president] determines planned,
authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks."

Which is why Bush was re-elected. I haven't seen one thing that Bush has done that hurts Americans or tramples on our rights. What he has done is make sure none of these blood thirsty insane terrorists get NEAR US.
The blowup over the wiretapping is nothing more than the Democrats way of making an issue out of nothing to make Bush look bad. Period.

The GTS program mentioned in the article, which is "the largest CIA covert action program since the height of the Cold War", was Bush's way of shaking up the CIA and getting together the type of covert organization we BADLY needed to protect us. I just don't understand how anyone could have a problem with that.

The article seems to want to paint a picture of a President shutting Congress out with little accountability. But I see a President determined to create a way to keep us safe and knowing that Congress and others would leak information that was vital to doing that (and God knows we have seen plenty of that), he chose to rely on those who know how to be a efficient spy organization.

I think most Americans understand that we are fighting an evil force never encountered before. Not an army that seeks to overthrow or invade, but individuals that simply want to kill us. US. You and me and anyone American. And they will kill themselves in order to do it.

Remember when Clinton said he almost "got Bin Laden?" Remember when the 9-11 commission detailed how we completely missed the clues of the planning of 9-11? All of these types of things were what were unacceptable to President Bush. Another attack was just not going to happen on his watch.

We believed him. We re-elected him. And for once, a politician kept his promise. So the Democrats can whine and complain, but they can't deny the fact that we have been SAFE.

via Red State (which has an excellent take on it as well)

Nothing Sacred.

I think I'll start a series called "Nothing Sacred" that chronicles the offensive and degrading things some people come up with. I've mentioned the Dennis O'Leary Christmas special and The SouthPark episode about Mother Mary. So now you have this:

Controversial images of Queen Elizabeth II, George W Bush and Jacques Chirac
apparently having sex have been removed from billboards in Austria.

It's art, don't cha know?

It's called a Hero's truck.

I found this wandering around the web. Some guy's truck that has beautiful paintings on it. On the passenger side of the truck is a fighting scene with out soldiers in Iraq.

Yes, I know this is just so Texas and Nascar but still...

Pretty cool, huh?

(Click on image for a bigger picture)

Thursday, December 29, 2005


As you can see I now have comments on the sidebar. I like it because you can instantly see if there is a response to your comment. I also got my blockquote thing fixed. All this courtesy of the so very sweet MacStansbury.

Now, news of the weird:

A Central Dauphin School District teacher faces charges of assaulting a
Lower Paxton Twp. police officer and possession of illegal drugs after being
arrested earlier this month while standing naked in the snow outside of his
home, police said.

It goes on to say:

According to court papers, when Lofton was asked if he was okay, he
responded, "No, I am ... crazy, and I need a menthol cigarette."
where he lived and why he was naked, Lofton is alleged to have said
that he was
"Jesus Christ" and that the officer must be "God," court papers
scuffle broke out between the two men during which Lofton is
alleged to have hit
the officer over the head with a long plastic toy
trumpet which he scooped up
from nearby.
The officer used his pepper
spray on Lofton, at first to no
avail. Then a cursing Lofton advised the
officer that "'Jesus' is now blind,"
court papers say.

H/T BigDog

What is it with teachers these days? They seemed to have turned into postal workers with drugs rather than guns.

I'm grateful.

The Ithaca Journal is encouraging Blue state people to take a walk on the Red side. He graciously included me in this walk:

For a different view of the war, if you have Internet access, take time on two days to read a military blog such as the Mudville Gazette ( and an Iraqi blog such as The Messopotamian (
For a different view of domestic politics, read two days of black conservative La Shawn Barber (, of the gay conservatives at Gay Patriot (, and of the hot conservative blond Rightwing Sparkle (
Finally, go to church or mosque and give thanks for the blessings in our lives, the blessings we in all our differentness are for each other, and the genius of those who built the sturdy constitutional framework that shelters us all.

I'll go give thanks that at age 40ish someone still calls me "hot." (my mom made me change the age thing...;-)

Where is Gloria Steinem...

When you need her?

via Ace

Sometimes you have to wonder if this stuff isn't just made up.

Mosnews has this:

A man charged with the attempted murder of the U.S. President George Bush in Georgia (Russia) has sewed up his mouth in what he says is a protest at a violation of his rights.

via The Jawa Report

The Bottom line on the wiretapping story.

From President Bush:

I want to make clear to the people listening that this program is limited in nature to those that are known al Qaeda ties and/or affiliates. That’s important. So it’s a program that’s limited, and you brought up something that I want to stress, and that is, is that these calls are not intercepted within the country. They are from outside the country to in the country, or vice versa. So in other words, this is not a—if you’re calling from Houston to L.A., that call is not monitored. And if there was ever any need to monitor, there would be a process to do that.

A reminder about the current state of the law, from the 2002 FISA Court of Review ruling:

The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power. The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President’s power by providing a mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the government’s contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable.

via Protein Wisdom (who has tons of more detailed posts on this if you are so inclined)

The Good News.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- When troops from the Georgia National Guard raided a Baghdad home in early December, they had no idea that their mission in Iraq would take a different turn.

Read the whole thing.

via Michael Yon

Ridiculous misconceptions.

If you want to get a peek inside the mind of an everyday liberal look no further than the Buzzflash mailbag. The actual site is pretty looney too, but here are a few gems from the mailbag:

The fact remains that only a small minority of people in this country hold right-wing views. I'll take my true liberal positions and match them up against another person's true conservative positions and my views would be more popular in Wyoming, Utah, Nebraska, or any Southern State than the true right-wing positions. (And, no, I don't want to hear about how one can't find liberals in small towns. The liberals there only remain silent because they fear violence. If you all speak out, you will put the cons back in their place.) Big Dave From Queens

A small minority? Right. And yes, if I hear a liberal speak out around here I will kick their a**. That's right. Right in front of my four kids and parish Priest. Break some bones, draw some blood. You betcha.

Seriously. This person BELIEVES this. Good grief! Does he even know anyone who is conservative???? Read on.

Apparently Cindy Sheehan visited Oklahoma City for an anti-war appearance recently. My friend reports that goons were all over the place taking pictures of everybody who came to hear Cindy and other war protesters. No doubt license plates were taken, too. In the small community where he is living, which will remain anonymous for his safety (and I'm not kidding), the locals are adamantly pro-war and pro-Bush. Most think anybody who dares to speak out against the administration, the president or the war should not be allowed to. I've heard comments on local talk radio to the same effect: freedom of speech and expression should apply only to those who support Bush and everything he does.
These people, at least, don't have to worry about being spied on at a local library. You'll never find one of these simpletons reading a book, unless Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly have someone read it to them. Scott Fayetteville, AR

Right. Cindy Sheehan is SUCH a threat that the CIA is all over her. You did catch the "for his safety" part? What paranoia are these people living with?
Even on sites that are much more conservative than I am, I have never heard one suggest that liberals shouldn't have a voice. And just because we differ on political opinions we are not intelligent? We don't read? Geeze.

Regarding the wiretap program:

"Trent Duffy, a spokesman for the White House, said: "This is a limited program. This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner. These are designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings and churches."

I was appalled to learn from Bush that there are people running around this country who have a history of blowing up trains, weddings and churches.
Gosh, every American must have bombed at least one train or church or wedding by now, since Bush is illegally and un-Constitutionally using the NSA to spy on all of us.
In order to keep myself out of harm's way in these troubled times, I hereby vow not to get married in a church while a derailed train comes crashing through it. Thanks for the heads-up, Mr. President! Jon Krampner Los Angeles, California

This one is particularly sad and disturbing. Does this guy not remember the recent wedding in Jordan where a celebration was turned into a bloodbath??? The carnage of the blown up train in Madrid??? Perhaps the reasons he feels so safe here, safe enough to be sarcastic about such a serious threat, is that Bush and our military have made us safe since 9-11. And did it ever occur to him that one of the ways we have been safe IS BY WIRETAPPING!!!! So we know what the bad guys are planning???

I have many liberals who comment here. Please tell me that these people do not represent you in any way. Please.

Iraqi elections.

This is why I love the blogopsphere. Where else can I get this kind of information direct from an Iraqi on the day he writes it? (link fixed)

Another losing issue for the Democrats.

WND has this:

According to Scott Rasmussen of Rasmussen Reports, 64 percent of respondents said the super-secret NSA should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. Just 23 percent disagreed, the survey found.

The liberals can't win for losing. You will see they have their teeth sunk into this and they are not going to let go and it's a losing issue. It also makes it seem as if they don't care about national security.

The article also says:

...defense lawyers in terrorism cases around the country say they are preparing letters and legal briefs to challenge the NSA program on behalf of their clients..

Isn't that special? The NYT's, who broke the story, is now responsible for terrorists suspects to do some legal wrangling and waste more of our tax dollars.

To liberals it seems nothing is more important than to make Bush look bad. To hell with the consequences.

Maybe some things are sacred?

I was just hammering on Comedy Central, but it seems it yanked a South Park episode about a Mary statue and the Pope called "Bloody Mary."

I can't bring myself to describe it. Read about it here.

I've never watched Southpark, but from what I've heard nothing, and I mean nothing, is sacred. So I wonder why they backed off here?


UPDATE: One of my commenters said he saw the episode last week on Comedy Central so boing boing was incorrect that it didn't run.

It was too much to hope for.

UPDATE2: Looking into it a bit more it seems that Comedy Central was running a mini-marathon and THAT is where they declined to re-air it.

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Virgin Mobile or MAD TV?

I'm flipping through channels and there is some kind of holiday themed commercial for a cell phone. What caught my attention is when two guys using the phone said, "Let's ask a Jew!!" I was like.. what???? And then it shows 2 men dressed as orthodox Jews on the cell phone and next it shows a guy dressed up as an elf answering a phone with a sign in front of him that says "gay elf" and he says "call me if your curious."

At this point I'm thinking it must be MAD TV or something, but nope, the Virgin Mobil label came across the TV at the end.

What the heck????? Anyone else seen this?

I found this while looking for the ad on the internet. Seems Virgin Mobile is kind of known for this stuff. Who knew?

Brokeback Mountain 2?

CONTENT WARNING! Awful, but funny.

via V the K

Bush Didn't Lie???

I'm shocked! But only that that the MSM is admitting it.

via Ace.

Preachy Hollywood.

What is it with all these politically motivated movies lately?

There is Steven Spielberg's "Munich" which seems to have ticked off Israelis and Palestinians.

Then there is George Clooney's "Goodnight and Good Luck," about CBS reporter Edward R. Murrow's confrontation with anti-Communist witch-hunter Sen. Joseph McCarthy (I read that Clooney forgot to mention the cold war), and "Syriana" a look at corruption in the Middle East oil trade. (Hint. Americans don't look good)

Then there is the "epic love story" of "Brokeback Mountain"

Hollywood seems determined to create their liberal version of events, political intrigue, and social change. Which they are free to do, of course. But I don't think it's going to well for them.

Clooney talks of "critical acclaim" but why wouldn't liberals praise a liberal movie? Why should there be pride in that? Clooney seems to me to be especially angry with the right and determined to spread his political worldview. He says he carries around a worn copy of the U.S. Constitution. (I had to role my eyes at that one)

I have no idea how good these movies are. I don't plan on seeing any of them because I try to make sure my money doesn't end up in the hands of some Democrat candidate.

But it makes me realize how important the internet and cable news is right now, to try and look at all sides of things instead just Hollywood's version of it. In reading about "Munich" I discovered all kinds of viewpoints on message boards and blogs.

I don't need George Clooney's propaganda and it's nice to know we have forces to fight it. Not too long ago the best we could have hoped for is a letter to the Editor of our local newspaper. Now we have the world opened up to us to complain, to editoralize, to counter, to read!

So, watch the movies if you wish, but read opposing viewpoints as well. Who knows? We all just might learn something.

Tuesday, December 27, 2005

Live Blogging.

When Charmain Yoest of Reasoned Audacity asked me to live blog "Justice Sunday II" in Philadephia on Jan. 8th, I was thrilled. But my happiness knows no bounds now that I know that Planned Parenthood is protesting it. If they are against something then I KNOW I am doing the right thing. If there is a more despicable organization that has been mainstreamed, I am not aware of it. You can read their warning e-mail here.

Blogger's Row for Justice Sunday 3 includes Captain Ed of Captain's Quarters, La Shawn Barber, Stacy Harp of Mind and Media and ME! Stay tuned for my posts leading up to it. And don't miss the liveblogging that day!

Just Don't Get Involved.

Helping a kid get out of the porn industry? The media should just say no.

The Courage of The Kurds.

When reading about Iraq I ty to find sources that aren't political in nature. I feel they perhaps will give me more a sense of what is really happening over there. It is the reason I love the milblogs. Most soldiers are not political, at least not in describing their own experience. I have found their blogs to be a window into the world of the war.

I found two gems (articles) in this month's
National Geographic. One is an article dealing with the Kurds and their independence and what they have suffered. The life of torture and death that they lived with daily under Saddam is hard to imagine here. The reporter found not one family that had not been affected by Saddam's brutality.

When reading the article, any American has to feel proud to have been a part of bringing this monster down. Lefties say there are many monsters. Why this one? Just as in the story you probably heard about the little boy on the beach throwing a starfish back into the ocean as thousands lay on the beach and the Dad says, "There are so many, throwing one back just doesn't matter." The little boys says as he is throwing one back in,"It matters to this one."

God knows, it mattered to the Kurds. As the reporter points out:

"I met not a single family there that had not fled its home at some point in the past 20 years, not a single farmer who had not seem his village shelled by bombs or artillery, not a single person without a tale of chemical weapon attacks, torture, or execution under Saddam Hussein."

Even if you believe that this war was for the oil, you have to be glad this genocide has ended and the person responsible for it has been brought down.

The sad thing is that most Kurds are the exact kind of people we would like see lead Iraq and the middle east into a democracy, but they have long considered themselves independent from Iraq. They have held elections and formed a legislature and chosen a President. They are not thrilled with being a part of Iraq in any form. One can certainly understand why. But they seem to be a forward thinking people at a time where that kind of thinking is much needed.

In the 2nd article, "Genocide", we are introduced to anthropologists of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who are exhuming remains from the mass graves of the Kurds. As the lead anthropologist, Paul Rubenstein tells us:

"As you work with the victims, especially the children, their clothing, the baby bottles, the little shoes, just like the ones we bought for our daughters years ago, the little hands, so expressive in death-you have to try not to get into the heads of the monsters who did this, or it becomes overwhelming. You look at a perfectly knitted baby bonnet with two bullets holes in it, and you think, These could be your own kids."

The reporter interviews Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel who says there is some reason to believe that the work being done with Iraq's mass graves victims could help ensure that the 21st century is less violent than the one before it:

"The moment you give a face and a name, not just to the victim but to the killer, people respond with greater comprehension. It somehow puts limits on the phenomenon, which otherwise is incomprehensible because of the numbers and the magnitude."

What I believe Bush understood about Saddam was that Saddam was this kind of madman dictator in a region that was the hotbed of terrorist activities. Could we allow him to ignore U.N. resolutions to prove that he was the not the danger we suspected? Could we ignore someone capable of mass murder to possibly supply terrorists? No and no.

Argue the reasons for the war. Argue about the motivations. You still have a brutal killer off the world stage and a democracy struggling to grow where one once thought impossible.

And that, my friends, is something for America to be proud of.

Shame on Comedy Central.

Did anyone catch Dennis Leary's comedy central special on Christmas called "Merry F&*%'in Christmas?" I thought I couldn't be shocked anymore. In the first five minutes he was a total Christian bigot and made jokes about Christ and Mother Mary that were so offensive I wanted to scream.

Who enjoys this crap? Shame on him and on Comedy Central. I know that they "push the envelope" and all that. But this was beyond that. It was like listening to rednecks tell N*gger jokes. Awful. Sickening.

Cool Site.

The Lone Star Times turned me on to this site, Regret The Error. It documents newspaper corrections from all over. Like this one:

Another media death
The Philadelphia Inquirer:
"It was incorectly reported in yesterday's editions that Liberty Bowl founder Bud Dudley had died. He is still alive." Link.

Wonder if they will have to correct that they spelled incorrectly wrong? Heh.

This newspaper had to retract a story about Santa. Santa was forced to put them on his naughty list.

Sunday, December 25, 2005

Did You Miss Me??????

Stress + Fun = Holidays.

I won't bore you with all my personal stuff, but I did get to New York City before Christmas and got to do that dorky wave outside the Fox News Fox and Friends morning show. Then Steve Doocey and Brian Kilmeade came outside to do a segment. E.D. wasn't there...;-( But I got to meet the guys! I told Brian about my blog and he asked for a card. I should get those made up just for fun. Anyway, I love NYC at Christmas!

One of my commenters also took us to dinner while we were there. He mostly comments at Ace's site though and is one of those smart wall street guys. We had a lovely dinner and gossiped about all the bloggers we frequent.

Here are a few photos of my daughter and I in NYC.

Friday, November 18, 2005

A bit of a sabbatical

I have decided to take a break from blogging until the new year. I have 21 people coming to my house for Thanksgiving, I have five family birthdays in Nov. and Dec. (I always make a big deal out of birthdays) and I have this pageant thing and some traveling to do and THEN Christmas!

Every time I sit down at this dang computer time flies. By the time I read news stories and my favorite blogs and then blog myself, half my day is gone. I have just too much too do right now, so I need to quit cold turkey...;-)

I will miss miss my commenters! (even my leftwing ones!) Everyone has certainly made me look at different viewpoints. And I hope that I have allowed you to consider mine. One thing I know for sure..all voices matter.

Whether you think I am right on issues or not, I hope that I have shown that there is no doubt that I want the best for everyone. I hope that I have shown that rightwingers care about the poor and the disadvantaged as well.

I am saddened by the viciousness of politics now compared to when my dad was involved in it. In fact, I am saddened by most things to do with politics. I totally understand why most Americans don't care for it and avoid it.

I wish I could.

So check back here in the new year! I'll still be checking my e-mail and I will still be roaming the blogs.

Have a happy Thanksgiving and a wonderful Christmas and New Year!

Thursday, November 17, 2005

McCain for President 08'!

Get use to it!! And today he gave me another reason to love him:

"Anyone reading the amendment gets the sense that the Senate's foremost objective is the draw-down of American troops. What it should have said is that America's first goal in Iraq is not to withdraw troops, but to win the war. All other policy decisions we make should support, and be subordinate to, the successful completion of our mission.
Morality, national security and the honor our fallen deserve all compel us to see our mission in Iraq through to victory.
A date is not an exit strategy. To suggest that it is only encourages our enemies, by indicating that the end to American intervention is near. It alienates our friends, who fear an insurgent victory, and tempts undecideds to join the anti-government ranks.
Think about this for a moment. Imagine Iraqis, working for the new government, considering whether to join the police force, or debating whether or not to take up arms. What will they think when they read that the Senate is pressing for steps toward draw-down?
Are they more or less likely to side with a government whose No. 1 partner hints at leaving?
The Senate has responded to the millions who braved bombs and threats to vote, who put their faith and trust in America and their government, by suggesting that our No. 1 priority is to bring our people home.
We have told insurgents that their violence does grind us down, that their horrific acts might be successful. But these are precisely the wrong messages. Our exit strategy in Iraq is not the withdrawal of our troops, it is victory."

via New York Post via Powerline.

Stay the course. Don't play the Democrats game.

Bill Clinton plays his usual game of trying to have it both ways:

Former President Clinton told Arab students Wednesday the United States made a "big mistake" when it invaded Iraq, stoking the partisan debate back home over the war.
"Saddam is gone. It's a good thing, but I don't agree with what was done," Clinton told students at a forum at the American University of Dubai.

Gee, How would you have done it Mr. Clinton? Oh wait. Nevermind. You had 8 yrs to do it and didn't.

Iraqi blogger Hammorabi has harsh words for our former President:

The world without Saddam is not only better place for the Iraqis but for the whole world. Those who are fighting the changes towards democracy in Iraq are Al-Qaeda terrorists and the other extremists and their supporters in Syria. Bill Clitonn is no different from them. Bill Clinton certainly failed to remove Saddam and failed to prevent the terrorists but was successful in killing more Iraqis by his rockets and by Saddam hands. Bill Clinton is a supporter of the dictator regimes in the Middle East indeed.

And Iraqi blogger Alaa told us prior to the January elections what would happen and why we have to stay the course.

Moreover, no one should expect that the security situation and strife would somehow improve after the elections; it is more likely to intensify. This is an unfinished war; the Saddamists and their allies have fully regrouped and rearmed and are being very well financed and supported. The brave American people have given President Bush the mandate to finish this war despite the painful sacrifices and material cost. The Iraqi people are up in arms through the political groupings, new army, N.G. and various security forces and are suffering the greater part of the sacrifice. Despite all the snags and faltering, these forces are getting bigger and stronger and should be supported and nurtured until they can bear the full responsibility; this is the only viable "exit strategy" available. In fact, we do not like this phrase, for what is required is a "victory strategy". This war must be fought to the bitter end, and there is only one outcome acceptable both to us and to you: Total and Complete Victory. Anything else is completely unthinkable.

via Mudville

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Open Thread.

At the request of my funny lil jeffie.

We MUST have some fun here. Too much serious for too long. Let's have a look at an interesting wedding photo and caption. Heh.

via Old Grouchy Cripple

Another interesting engagement.

via Grouchy Old Cripple

It's time for the yearly weblog awards. Go nominate someone!

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Let's look at torture.

The Democrats and the media played up the Abu Ghraib scandal even though it was clearly an isolated instance of prisoner abuse which, while deplorable, did not come close to what Saddam Hussein committed during his dictatorship. Yet you hardly hear a sound from Democrats or the media on how thankful we are that this man is no longer torturing people.

Let's take a look back, shall we? via Newsweek

"One former prisoner he talked to, Anwar Abdul Razak, remembers when a surgeon kissed him on each cheek, said he was sorry and cut his ears off. Razak, then 21 years old, had been swept up during one of Saddam Hussein’s periodic crackdowns on deserters from the Army. Razak says he was innocently on leave at the time, but no matter; he had been seized by some Baath Party members who earned bounties for catching Army deserters. At Basra Hospital, Razak’s ears were sliced off without painkillers. He said he was thrown into jail with 750 men, all with bloody stumps where their ears had been. “They called us Abu [Arabic for father] Earless,” recalls Razak, whose fiancee left him because of his disfigurement."

No humilating pictures, but I'd say Razak wins the "I really got tortured" award over anyone at Abu Ghraib.

No one is sure how many men were mutilated during that particular spasm of terror, but from May 17 to 19, 1994, all the available surgeons worked shifts at all of Basra’s major hospitals, lopping off ears. (One doctor who refused was shot.)

It is hard to measure the depth of Saddam’s wickedness or the devastation he wreaked. In Baghdad last week, silent families wandered through Saddam’s jails and dungeons, looking for long-lost loved ones. They were convinced there had to be an underground prison, somewhere. But the jails were empty. At the Abu Ghurayb Prison, neighbors had witnessed convoys of buses carrying prisoners away before the first American bombs began to fall. Where to? No one seemed to know.

Issa was tortured for simply not joining the Baath Party:

As part of the prison routine, Issa was tortured daily, sometimes twice a day. Battery acid was spilled on his feet, which are now deformed. With his hands bound behind his back, he was hanged by his wrists from the ceiling until his shoulders dislocated; he still cannot lift his hands above his head. The interrogators’ goal: “They just wanted me to say I was plotting against the Baath Party, so they could take me and execute me. If they got a confession, they would get 100,000 dinars [roughly $40].”

Even paying bribes didn't keep one from this:

Kubba’s money insulated his family from mayhem, but it did not shield him from witnessing the almost casual slaughter of his people. Last week he recalled a “scene that haunts me still.” Kubba was driving his Mercedes through Basra’s Saad Square when he came upon some 600 men who had been detained while police checked their IDs. According to Kubba, “Chemical Ali” Hassan al-Majid, Saddam’s half brother and the tyrant of southern Iraq, stopped and inquired, “No IDs? Just shoot them all.” Kubba watched as “they shot over 600 people in front of me.”

The fates of thousands of others are buried in Saddam’s numerous prisons. One of the most notorious was the IIS prison at Haakimiya, near a bustling commercial area in downtown Baghdad. A nondescript five-story building notable only by the extra barbed wire on the roof, the Haakimiya Prison is actually 10 stories. Belowground are interrogation cells where unspeakable horrors were committed. NEWSWEEK’s Liu, prowling the dank and empty halls, ran into a former inmate, Mohsen Mutar Ulga, 34, who was searching for documents about his cousin, executed under Saddam. Ulga said he was sentenced to 12 years in jail for belonging to an armed religious group called “the revenge movement for Sadr,” referring to a martyred Shiite cleric. He had been arrested with 19 others; the lucky ones were executed right away. The rest were tortured with electric cattle prods and forced to watch the prison guards gang-rape their wives and sisters.

THIS, my friends, is torture. THIS is what we took down. THIS is what the Democrats seem to be arguing that we shouldn't have gone to war for. They now say this man was not a threat. They would rather rail against America for an isolated incident than be grateful that we saved a country from THIS.

Next time a lefty tells you that this war is a failure, show them this.

Ask them if stopping this was a failure?

The GOP.....

fires back. See the video of what the Democrats said themselves. (click play now)


The world we want.

NRO has this beautiful but sad story of a Rabbi serving in Iraq who helps comfort a dying boy with verses from the Holy Koran, in the language that the boy would be familiar with.

Read the whole thing. It is touching. But as a Catholic Priest comes to comfort the Rabbi, the Rabbi wonders this:

"I thought to myself, isn'’t this the kind of world we are fighting for-- — a world where an Imam teaches a Rabbi words from the Holy Koran to comfort a young Muslim boy, and that rabbi himself is comforted by a Christian, a Catholic priest."

Yes, this is the world we want. A world where we respect our differences, not kill because of them. We want a world where murderers, like the one who killed this boy, cannot roam free.

The Rabbi says this also:

"There are many Americans who ask why we'’re here. Why are we sacrificing so many American lives and placing so many in harm'’s way? What is the purpose of it all? Well, I don'’t really know the big picture. But from my small sector of the battlefield, the reason I am here is to give "“the least of these,"” my children over here, a shot at "“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"— just like my other children living in America."

This is also the world we want. A world where children are raised in freedom. Not just our children, but every child.

This is what we all want, isn't it? If bringing liberty and free elections to Afghanistan and Iraq doesn't bring us this world, what will?

If helping stabilize the middle east, reducing the incidence of islamo-fascist terrorism, and providing models for other Arab nations and people doesn't bring us this world, then..I ask again, what will?

Because we all agree...A world free of terrorism and providing liberty for all in the Middle East--

This is the world we want.

The Cotillion ...

is up!! Stephanie from Free Thoughts is hosting. What is cool about Stephanie is that she is in Italy. The Cotillion is officially international!

To hell with our government and troops,

as long as we win the next elections. (the Democrats strategy translated into simple terms)

Let me put this as briefly as possible. The Democrats have nothing to run on in '06. So, as was laid out in this Nov. 6th memo from Senator Rockefeller, they decided to take advantage of the general public's ignorance on how intelligence is handled and say that the President saw something VERY different than the Senate Intelligence Committee did regarding WMD's. When in fact, as is cited below, the Robb-Silverman Commission found the reports were not that much different at all. AND that there WAS NO DISTORTION or even pressure from the White House regarding intelligence.

Democrats were hoping the public wouldn't really hear or focus on the facts of the commission. (which the media would be just fine with) But they forgot about us. The bloggers.

Interestingly, as Froggy points out here, Presidential Candidate John Kerry said that he would have given the authority to go to war even knowing what we know NOW. (emphasis mine)

GRAND CANYON, Ariz. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found. Taking up a challenge from President Bush, whom he will face in the Nov. 2 election, the Massachusetts senator said: "I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively."

So given the fact that this whole bogus argument is about being "lied" to about WMD's, it seems the Democrat's Presidential nominee would have gone to war even if it had been proven at the time that Saddam didn't have them.

The Democrats know the President didn't lie. This was all part of a grand plan to fool the public and to hell with troop morale and our efforts in the war on terror.

Shame on them. Shame. Shame.

links via PW

UPDATE: Ace has the goods on Tim Russert showing Sen. Kennedy what liars the Democrats are and some interesting thoughts of his own about this whole "we were misled!" strategy.

UPDATE2: Ace has the goods on Chris Wallace showing Senator Rockefeller what a liar he is as well. (I have got to keep up with the Sunday shows!)

Monday, November 14, 2005

Bush is setting the record straight.

Thank God.

From “Setting the Record Straight: The Washington Post On Pre-War Intelligence":

The Washington Post Implies That The Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) Was Superior To The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) Given To Congress:

“But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President’s Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community’s views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country” (Dana Milbank And Walter Pincus, “Asterisks Dot White House’s Iraq Argument,” The Washington Post, 11/12/05).

But The PDB Was The Focus Of Intelligence Reform And Was More “Problematic” Than The NIE Given To Congress.

# The Robb-Silberman Commission Found The PDB To Contain Similar Intelligence In “More Alarmist” And “Less Nuanced” Language. “As problematic as the October 2002 NIE was, it was not the Community’s biggest analytic failure on Iraq. Even more misleading was the river of intelligence that flowed from the CIA to top policymakers over long periods of time--in the President’s Daily Brief (PDB) and in its more widely distributed companion, the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief (SEIB). These daily reports were, if anything, more alarmist and less nuanced than the NIE.” (Charles S. Robb And Laurence H. Silberman, The Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction, 3/31/05, Pg. 14)

# The Robb-Silberman Commission Reported That The Intelligence In The PDB Was Not “Markedly Different” Than The Intelligence Given To Congress In The NIE. “It was not that the intelligence was markedly different. Rather, it was that the PDBs and SEIBs, with their attention-grabbing headlines and drumbeat of repetition, left an impression of many corroborating reports where in fact there were very few sources. And in other instances, intelligence suggesting the existence of weapons programs was conveyed to senior policymakers, but later information casting doubt upon the validity of that intelligence was not.” (Charles S. Robb And Laurence H. Silberman, The Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction, 3/31/05, Pg. 14)

The Washington Post Implies That There Have Been No Findings On The Use Of Intelligence:
"But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush’s commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: ‘Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry.’” (Dana Milbank And Walter Pincus, “Asterisks Dot White House’s Iraq Argument,” The Washington Post, 11/12/05)

But Congressional And Independent Committees Have Repeatedly Reported No Distortion Of Intelligence

# The Bipartisan Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Report “Did Not Find Any Evidence” Of Attempts To Influence Analysts To Change Intelligence. “Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities. Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President’s visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.” ("Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, 7/7/04, Pg. 284-285)

# The Robb-Silberman Commission Finds “No Evidence Of Political Pressure.” “These are errors serious errors. But these errors stem from poor tradecraft and poor management. The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community’s pre-war assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments.” (Charles S. Robb And Laurence H. Silberman, The Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction, 3/31/05, Pg. 50-51)

# The British Butler Report Finds “No Evidence” Of Intelligence Distortion. “In general, we found that the original intelligence material was correctly reported in [Joint Intelligence Committee] assessments. An exception was the ‘45 minute’ report. But this sort of example was rare in the several hundred JIC assessments we read on Iraq. In general, we also found that the reliability of the original intelligence reports was fairly represented by the use of accompanying quali cations. We should record in particular that we have found no evidence of deliberate distortion or of culpable negligence. We examined JIC assessments to see whether there was evidence that the judgements inside them were systematically distorted by non-intelligence factors, in particular the in uence of the policy positions of departments. We found no evidence of JIC assessments and the judgements inside them being pulled in any particular direction to meet the policy concerns of senior of cials on the JIC.” ("Review Of Intelligence On Weapons Of Mass Destruction,” Report Of A Committee Of Privy Counsellors, 7/14/04, Pg. 110)

via Protein Wisdom.


Look! I was interviewed for an online women's magazine! asked me some questions about women bloggers. The article is titled "Broads on Blogs." It describes women's blogs pretty accurately:

Left, right, salacious, serious, bitchy, ballsy, Bush-bashing or liberal-smashing, women have entered the blogosphere in growing numbers, amassing devoted followers along the way. Female bloggers represent the entire political spectrum, some offering original reporting, others unabashed activism--all hosting a forum for anyone with a computer to weigh in on the controversial subject at hand.

Here are my excerpts:

Kathy, who hosts Right Wing Sparkle ( and prefers her real name not be used, remarks, "The benefits of an active blogosphere commenting is that so many voices get heard. The disadvantage is that unfortunately so many of those voices are shrill and insulting. I hate that. But," she adds, "my Dad always said that 'cream rises to the top,' so I think that eventually the main blogs that will be read by the general public will be those who carry on civil discourse and voice their opinions in a thoughtful manner."

On what I do while blogging:

The Texas-based Kathy, of RightWingSparkle, does her e-mailing between running a carpool, helping her two kids with homework and starting dinner. (note: I have four kids, but who's counting?)

On what I think of Wonkette:

Kathy states it more bluntly: "Any woman blogger on the web can use her sexuality to gain readers. But is that what we want?"

On the difference in male and female blogging on issues such as abortion:

Kathy cites the example of abortion. "Women bloggers on both sides will post long and emotional and detailed essays. Male bloggers throw a few sentences at it."

On whether you can tell what gender a blogger is by reading them:

Notes Kathy, "I think it's fairly easy to tell if it is a man or woman blogger. We are different, after all, even in the way we write."

Could the answer to the abortion debate be found with the internet???

While I was working with women in crisis pregnancy in the 80's and 90's, our main problem was getting the information to the women who needed it. The MSM certainly wouldn't give us any publicity (even though we did offer a "choice" after all). Advertising was expensive and all of our money went into services for the girls.

But now I read that internet banners may actually be able to reach out to girls who truly want help. And the great thing about it is young women today are all about the internet. That would be the first place they would probably look for help. WND has this referring to internet ads put out by

Along with images of young women, the ad includes the text: "Pregnant? Scared? You have options. Click here now."

"Research has indicated that 70 percent of women contacting OptionLine and believing they may be pregnant are considering an abortion," the Life Donor Program website explains. "However, once they visit a Care Net pregnancy center, less than 10 percent follow through with terminating their pregnancy. Ninety percent will choose life!"

Care Net is a nationwide network of pregnancy centers that sponsors the program, along with Heatbeat International.

I worked with The Nuturing Network, which provides free health care and job and college transfers for young women in crisis pregnancies. Started by a former Fortune 500 CEO, Mary Cunningham Agee, she began by asking Planned Parenthood if she could interview a sampling of the women who had had abortions in their clinics, PP gave permission and Mary found that over 90% of those asked said that they would not have had the abortion if they had known there was help and alternatives out there for them.

If those numbers from Optionline and The Nuturing Network are even close to being right, then the internet could finally give women what we as society have for so long neglected....a real choice.

And no one on either side would have a problem with that. Except the radicals, of course.

Moonbat central.

I don't call everyone on the left a moonbat. Most are just good intentioned misguided souls, but these guys.....they are moonbats. Here is a sampling:

Your government is openly torturing people, and justifying it.

That's right. Just like Iran, when young women are caught having sex, we hang them from a crane until they die. You have caught us.

Your government puts people in jail on the merest suspicion, refusing them lawyers, and either holding them indefinitely or deporting them in the dead of night.

People? Just regular people?? Are you sure you don't mean TERRORIST SUSPECTS??? Oh, that's right. To you there is no difference.

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

Really? Gee. They forgot to tell us Christians about this religious overthrow. Let me go check my e-mail.

People look at all this and think of Hitler— and they are right to do so. The Bush regime is setting out to radically remake society very quickly, in a fascist way, and for generations to come. We must act now; the future is in the balance.

Right. Bush is just like Hitler. Using the Amtrak to round up undesirables I'm sure. I wonder where he is killing them? Of course, first he had to deny free speech to those who oppose him.....hey...wait a minute!!!!

via LGF

Sick Image.

Little Green Footballs has this:

In an admiring photo essay on the making of suicide bomber propaganda film “Paradise Now,” the BBC reaches a new low in the caption of a photo of Palestinian child abuse: Shooting Paradise Now.

Caption for photo:

Palestinian children learn at a young age about the struggle for freedom. To some, the Palestinian martyrs are heroes. Here a child poses for a photograph at a rally organised by militants.

UPDATE: Quake orphans are being "adopted" by terrorist groups. h/t Jill

Sunday, November 13, 2005

Bush Lied? Part 2

Jeff at Protein Wisdom lays it all out.

It's long. It's good. If you still believe that Bush "lied" or misled anyone regarding intelligence about Saddam and WMD's then you read this and tell me how Jeff is wrong.

Al Qaeda are throwing down family members now.

The face of radical insanity.

They offer a "explanation" to the Muslim world:

"It said it had ordered the suicide attacks on the hotels "only after becoming confident that they were centres for launching war on Islam and supporting the Crusaders' presence in Iraq and the Arab peninsula and the presence of the Jews on the land of Palestine."

As Ace points out, weddings are "centres for launching war on Islam?" I don't think the people of Jordan are buying that one:

"On Thursday thousands of Jordanians protested across the country to denounce the head of the al-Qaeda terrorist group in Iraq, Zarqawi, America's most wanted enemy. They marched through Amman chanting: "Burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi!"

Bush lied?

Ok, now the lefty talking point is that Bush "manipulated" the intelligence, or "kept" some of it away from the key Senators that looked at it and then voted to go to war.

Rove is a genius. I mean he knew way back in 1998 that all this would happen and somehow got Bill Clinton to say this to his Joint Chiefs of Staff:

"(Iraq) admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability — notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production."

Text of President Clinton's address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff, Feb. 17, 1998

No one can blame Bush for "manipulating" anything for what Clinton believed in 1998. The only difference, of course, is 9-11 and Bush's determination to take no chances.

I have said it before and will say it until the left finally aknowledges it. We found an international terrorists training camp in Iraq in the first week of our invasion. Terrorists+biological warfare capability=take no chances.

So the left's talking point of basically saying "Gosh, Bush just fooled us!" has got to stop. (or as I read somewhere else, "we are dumber than Bush"..heh.) h/t to dave in comments of last post. Pretty sad when I can't even remember when I read something in my own comments. I BLAME BUSH!!

Friday, November 11, 2005

The President's Speech Today Rocked.

Here is the whole thing.

Bush finally made clear some things that needed to be made clear. One important thing was to define who we are fighting and their goals: (emphasis on what the terrorists themselves said)

"Many militants are part of a global, borderless terrorist organization like al Qaeda — which spreads propaganda, and provides financing and technical assistance to local extremists, and conducts dramatic and brutal operations like the attacks of September the 11th. Other militants are found in regional groups, often associated with al Qaeda — paramilitary insurgencies and separatist movements in places like Somalia, the Philippines, Pakistan, Chechnya, Kashmir and Algeria. Still others spring up in local cells — inspired by Islamic radicalism, but not centrally directed. Islamic radicalism is more like a loose network with many branches than an army under a single command. Yet these operatives, fighting on scattered battlefields, share a similar ideology and vision for the world.

We know the vision of the radicals because they have openly stated it — in videos and audiotapes and letters and declarations and on websites.

First, these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace, and stand in the way of their ambitions. Al Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden, has called on Muslims to dedicate, their "resources, their sons and money to driving the infidels out of our lands." The tactics of al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists have been consistent for a quarter of a century: They hit us, and expect us to run.

Last month, the world learned of a letter written by al Qaeda's number two leader, a guy named Zawahiri. And he wrote this letter to his chief deputy in Iraq — the terrorist Zarqawi. In it, Zawahiri points to the Vietnam War as a model for al Qaeda. This is what he said: "The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam — and how they ran and left their agents — is noteworthy." The terrorists witnessed a similar response after the attacks on American troops in Beirut in 1983 and Mogadishu in 1993. They believe that America can be made to run again — only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences.

Second, the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country — a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments. Over the past few decades, radicals have specifically targeted Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Jordan for potential takeover. They achieved their goal, for a time, in Afghanistan. And now they've set their sights on Iraq. In his recent letter, Zawahiri writes that al Qaeda views Iraq as, "the place for the greatest battle." The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. We must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war against the terrorists. (Applause.)

Third, these militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia. Zawahiri writes that the terrorists, "must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq." He goes on to say: "[T]he jihad ... requires several incremental goals. ... Expel the Americans from Iraq. ... Establish an Islamic authority over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq? Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq."

With the greater economic, military and political power they seek, the terrorists would be able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction; to destroy Israel; to intimidate Europe; to assault the American people; and to blackmail our government into isolation."

So for all of you who don't believe anything President Bush says, will you believe what Zawahiri says to Zarqawi?

And The President once again reminded us of a few things we have accomplished in this war on terror. And heaven knows he needed to, since the media doesn't seem to interested in informing the public of them.

"Together with our partners, we've disrupted a number of serious al Qaeda terrorist plots since September the 11th — including several plots to attack inside the United States. Our coalition against terror has killed or captured nearly all those directly responsible for the September the 11th attacks. We've captured or killed several of bin Laden's most serious deputies, al Qaeda managers and operatives in more than 24 countries; the mastermind of the USS Cole bombing, who was chief of al Qaeda's operations in the Persian Gulf; the mastermind of the bombings in Jakarta and Bali; a senior Zarqawi terrorist planner, who was planning attacks in Turkey; and many of their senior leaders in Saudi Arabia."

These are no small things.

The guy has a point.

The Washington Post has this:

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley came out strong in the briefing room yesterday to issue a rebuttal to "the notion that somehow the administration manipulated prewar intelligence about Iraq."

Ahem. Listen up. (emphasis mine)

"Some of the critics today," Hadley added, "believed themselves in 2002 that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, they stated that belief, and they voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq because they believed Saddam Hussein posed a dangerous threat to the American people. For those critics to ignore their own past statements exposes the hollowness of their current attacks."

The article goes on:

"Hadley noted that the presidential commission, led by retired judge Laurence H. Silberman and former senator Charles S. Robb (D-Va.), said it found no evidence that administration officials manipulated intelligence."

So is it possible for the left and the Democrats and the media to stop beating this drum and let's move forward with what has to be done NOW? Because while it is all well and good to grasp at anything in order to win the next round of elections, shouldn't the focus be more on doing what needs to be done in Iraq? For once, can we put the country first and elections second and let this administration WORK instead of defend itself??

The Jordan Terror Bombings...

hit close to home. A personal story that reminds us all that as safe as we may feel here, terror can still touch us.

via Mudville

Veterans Day.

Yesterday, after helping with homework, cooking supper, feeding the kids and cleaning up, I had to rush my 8 yr old to basketball practice. After practice he had to change in the car for his 2nd grade "Patriotic Program."

On the drive there I was grumbling to myself about this silly programs they do at school (you can only imagine how many I have been to). My attitude couldn't have been worse. The kids were dressed in red, white, and blue t-shirts. I was expecting the usual "singing" and boring stuff.

I couldn't have been more wrong.

The gym was decorated with red, white, and blue stars with the names of veterans that each child knew. I had written the names of my Dad and my Father-in-law on a star about a week before, but didn't expect the emotional impact that seeing all those stars and all those names would give me.

About eight older veterans were sitting in the front. We started out with The Pledge of Allegiance and then the Principal asked all those who had served or were serving to come forward for a thank you gift. About 2 dozen came forward and the whole gym interrupted in clapping, cheers, and whoops. No one stopped clapping until the gifts were given out and the Veterans and soldiers sat back down. I was already wiping my eyes.

Then the kids came in. All dressed in red, white and blue waving small flags. My son's class had Uncle Sam's hats on and danced and sang "Yankee Doodle Dandy." There was a great big blue bucket in the middle of the gym and someone read a poem about mixing blue for bravery, white for purity, and red for something I can't remember, and the kids put big pieces of colored confetti in the bucket. Then the poem said to mix it, and they did. And then the poem said we had made "Old Glory." They then pulled out a flag as big as a small room and started "waving" it as they held on to all sides and sang "It's A Grand Ole Flag." The confetti in the middle would fly up and down as they did this. A beautiful sight.

There were more songs and dances and they ended it by playing Lee Greenwood's "I'm Proud To Be An American" in which every person in the room sang along and cheered again when the song ended.

It was wonderful. Like an unexpected gift.

Sometimes we need to be reminded who paid the price for our freedoms.

As we left we were given a poem that was written from the perspective of our Flag. The poem was reflecting on how in times past when the American Flag led a parade people would stop and put their hands over their hearts, but not anymore. The Flag in the poem was asking if we had forgotten all the men and women who had died for it? And if we had forgotten all the freedoms our Flag represented? The Flag in the poem then requested that the next time we see our Flag in a parade or elsewhere to stop and put our hand over our heart.

You damn betcha I will.

Thursday, November 10, 2005

Did ya'll see..

the Kurds commercials they showed on Fox News this morning? The one I saw was a bunch of them thanking America. One young man points at the camera with his purple finger and says "Thank you America."

You want to feel really good about what we have done. Go here and scroll down to the bottom for the commercials and click.

Sweet. Truly sweet.

Another Open Thread.

Discuss anything again.

Suggested topics?

How are we suppose to stop relying on foreign oil if we can't even drill in a frozen tundra?

Why are Republicans such wimps and compromisers when they are in power? At least the Democrats knew how to mow over the Republicans the 40 something years they were in power.

Did San Francisco even watch the looters on TV during Katrina? Can anyone say..."earthquake?" Trust me, you are going to want your gun then.

Star Power!

I saw Sen. John McCain on The Jon Stewart show night before last. He is, without question, the wittiest politician to go on the show. He is able to keep up with Stewart joke for joke and that is a pretty amazing feat. I have only seen the really big comedians be able to do it as well.

Yeah, yeah, everyone here knows I love John McCain. I love him despite his sins. Despite all the compromising, the gang of 14, the big ego, and the MORTAL sin of finance reform that ticked off every libertarian on the planet.

I keep telling everyone he is the only one with the star power and charm to beat Hillary in 08'. I hope powers greater than me (like the RNC) see that as well.

I won't sit here and gush about him being a true war hero in every sense of the word and his years of public service because we all know that isn't important in a Presidential election....;-) What IS important is "perception" and the overall feeling Americans get from their candidate. That is the way it is.

Watching him on Jon Stewart convinced me even more. If he can charm Stewart (and he did) and Stewart's lefty audience then he can certainty charm America. And charm is one thing Hillary is severely lacking in.

I might mention one more thing and then I will try and put off my cheering for him until closer to the election. McCain can't raise his arms above his shoulders because they were broken so many times in the 6 yrs he was in a POW camp. (one in which he could have left early because of his dad, but wouldn't leave his men) So every time he is suppose to raise his arms in the politician wave, America will be reminded of his sacrifice and his service to our country.

Let's see Hillary beat that.

What does this say about us?

I hadn't heard much about the school shooting in Tennesee on the news, so I decided to google it. This was about all I came up with.

A Principal at a high school gets shot dead by a student and we hardly notice. Maybe because of things like this. Even high school football games have become deadly.

I see this over and over in this country. We become numb to the evil that surrounds us. We shrug or shake our heads and wonder what can be done, and then off we go to Starbucks.

Was Columbine so awful that everything else seems tame in comparison?

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Yes I know, I know...

Lots of things happening! I'm busy here!

Bombings in Jordan.

When will the sane people in the Middle East truly step up to the plate to fight terrorism?

Oil executives explain to Congress why they are in the business to make money.

I know I am not objective on this, but give me a break. When you are in the oil business it is feast or famine. We have been through 7 layoffs. Lawmakers don't seem too interested in us when we lose our jobs, do they? American Oil Companies in no way control the price of oil. Do the American people know this?

Another investigation of a leak?

Yeah, I know. It's probably payback. Here's an idea. How about the Justice Dept. START SAYING NO TO STUPID INVESTIGATIONS. No one in America cares about leaks. Really.