Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Election Day Open Thread!

No, I'm not back, but The Houston Chronicle asked me to live blog election day so you can go over there to chat too.I thought my regulars (who keep yakking at each other here) would like a place to vent, predict, or cry. Whatever the case may be.

Update!!!: Since you guys aren't being very nice while I am gone, I have activated the moderation device. So.....your comment might not show up for a bit since I am not checking this every day.

Monday, October 16, 2006

I gotta go........

Many of you that have been reading this blog for a while have read my references to my past volunteer work. What you may not know is why I stopped volunteering except for some Church activities. Several years ago when I moved from Dallas to Houston I was burned out. So I simply stopped volunteering when we moved.

Many years ago while counseling at a crisis pregnant center, after giving a mother and a 16 yr old daughter all the information I could to help the 16 yr old have her baby, the mother walked out to take her daughter for an abortion. During the discussion we had, her daughter never said a word. Not one word. Trust me when I say there was no choice involved here. Another women aborted her twins because they were not her husband’s. We even offered to adopt, we almost had her convinced, but she aborted them. Sometimes, when I think of those children who were never allowed to be, my heart hurts as if I had lost my own.

Once, while volunteering for health and human services, when I went to pick up 5 children to babysit at my house while their mother had surgery, I walked into a house so filthy I wouldn’t have let my dog live there, much less children.

When I served meals on wheels I found that most of the elderly poor’s problem was not being poor, but in having children who didn’t care enough for their parents to fix lunches and fill their refrigerators with food for the week. It was simply easier to let someone else do it.

In helping at a soup kitchen I discovered that drugs hold more people prisoner than any prison in our country.

I have watched a young teenager kiss her baby goodbye as she gives it to parents who can give it the kind of life it deserves. A great and noble sacrifice to be sure, but one that is difficult to watch.

I found that nursing homes are the loniest places on earth. But it was there I felt closest to God. It seemed to me that at the beginning of life and then at the very end, we have forgotten what the value of life really means.

These were just a few experiences that brought me down, but what I forgot was that for every negative experience there were dozens of wonderful life giving and fulfilling experiences.

Politics isn’t like that. There are no life giving moments. The more I know about it the more I am astounded that we have anyone of character or substance in office. Left or right. Why would anyone who has a good life want to be in office? It’s too mean, too easliy corrupted, and sometimes truth doesn’t matter. My father refused to run for Governor so many years ago. Now I understand why.

When I discovered blogging it was a way to share my political views and my faith. I never had a tip jar or asked for money because just you reading me and giving me a voice was all I needed to write.

But after the Houston Chronicle asked me to blog and then Michelle Malkin asked me to video blog at HotAir, I realized that this blog had become more about me than about what was important to me.

The times in my life when I have been the happiest have been when things were about others and not about me.

So I have to go.

I know this is abrupt and I apologize for that.

But there is a world of need out there and I need to get back to it.

God bless all of you .

Friday, October 13, 2006

What I believe....

I was watching a special on TV recently about the police and firemen that helped dig for the bodies in the rubble of the World Trade Centers. They interviewed several of them. They interviewed one priest who stood outside the entrance of where the workers would go in day after day, 12 hours a day. The first few days in the pouring rain. At first they didn't allow him to go in, but he got to know everyone so well as they would stop and ask him to pray with them on their way in or out, so they let him in to help.

Each story each man told broke my heart. They felt compelled to find the bodies of their fallen comrades. One can only imagine the emotional and physical strain they must have gone through. Yet, they got up every day and did it.

I don't imagine that we will ever hear all the stories of heroism the day of 9-11. Sometimes circumstances bring out the best in us. A part of us that we may not have even known was there. I remember the story of the man who carried his friend who was handicapped all the way down dozens and dozen of floors. We have read of those who went back in the towers, knowing how dangerous it was, to save others. Who among us is that selfless?

There are so many hero' among us. Sadly though, they just never run for office.

I saw a commercial for a horror movie recently and I thought of Anne Frank from The Diary of Anne Frank. The commercial showed a young girl with her ear pressed against a wall. On the other side of the wall in the dark was a ghoulish monster with his ear pressed against the wall on the other side. I thought of Anne Frank because her life was like that. She lived behind the walls while monsters lived outside of it.

This is basically why I support this war on terror. If we don't fight the ghoulish monsters then we will live in fear behind the walls of America, always listening and wondering if the monsters will come again.

What I loved about Ann was the way she just lived her life despite the horror of her circumstances. The line in her book that is most quoted is too perfect. It's almost as if it had to have been written by a novelist. But I've never seen it quoted it full, so I will do so here because I have always shared her feelings:

"It is a wonder that I haven't dropped all of my ideals, because they seem so absurd and impossible to carry out. Yet I keep them, because in spite of everything I still believe people are really good at heart."

I'm like Ann that way, despite all evidence to the contrary, I still believe in the goodness of mankind.

Many who read this blog might think that I admire Republican politicians. I do not. I admire no politicians. I believe that by the time a person, Republican or Democrat, gets to Congress or the Presidency, he has sold out so many times there is very little left to admire.

I believe in Republicans for one reason and one reason only. This. The Republican platform. It is a mission statement really. You see, I believe in the mission, not the man. We voters have the power to push a politician to vote in a way that leads our country in the direction we wish it to go. And that is the only power we have. But it is of vital importance. This is how the Republican platform of 2004 begins:

Ronald Reagan

He believed that bigotry and prejudice were the worst things a person could be guilty of.
He believed in the Golden Rule and in the power of prayer.
He believed that America was not just a place in the world, but the hope for the world.
As Ronald Wilson Reagan goes his way, we are left with a joyful hope he shared.
May God bless Ronald Reagan and the country he loved.

Many on the left here should read through the platform, I think you might be surprised at the depth of compassion and aid to global poverty that is there. And there is, of course, my main issue, the sanctity of an innocent child's life in the womb. The understanding of which is necessary in my view, to be the kind of leader I wish for.

My point is this. The heros of this world are little girls who write beautiful words despite a horror we can't begin to imagine. The heros of this world go into burning buildings to save people they have never met. The heros of this world love those who don't deserve love. These are our heros, not the politicians. Let's don't' expect them to be our heros.

Let's just expect them to continue to make this country great and compassionate.

I have been one small voice. And I know that a million small voices can be very loud. Continue to be loud, but don't forget that it takes more than a voice to make a difference.

It takes becoming a hero.

Just in time for Halloween!

Haunted Furniture. It ain't cheap either.

via boing boing

You have to laugh.

Remember Bill Clinton getting all in Chris Wallace's face about doing a "nice conservative little hit job" on Clinton?

Turns out...Chris Wallace is a registered Democrat and has been for two decades.

So..the host of Fox News Sunday is a Democrat. Interesting, huh?

Thursday, October 12, 2006

NRO's The Corner parties..

If you scroll through NRO's The Corner you get the run down on last night's party for National Review Online's 10 year anniversary.

I just wish I could have been there. I wish they would have a party for all of us devoted bloggers who linked them all the time. A free party, not the $700 a ticket one like they had in Houston where I almost broke my rule here for not begging for donations to pay for a ticket.

Of course if I was there I would just tell K-Lo that she absolutely rocks and is waaayyy underappreciated over at NRO. I would tell Jonah he's cute and ask him if he has ever seen this and I love his back and forth with Iain Murray and John Podhoretz. And I would tell John Derbyshire how much I love how he loves America.

I love all the writers over there giving us their thoughts during the day. I started reading National Review when I was 21 yrs old. I had a subscription for 20 yrs. And then I started reading it online. To say it helped form my worldview would be an understatement.

Cheers to NRO The Corner!!

The Adoption Option.

Heaven knows I would want to encourage any adoption of children, but this "third world" adoption spree by Madonna and Angelina Jolie just smacks of self indulgence.

Are there not millions of children in need of adoption in this country? Of course. So why travel around the world to 3rd world countries? It seems it's all about the PR factor to me.

It's not that I don't think they truly want to do something to make a child's life better, I just think they also know that in doing it in this way they get the added bonus of being all about the "global" world and family.

Children don't need PR, they need parents. I hope to God these divas try to actual be good ones.

Let me add one thing. If you want to look at a celebrity that really did adopt out of the goodness of her heart, look no further than Mia Farrow. She didn't have nannies or jet around the world with an entourage. She put her career on the back burner to not only adopt children from poverty stricken nations, but those who are the most difficult to place with physical handicaps. So she didn't go to pick out the cutest little baby some little country had, she took the ones that no one else wanted. She has adopted 10 children.

Now that, my friends, is putting your heart where your mouth is, not where the PR is.

Harry Reid Scandal

Gateway Pundit has the dish on it. He even has audio of Reid hanging up on an AP reporter. But let's face it. This just isn't as juicy as the Foley scandal and it's a Democrat, so don't expect much from the MSM.

via Ace

Iraqi The Model is ticked

He is writing over at Politics Central and he isn't happy about this "research team" that put out the inflated Iraqi death toll numbers:

"Among the things I cannot accept is exploiting the suffering of people to make gains that are not the least related to easing the suffering of those people. I’m talking here about those researchers who used the transparency and open doors of the new Iraq to come and count the drops of blood we shed.

Human flesh is abundant and all they have to do is call this hospital or that office to get the count of casualties, even more they can knock on doors and ask us one by one and we would answer because we’ve got nothing to be ashamed of.

We believe in what we’re struggling for and we are proud of our sacrifices.

I wonder if that research team was willing to go to North Korea or Libya and I think they wouldn’t have the guts to dare ask Saddam to let them in and investigate deaths under his regime.

No, they would’ve shit their pants the moment they set foot in Iraq and they would find themselves surrounded by the Mukhabarat men counting their breaths. However, maybe they would have the chance to receive a gift from the tyrant in exchange for painting a rosy picture about his rule.

They shamelessly made an auction of our blood, and it didn’t make a difference if the blood was shed by a bomb or a bullet or a heart attack because the bigger the count the more useful it becomes to attack this or that policy in a political race and the more useful it becomes in cheerleading for murderous tyrannical regimes.

When the statistics announced by hospitals and military here, or even by the UN, did not satisfy their lust for more deaths, they resorted to mathematics to get a fake number that satisfies their sadistic urges."


Read the rest.

via NRO

Wednesday, October 11, 2006


I am appalled and disgusted by BlogActive outing Republican gays. It is disgusting! How dare he feel he has a right to reveal personal information on people just because they disagree with his politics! These people aren't cheating or stealing. They are just working and want their private life to be private. Shame on BlogActive.

The moonbats are going crazy with these inflated number of casualties in Iraq. The Corner puts it in perspective here and here.

The economic news is great. As NRO points out "the federal budget deficit drop to $248 billion for fiscal 2006, the smallest in four years, and less than 2 percent of GDP. At lower tax rates, the economy is expanding and revenues are soaring." Recent economic reports on retail sales, manufacturing, services and jobs show solid growth and gas prices are down.

If you are still interested in the Foley story, WaPo has a summary of what we know.

John McCain....

guest blogging at Captain's Quarters! It's all about N. Korea.

h/t Christine

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

I'm thinking the left can just drop the "we will need a draft" talk

Mudville reports:

The NY Times notes an Army success story:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 — One year after the Army failed to meet its annual recruiting goal by the widest margin in two decades, the Pentagon is to announce this week that the ground forces, and the rest of the military, all reached their targets for recruits in 2006.
For active-duty forces, the Army signed up 80,635 people in the 2006 fiscal year, which ended at midnight on Sept. 30, topping its goal of 80,000. The Navy recruited 36,679, after setting a goal of 36,656. The Marines enlisted 32,337, with a goal of 32,301, and the Air Force recruited 30,889, topping its goal of 30,750.
Across the reserve component, the Air Force Reserve recruited 6,989 people, well over its goal of 6,607, and the Marine Corps Reserve topped its goal of 8,024 by signing up 8,056. The Air National Guard reached 97 percent of its goal, signing up 9,138 people, beneath a target of 9,380, and the Navy reserve attracted 9,722 people, just 87 percent of its goal of 11,180.

Even the shortfalls weren't very short:

The Army National Guard approached its goal of 70,000 by recruiting 69,042, while the Army Reserve hit 95 percent of its goal, recruiting 34,379 of a goal of 36,032.

...though some recruits did benefit from the oft-noted waivers:

The Army has been criticized for raising the allowable age for recruits to 42, from 35. General van Antwerp said no more than 500 new soldiers were in that category.

You'll find the full on-line story here - if you prefer the print version it's buried on page 19.

Good Grief!

David Zucker of "Scary Movie" fame made this ad for the GOP to use. As DRUDGE reports:

"One GOP strategist said "jaws dropped" when the ad was first viewed. "Nobody could believe Zucker thought any political organization could use this ad. It makes a point, but it's way over the top."

Zucker is the producer and director of comedies such as "Airplane" and "The Naked Gun." In 2004, Zucker, a longtime Democrat, embraced the Republican Party based on concerns he had about national security issues and voted for President George W. Bush."

Thanks for trying though! We need all the help we can get.

h/t Cormac

Update: YouTube has flagged the video: "This video may contain content that is inappropriate for some users, as flagged by YouTube's user community. To view this video, please verify you are 18 or older by logging in or signing up." h/t Matthew

Oh for heaven's sake. They have got to be kidding.

"Election Day and Staying Home"

Bill Bennet puts it in CLEAR perspective for us:

"Okay, look. Now is the time for all good men—and women—to come to the aid of the party.

In 1960, Barry Goldwater famously shouted, "Grow Up Conservatives." It took 20 years for that call to be heeded, and we got the expanded, entrenched Welfare State, a disastrous & humilitaing foreign policy in the meantime; and Ronald Reagan's presidency was about attempting to roll back those 20 years as much asmoving forward on a positive agenda.

Look, if you want John Paul Stevens replaced on the Supreme Court with a carboncopy, pro-choice, pro-racial preferences Justice, stay home.

If you want Donald Rumsfeld hauled before Congress every week justifying the war rather than fighting it, stay home.

If you want spending to increase even above the levels you are unhappy with now, stay home.

If you want Henry Waxman holding hearings on every aspect of theadministration's actions, stay home.

If you want to see the war in Iraq defunded to the point of withdrawal so that the worst elements in Iraq take over and a repeat of the helicopters-fleeing-Saigon-type-images come back all over again, signaling a decade-long disrespect and doubt of American power, stay home.

If you want to keep the border unsealed, stay home.

The stakes are large, we can't afford twenty years, we can't afford two years of this. If you want a change in your Congressional leadership, fine, wait until you have the election, then demand it, with a new GOP speaker and majority leader if you want...but let me tell you, a new minority leader and a new minority whip will not get you much, it won't get you anything.

Two years ago we sent a message by reelecting the President, have things fallen so hard since then that we can't muster those numbers again and see that the good should not be traded in for the bad? You want to rue a day? You will rue a day with John Conyers as head of the House Judiciary and Pat Leahy as head ofthe Senate Judiciary. Don't do it. Please don't do it.

h/t Dean


I could never trust the MSM on Iraq. They had a political agenda to begin with and continue with it. So I would read the blogs from soldiers in Iraq like Mudville and I would read independent journalist Michael Yon ,who was there. And nothing could beat the blog from an Iraqi himself, Iraq The Model. There were lots of good news that wasn't being reported. But these guys have not always been pollyanna. They weren't cheerleaders for anyone's political agenda. When there was bad news, they report it too, which is why I trust them.

So when these same people that I respect point out the deep problems there, I listen. I don't pretend I understand military strategy. I vote for people I trust to do the best job and I let them do it. But there is no doubt that we have big problems in Iraq in how to handle the fighting factions. No war has ever been perfect and this one is far from it.

After reading many articles from people I respect regarding Iraq they all seem to be saying that it is time to start talking about leaving. No one they spoke to or interviewed including higher ups in the military think we should withdraw now. But creating the understanding that we have gone as far as we can go and will not be staying forever will go a long way in convincing the people in the Middle East that we don't have our sights set on "owning" Iraq.

We should able to hand over the security of Iraq to a capable Iraqi army soon. I know that we cannot just leave. That would be a disaster. And I understand why Bush cannot say that we will leave by such and such a date. But I do hope that in the halls of the Pentagon there is a date that is secret but known to them on how and when we leave for the most part.

I have said many times that we ignored this part of the world for far too long and throwing Saddam out and establishing a struggling Democracy was the absolute right thing to do and history will prove this to be the case I believe. It's a bloody birth made bloodier by the monsters who don't care who they blow up on their way to a fake paradise. It is my belief that we deal with them now or our grandchildren will deal with them later and possibly on our own soil.

But Iraq is alot like having a teenager, one must let them go to make their own mistakes. You are always there as backup, but they must learn on their own. So it will be eventually with Iraq.

There is this one story that is silly and small in the big picture, but it said more to me about the hope for the future of Iraq than anything else. Mudville reports about the Iraqis having a fake TV News program that is much like the John Daily Show here:

BAGHDAD - The year is 2017, according to the opening credits of the fake news broadcast, and the last man alive in Iraq, whose name is Saaed, is sitting at a desk, working as a television news anchor. He sports an Afro, star-shaped sunglasses, and a button-down shirt.

The Americans are still here, the government is still bumbling, and the anchor wants his viewers to drink their tea slowly so they don't burn themselves. "You cannot go to the hospital during the curfew," he warns.

For Iraqis, the remark is outrageously funny, if only because it's so close to being true.
After a summer of the worst violence since U.S. troops toppled Saddam Hussein's regime, tens of thousands of Iraqis are finding solace and amusement in a new television show whose dark humor makes it an Iraqi version of Jon Stewart's The Daily Show.

The nightly send-up of a newscast includes weather, sports and business segments and features six characters, all played by the same actor.

With seemingly no sacred cows, it provides insight into how Iraqis see their country's problems, lampooning the Americans, the Iraqi government, the militias, and the head of Iraq's state-owned media company.<...>The show is being produced to run only during Ramadan, the month when Muslims fast from sunrise to sunset, and it airs just as Baghdadis are breaking their fast. It is so popular that many people report being glued to the screen, eating their first meal of the day in small bites between laughs.

Imagine! Just a few years ago one would be tortured and killed for speaking out against the government at all! And now they have a TV show that makes fun of the government and everything else, including us.

You see what this is, don't you??? It's the spirit of freedom. The best of what it means to be free. The fact that we can laugh at ourselves and our government and not fear punishment. That is what they are experiencing for the first time!

It gives me hope. With Islamic fanatic monsters in their midst, they still choose to laugh.

All is not lost my friends. The tunnel is dark and difficult to travel, but the pinpoint of light is there, flickering, waiting for those in Iraq to continue to struggle toward it.

Let's pray they make it.

30 reasons why it's better to be a woman.


1. We got off the Titanic first.
2. We get to flirt with systems support men who always return our calls, and are nice to us when we blow up our computers.
3. Our boyfriend's clothes make us look elfin & gorgeous. Guys look like complete idiots in ours.
4. We can be groupies. Male groupies are stalkers.
5. We can cry and get off speeding fines.
6. We've never lusted after a cartoon character or the central female figure in a computer game.
7. Taxis stop for us.
8. Men die earlier, so we get to cash in on the life insurance.
9. We don't look like a frog in a blender when dancing.
10. Free drinks, Free dinners, Free movies ... (you get the point).
11. We can hug our friends without wondering if she thinks we're gay.
12. We can hug our friends without wondering if WE'RE gay.
13. New lipstick gives us a whole new lease on life.
14. It's possible to live our whole lives without ever taking a group shower.
15. We don't have to fart to amuse ourselves.
16. If we forget to shave, no one has to know.
17. We can congratulate our team-mate without ever touching her butt.
18. If we have a zit, we know how to conceal it.
19. We never have to reach down every so often to make sure our privates are still there.
20. If we're dumb, some people will find it cute.
21. We don't have to memorize Caddyshack or Fletch to fit in.
22. We have the ability to dress ourselves.
23. We can talk to people of the opposite sex without having to picture them naked.
24. If we marry someone 20 years younger, we're aware that we look like an idiot.
25. Our friends won't think we're weird if we ask whether there's spinach in our teeth.
26. There are times when chocolate really can solve all your problems.
27. We'll never regret piercing our ears.
28. We can fully assess a person just by looking at their shoes.2
29. We know which glass was ours by the lipstick mark.
30. We have enough sense to realize that the easiest way to get out of being lost is to ask for directions.

h/t BigDog

McCain on North Korea

The Hotline highlights the first direct challenge to Hillary Clinton by John McCain on North Korea:

"In his first direct challenge to the Democrat he expects to face in the 2008 presidential race, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) today alleged that Sen. Hillary Clinton and Democrats fail to recognize the gathering threat posed by North Korea in voting to block a national missile defense program and by supporting an approach to Asian diplomacy that McCain believes is a proven failure. McCain scheduled a press conference late this morning in Michigan, where he is campaigning for Senate candidate Mike Bouchard, to draw a bright line between himself and Clinton on national security, according to an adviser."


"McCain, long an opponent of Pres. Bill Clinton's framework approach to North Korea, endorsed Bush's call for tough financial and trade sanctions against the country and for a full, enforceable embargo on arms. The United Nations, McCain said, has the right to interdict and inspect all cargo entering and departing North Korean waters. McCain will urge the UN and US policy markers to punish the North Koreans' "bad behavior." North Korea, McCain said, has received billions in energy assistance through the "framework agreement" negotiated by the Clinton administration in 2003 but managed to divert resources to secretly enrich uranium without detection.

Said McCain: "Prior to the agreement, every single time the Clinton Administration warned the Koreans not to do something -- not to kick out the IAEA inspectors, not to remove the fuel rods from their reactor -- they did it. And they were rewarded every single time by the Clinton Administration with further talks. We had a carrots and no sticks policy that only encouraged bad behavior. When one carrot didn't work, we offered another."

One has to wonder how many more failures of the Clinton administration will come back to haunt us.

Who will stay home on election day?

There is so much speculation and polling going on, but I think that the only difference this Foley scandal and even the N. Korea nuclear test will make is that some will stay home out of disgust and some will make the effort for national security.

I think it will be a wash.

I think we will hold on the the Senate and the House, but by the skin of our teeth. Which would have been the case even if this little sleazy "October surprise" had never happened.

I'll be gone until afternoon. Have a great morning.

Sometime truth slips out...

Check out a little honesty from Claire McCaskill who is running against Jim Talent for a Senate seat in Missouri on Meet The Press:

MR. RUSSERT: You’re having Bill Clinton come in to raise money for you. Do you think Bill Clinton was a great president?

MS. McCASKILL: I do. I think—I have a lot of problems with some of his, his, his personal issues. I said at...

MR. RUSSERT: But do you...

MS. McCASKILL: I said at the time, “I think he’s been a great leader, but I don’t want my daughter near him.”

Hmmm... A great leader who you're afraid to have your daughter around.

At least she was honest about Clinton being a scuzzy horndog.

via RWN

Monday, October 09, 2006


This made me laugh. Just because you're a racist doesn't mean you can't be nice about it.

via Hip Hop Republican

Geeze, John Kerry....Get over it.

via the Corner:

"On the edition of his program taped in Washington, Bill Maher interviewed John Kerry. In the chit-chat at the beginning of the interview, Kerry said he and his wife had gone to Vermont for a getaway for her birthday. Maher said they could have gone to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone. Kerry's response:

I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone."

Being Catholic. Getting It Right.

via HughHewitt this is an excerpt from a most excellent homily by Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver delivered a homily at a Red Mass in Pennsylvania last week.

When people claim they’re Catholic but do nothing in the public square to advance the Christian understanding of each human person’s dignity, they’re deceiving themselves and other people — but they’re not fooling God. The sanctity of the human person begins at conception. It continues through every tick on the clock until natural death. Embryonic stem cell research, abortion, assisted suicide – these are fundamental, inexcusable violations of human dignity. So is trying to change the meaning of marriage. So is exploiting the disabled and the poor. So is bigotry against immigrants. And if somewhere in your hearts a little voice is whispering “I agree, but” — that’s exactly the kind of gloss Francis and Jesus both warned against.

We need to drill it into our heads that defending the sanctity of the human person and serving the common good can’t be separated. Stuffing our Catholic faith in a closet when we enter the public square or join a public debate isn’t good manners, and it isn’t political courtesy. It’s cowardice. And we’ll be judged for that cowardice, by the God who created us.


One of my favorite writers now has a blog!

Check out Victor Davis Hanson's Works and Days.

h/t BigDog

In case you missed it...

.....over the weekend. This is a head shaker. You laugh because it's so ridiculous, but it's sad too. But it says all one needs to know about how the Democrats support our troops.

No surprise here.

RWN has some results from a very telling poll at the Democratic Underground:

"At the Democratic Underground, people who believe in any sort of organized religion are a minority. But, amongst the general population, 92% of the American people believe in God. Furthermore, according to the latest numbers I was able to find, "76.5% of American adults are Christian," and, "14.1% do not follow any organized religion.""

You have to wonder how they feel when their Democratic stars like Hillary and Bill, Al Gore, and John Kerry and John Edwards ect.. tout their "faith." Do they simply think they are only pandering? (Like I do)


Michelle and HotAir have all the updates you could ask for regardingNorth Korea's nuclear testing.

I know the Democrats are cursing this morning. This darn nuclear stuff keeps the news off the really important things like more of Mark Foley's instant messaging.

As John Hood at NRO points out:

"America and its allies have new evidence today of a threat to civilization and to our very lives. The North Koreans already supply Islamic totalitarians with conventional arms. The risk of Korean nuclear devices or expertise being transferred to our deadly enemies is real. It is not a political invention. It is not a partisan talking point. Examining the constellation of forces on the peninsula and elsewhere, the madman of Pyongyang has little reason to fear retaliation or feel deterred. He knows that our military options are, at best, problematic. He likely doesn’t care about the prospect of new sanctions, as they will affect his subject slaves but not his own household or power. In exchange for resources he needs, he will trade with terror states who want at least the nuclear leverage to demand American withdrawal and quiescence in the Middle East and Central Asia, while they seek to recreate an Islamic paradise they imagine existed more than a millennia ago. And some want not just this ability to threat and blackmail, but the ability to kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of infidels in a single glorious act of submission to a vengeful God. "

It's time to focus. You're mad at Republicans? Thinking about sitting out of voting this year? Read the above once more and reconsider. Then read the following from Opinion Journal and take a peek at how Democrats handle missile defense:

"All of which makes the U.S. political debate over missile defenses worth revisiting, not least because some Democrats are still trying to strangle the program. In the House, John Tierney of Massachusetts this year proposed cutting the Pentagon's missile-defense budget by more than half. His amendment was defeated on the House floor, but it won the support of more than half of his Democratic colleagues, including would-be Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Meanwhile in the Senate, Carl Levin (D., Mich.) offered in June to cut off funds for the ground-based interceptor program that Mr. Bush recently activated in Alaska in anticipation of the North Korean launch. Mr. Levin wants to stop new interceptors from being built, but Senate Republicans wouldn't bring his proposal up for a vote. Mr. Levin has been waging his own private war against missile defenses for a generation, to the point of outflanking Russian objections on the political left...

Virtually none of this would exist had Democrats succeeded over the years in their many attempts to kill missile defenses. Going back to 1983, Senator Ted Kennedy dismissed Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative as a fanciful "Star Wars" program. Ten years later, with President Clinton in office, Democrats starved the program of funds. Republicans made funding defenses part of their Contract with America and spent most of the 1990s battling the Clinton Administration to keep the program alive.

Democrats also made a fetish out of the ABM Treaty, even after the end of the Cold War. Al Gore campaigned to keep it in 2000, promising only to build defenses that would abide by its tight limitations. Senator Biden predicted that dropping out of the treaty to build missile defenses would turn the U.S. into "a kind of bully nation." And Senator John Kerry cautioned that "we must not set aside the logic of deterrence that has kept us safe for 40 years." Neither logic nor deterrence are the first words that come to mind when we think of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

More from U.S. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH):

"This reckless move by North Korea, coupled with their attempted missile test in early July, highlights the importance of a U.S. missile defense shield capable of protecting America against madmen with weapons of mass destruction. It is time for Democrats to recognize the need for missile defense technologies and abandon their long-standing policy of voting against missile defense programs. It is now clear that such a position would weaken America's national defense and put Americans in danger."

Update: Bryan Preston at HotAir has a CNS news archive from 6 yrs ago on how we got here. He also has an audio interview with the editor and chief of CNS news explaining it.

You have to listen to it.

Saturday, October 07, 2006

Homecoming Weekend

So...I'm busy. You guys obviously want to talk. Here's another open thread.

Friday, October 06, 2006

Attacking Free Speech

The student chapter of the International Socialist Organization at Columbia University rushed a stage where the founder of the Minutemen, Jim Gilchrist, tried to deliver a speech. The campus Republicans had asked him to speak.

The New York Sun has this to say:

"It's not that some Columbia students chose to disagree with Mr. Gilchrist — this newspaper does, too. It would have been entirely appropriate for school administrators to allow students to protest peaceably outside the lecture hall or to host a competing event. The university's willingness to allow this event to devolve into pandemonium, however, speaks volumes about its commitment to fostering open debate. The video of the event shows campus police officers — paid for by the Columbia College Republicans — standing by just feet away as students overturned tables and chairs onstage and proceeded to attack Mr. Gilchrist and his fellow Minuteman, Marvin Stewart."

How many times have conservatives decried some outrageous leftwing speaker speaking on campus? More times than I can count. But did we ever go to the extremes that the leftwing protesters do when they oppose speakers? No.

Why is it that those who yell "Free Speech" the loudest are the same ones who don't want anyone to hear the speech if they don't agree with it? This kind of behavior not only sends the wrong message to our youth about free speech, but also the wrong message about common decency.

via Human Events via Mary Katherine.

And just to emphasis the point, Ann Coulter nails it:

"But now, the same Democrats who are incensed that Bush's National Security Agency was listening in on al-Qaida phone calls are incensed that Republicans were not reading a gay congressman's instant messages.

Let's run this past the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: The suspect sent an inappropriately friendly e-mail to a teenager -- oh also, we think he's gay. Can we spy on his instant messages? On a scale of 1 to 10, what are the odds that any court in the nation would have said: YOU BET! Put a tail on that guy -- and a credit check, too!"

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Open Thread

I'll be gone the rest of the day. There is plenty to talk about so go for it.

Good Grief!

Drudge reporting:

"According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan Edmund, the now famous lurid AOL Instant Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives,"


Are you a woman with an interest in politics? No bikini pics for you!

In case you missed the stir up with Michelle Malkin and some left wing blogs using a photoshopped picture of her in a bikini to make some sort of a point, The woman whose pictures they took from her site has written an excellent article about it:

"That is what we learned from conservative author Michelle Malkin last week. After she wrote a column criticizing once-wholesome singer Charlotte Church for her slide into pop star hedonism, left-wing Internet blogs discovered photographs of Malkin on spring break fourteen years ago. Accompanied by headlines like “Michelle Malkin gone wild” and “Michelle, you ignorant slut,” the blogs linked to a photo-sharing page that featured Malkin cavorting with girlfriends and posing in a string bikini.

It seemed like the perfect “gotcha” moment for the liberal blogosphere. But there was a problem: the photo page wasn’t real. I know this because most of the pictures on it belong to me.
Whoever made the photo page apparently wasn’t content to insult Malkin, an Asian woman, with racial slurs – a popular activity among her critics. Instead, they aimed to expose her as a hypocrite. Using pictures stolen from various Webshots.com accounts, including mine, the creator wrote captions to imply that I had had been a classmate of Malkin’s at Oberlin College in the early 90s – and that she was anything but a moralist back then.

By the time I discovered the hoax, liberal blogs were already hard at work smearing Malkin as a “slut,” “hussy,” and “b-tch.”

I was shocked as I scrolled through posts and reader comments about my pictures, some of them photoshopped or falsely labeled as pictures of Malkin. Racist jokes and sexual denigration were common themes."

Wonkette, a leftwing blog that started this mess refuses to answer e-mails from this author with her proof that the photo was photoshopped from her page.

The ironic thing is that the picture isn't even bad. It's just a girl posing in a bikini. Does the left believe that we women who are conservative were some sort of a Postulant growing up? Do they believe we didn't wear bikinis??

I don't know why Michelle puts up with what she does. What a creepy world we live in.

"Former Washington Post senior political writer Thomas Edsall on Bob Woodward and his new book."

Hugh Hewitt has the interview. Let's just say this former colleague doesn't find Woodward credible.

More on Bob Woodward's credibility from RCP:

Brent Scowcroft released the following statement today (View image):

"I have spoken to Bob Woodward a number of times about a variety of subjects over the years, but I did not agree to be interviewed for his latest book. Further, there are statements in the book, directly or implicitly attributed to me, that did not and never could have come from me. I never discuss any personal conversations that I may have with President George H.W. Bush, and he never discusses with me any conversations that he has with President George W. Bush."

Scowcroft's office confirmed the authenticity of the statement and said it was released earlier today to the Associated Press. Curiously, I can find no mention of it on any AP-driven news site.

via Powerline

How does this change things?

It seems the site that broke the Foley story was made up for that sole purpose:

StopSexPredators, a pseudo-vigilante blog filled with plagiarized, hastily-assembled posts, which no one seems to have heard of, visited, or linked to before last week—and whose operator has a suspiciously savvy grasp of the news cycle.

via NRO

And the left can just drop the "defending a pedophile" meme. It's a great word for them to throw around but it isn't what Mark Foley is. He is a scumbag, but he didn't target young children. I'm still confused about whether the young man who IM'd (the sexually explicit ones) with Foley was 18 at the time or not. Drudge still says he was, but I have seen no confirmation of that.

In fact the ones on the left can just drop the whole "defending Foley" thing at all. From the moment this story broke I have seen NOT ONE PERSON on the right defend Foley at all. What seems to be happening is what will happen from now on with the internet, and that is we aren't going to just accept a story at face value. If it smells, people will look into it because we can't trust the media.

If the boy was 18 then ABC put a false story out there which started the whole pedophile thing. Because let's just face the honest truth. If Mark Foley didn't have sex or try to solicit sex from a minor, then he becomes someone who was simply gay.

And that would not have been a story the left could have run with.

The fact of the matter is every soundbite I have heard from the Democrats have been about Hastert resigning, not what Foley did.

Finding out who ran this bogus website that broke the story will tell us much.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

A Gay Question

Ok, I know. I know. People are SICK of the Mark Foley story. But I was reading that blog that outs "closeted gay Republicans" and reading several stories where some on the left blamed Foley being in the closet for his behavior and that he was outed years ago by the Advocate, but no one ran with it. The Rogers blog outed Foley because he voted "against gay rights." I got to thinking about it. Put aside the page scandal for a moment and let's focus on the gay thing because I have a few questions.

I hate to use Foley as an example because he's a scumbag, but bear with me. First, I don't think he was closeted. Isn't closeted when you deny you are gay? Foley never denied he was gay. He only told people that it was none of their business. It seemed everyone knew anyway, but he obviously didn't want to discuss his sex life (now we can see why) but my point is why should anyone be forced to discuss their sexuality??? Because he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act? Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they march in lock step with gay activists. Even on an issue that affects them directly. Maybe Foley didn't think gays should marry. Can't he and other gays believe that if they wish??

Oh yeah, I wanted to add something. You know that all this crap we are writing about and all the details don't mean squat to the American people. They hear the buzz, the basics and that's it. So, I was getting my oil changed today and there were four men in the waiting room with me and something was mentioned on TV about Foley so I asked the guys what they knew about it (like I didn't know anything) and one guy said, "Some gay guy resigned from Congress for talking dirty on the internet with a kid." "yeah", said the another guy, "I'm telling you it's dangerous to let gays around kids. This is just proof of that." (This hasn't been exactly good PR for gays I can tell you that I heard that more than once today) So I asked them, "Was he a Democrat or Republican?" One guy said, "Hmm.... I think he was a Republican." "No" said another, "He was a Democrat." I looked at him and said, "How do you know?" And he said, "Isn't it the Democrats who are all for gay rights and all? The guy must have been a Democrat, but they are all crooks up there anyway." And everyone shook their head in agreement.

My point is that people aren't sweating the details of this and all this is really doing is making Congress look worse than it already does.

An outing of sorts.

Passionate America has done some investigative work to say the least and says he has found the young man who we have read about through the IM"s with Mark Foley.

If it is the same guy, he is Campaign Manager for Ernest Istook Oklahoma City.

What can I say? This is the internet age. Nothing is hidden anymore.

h/t dave


This whole thing with Foley and everyone dredging up Clinton and all the other sexual escapades of politicians got me to thinking about relationships. I was waiting for an appointment today and picked up a "Jane" magazine, which I believe is aimed at young women. There was an article on how to score free drinks from the bartender you slept with last weekend. There was a regular column that asks young women across the country where is the "craziest" place you have ever "done it." There were about 6 other articles relating to sex that had nothing to do with love.

I never allowed my daughter to read the Cosmos and Glamour magazines and this is why. What messages are being sent here? That there are no consequences for your actions.

It got me to wondering why we don't seem to focus more on our love relationships in popular culture rather than just our sexual ones.

I remember when I met one of my boyfriends in college. I was in the library and saw him across the room. Instant attraction. I was 20. I turned to a girl sitting next to me who was in my sorority and I said, 'I want to meet that guy." And she looked over at him and started to laugh. I said, "What??" She said, "That should be pretty easy to arrange. That's my brother."

So she introduced us outside. He told me later that he just thought his sister was being nice and it didn't occur to him at introductions that I liked him. He was standing by his car and I blurted out, "I like your car." Because I couldn't think of anything else to say and I didn't want him to leave. He looked at his car puzzled for a moment because it was truly a bland and nothing car and then looked at me with a huge grin on his face. He realized I liked him.

That was the start of some romance.

I can't relate to giving into any old sexual urge that hits you. Oh, I had the urges, trust me. I just chose not to act upon them. Not only because of my faith, but because the only sex talk my Dad ever gave me was basically 3 words and they stuck with me all through my dating life- "Don't be stupid." When I was 14 my Dad was concerned about the growing number of boys showing up on our doorstep. We were out on the front porch and he didn't look at me when he said it. He never said the word "sex," but we both knew what he was talking about. He said, "Don't be stupid sweetie. You have nothing to gain and everything to lose."

I heard those words in my mind more times that I care to remember. My Dad told me not to be stupid and I wasn't. And I have no regrets for not being sexually active until I was married. I don't have to remember drunken one night stands. I don't have to remember feeling used. I don't have to remember sweating over a cold sink waiting for a strip to turn blue or pink. I never had to watch a boyfriend walk away when I had his child in my womb.

No, I have no regrets.

Oh, I know the stories. I watched my girlfriends go through it. Don't get me wrong. I wasn't perfect. I was not a goody two shoes. But long before I was Catholic I avoided the mortal sins. Back then I called them the "Don't be stupid sins."

Which brings me back to Foley and Clinton. Foley can blame alcohol and Clinton can blame Monica, but what it really came down to is making a decision to do something stupid. How can men who are so smart be that stupid?

I don't believe the sexual urge overrides our common sense. People make the choice not to give in to sexual sin every day. Maybe it was the combination of power and arrogance that flip the switch to override with these men and other men like them. But people who have no power or arrogance do these things as well. So it really is all about the choice you make every single day.

Maybe instead of these sex saturated magazines and movies and TV, we should have public service announcements that say,

Don't Be Stupid

Hey, it worked for me.

Tourism gone......nuts?

Iran Opens Nuclear Sites to Foreign Tourists.

Come to Iran! Wear a burka! See the sites! Nuclear sites that is.

Very Interesting Tidbits.

From Media Blog:

"ABC reporter Brian Ross, who broke the Mark Foley story, hinted to The New York Times that his sources on the story have come from the Republican Party:

Mr. Ross dismissed suggestions by some Republicans that the news was disseminated as part of a smear campaign against Mr. Foley.

“I hate to give up sources, but to the extent that I know the political parties of any of the people who helped us, it would be the same party,” Mr. Ross said, referring to Republicans.

In this context, it's worth remembering the Rep. Rodney Alexander — who sponsored the page who received the e-mails that started all this — was a Democrat until he switched parties in 2004. What happened to his staff?"

Even more interesting from NRO:

"I do not trust Dick Morris. Period. But here's what he said on Hannity & Colmes last night, in context:

HANNITY: All right, perhaps, but we'll examine that in the next segment. But I think more importantly here there's some fundamental, I think, fairness issues here.

Everybody that I know is glad Foley is gone, but there seems to be an issue here to purposefully politicize this issue, and I find that equally repugnant to me. And, more importantly, I think this takes on a whole new dimension, and this is it, that, if in the pursuit of political power you are going to falsely accuse individuals of knowing things about horrible scandals like this, you better have evidence, because we live in America, and those American people you're describing are fair-minded.

MORRIS: And that's going to back fire.

HANNITY: And when innocent people are smeared, Dick, I've got to believe that people would tend to side with the people that are being smeared. And I see that this is happening more and more in this scandal.

MORRIS: And that's going to back fire on the Democrats by focusing on what did Hastert know, because you know that some of the Democratic congressmen knew. I had a reporter who told me today that she knows that one very prominent member of the Democratic leadership knew about this for months. And it came out through...

HANNITY: That's a big story.

MORRIS: ... a left-wing — came out — yes, but it's up to her to break it. And came...

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: But, Dick, it's the Republican leadership we're dealing with here. It's their leadership.

MORRIS: Yes. I mean, the Democratic leadership knew, was what she told me. And I think that, obviously, it came out through a liberal Web site, and obviously it was fed to ABC through one of their more liberal channels. And obviously there were Democratic fingerprints on it.

But I don't think that the public is going to care much about what Hastert knew and what the Democratic leadership knew and any of that. They are going to focus on the details of this scandal, and they'll be very glad that it came out, and they will feel that it epitomizes what's wrong with Congress.

COLMES: All right, Dick, we only have a few moments here before we have to break again. But, look, this actually appeared on a Web site, "Stop Sexual Predators." I don't know that that's a liberal Web site.

We know that the Democrat in the page program in Congress was not informed. Only the Republicans knew. To actually put any blame for this on the Democratic leadership, as if they should have done something, when it's clear the Republican leadership didn't, is really not taking responsibility where it belongs.

MORRIS: Listen, I hate to take both of you on at once, but you're both missing the point. This is not a Democratic or a Republican scandal. It's a congressional scandal."

There may be sick stuff going on in the world...

...but there is sweet stuff too.

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

The Corner asks...

Can she be stopped? And the answer is no.

Like I've been telling you guys.

Well, we know one group that kept Foley's secret...

WND has this:

"A radical activist on a mission to "out" conservative homosexual lawmakers and Capitol Hill staffers held on to information about Rep. Mark Foley's relationships with underage male pages, suggesting the story would break at the time of mid-term elections.

Blogger Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit points to a campaign by two activists who had Foley on their "target list" of 20 people and shared the information with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee."


More than a year ago, in a March 2005 post, Rogers said he had thought hard about what kind of action to take and said that while none would be taken at the moment, "When we get closer to the mid-term elections, I am sure more will surface."

via Gateway Pundit h/t Garry

Owning a gun..not really a right.

At least according to Rosie O' Donnell on The View. Newsbusters has this:

O’Donnell: "I think the horror of imagining six to thirteen-year-old girls handcuffed together and shot execution style, one by one, is perhaps enough to awaken the nation that maybe we need some stricter gun control laws."

This quickly led to an exchange with the program’s token conservative, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, in which O’Donnell asserted that there is no right to own a gun:

Hasselbeck: "So you can’t- You can't take way the right to, to bear arms."

O’Donnell: "Well, it’s not really a right. There’s debate as to what that-"

Hasselbeck: "It is a right. It’s in our Constitution. It’s the Second Amendment."

O’Donnell: "Well, let’s talk instead of yell."

Hasselbeck: "I’m not yelling."

You should be yelling sweetie.

Show me a law that would keep dirty rotten stinkin' dirtbags from getting guns anyway on the street and I'll show you my "look 20 your whole life" face cream.

Has outlawing drugs kept criminals from getting drugs? What world do these people live in?

I just want to get this straight (pardon the pun)

Mark Foley says he is gay and that he never had sex with a minor and that he was molested by clergy as a young teen. Is He saying that being molested made him gay?

Also, Foley isn't the only one remembering molestation. The killer at the Amish school says he was a molester and was dreaming of doing it again.

I'm officially depressed.


When your cell phone is stolen, it screams.

Hastert on Rush

He isn't resigning. Good on him.

If you are innocent stand firm. Listen to the audio. Hastert explains exactly what happened. You can believe him or not. But there it is.

Move America' Forward's New Ad

website here.
I don't know. It's pretty simple without much meat. But maybe that is what non-political people respond to. I was expecting more.

Cardinal blogging!

Cardinal Sean O’Malley, the Archbishop of Boston, Massachusetts, is now blogging. He is in Rome now and has awesome pictures.

How cool is that? He accepts comments too! (please, my leftie commenters, be respectful)

The Democratic Playbook

Remember in my last post how I said the Democrats were purposely trying to spin things as if there were no distinction between the non sexual e-mails that Hastert saw and the sexually explicit instant messages that he didn't?

This is from The Democratic Playbook, literally:

1. Pay no heed to the distinction between the e-mails and IMs. There's no evidence (yet) that any Republican leaders knew about Foley's cybersex IMs. There's plenty of evidence that they knew how uncomfortable the "overly friendly" e-mails made at least one page. So the Dems will press the GOP on what they knew about the former and will constantly, in their press releases, refer to the "GOP's knowledge of the sexually explicit e-mails."

I rest my case.

More on the Democrats talking points:

2. Enlarge the wedge between House leaders. The tension this weekend between Speaker Dennis Hastert and NRCC chair Tom Reynolds was thick. Dems want it to suffocate the party and throw the Republicans even further off their game.

3. Be aggressive about how Dems will -- and are -- protecting children. Dems want to keep the issue poisonous in a way that's clear and direct to middle America. (In other words: this ain't earmarks.)

Yeah, let's "keep the issue poisonous." That's the ticket. Use a scandal that both Republicans and Democrats agree on, but push it to make it "poisonous" because we can't win if we agree, right?


via Townhall

Groom's gun cake...

From mikemcguff Blog. As he says, only in Texas.

via boing boing.

Monday, October 02, 2006

"Traitors To The Enlightenment"

Victor Davis Hanson. Go read. It is just so good.

h/t Cormac

I am so angry

This whole Foley thing has made me so angry. Angry about many things. But when I thought about it I realized what made me angriest of all.

The entire blogopshere is just beating it's chest in indignation and anger over what Foley did. It seems writing dirty messages to a 16 year old is something we can all agree is wrong, wrong. Oh, the screaming of "child predator" and "pedophile" could be heard from one end of the blogosphere to the other.

But then I started thinking about the blogopshere's reaction to the teacher who had sex with a 14 yr old boy. Debbie Lafave. Also someone who had authority over youth and took advantage of it. But she didn't just instant message this boy with sexual suggestions. She actually seduced and had sex with him. Many times. Yet the reaction then was very different.

Oh so different.

All I read on blogs (both right and left) was how lucky this boy was. How they wished they had a teacher like that in Jr. High. About how stupid he was to have told.

And adult seduced a child, and in this case it was not only a minor, but it WAS below the age of consent. And yet the men of the net (with few exceptions) could only talk about how hot the teacher was. There was a whole lot of cyber winking and "you know what I'm, saying?" going on. Do we remember this??

Just for a taste, check out the comments here and here. (left or right, all the same)

The hypocrisy of the reaction to Foley compared to the teacher isn't all that ticks me off. I read on my libertarian blogs how awful the Foley thing is. I have news for you. If your 13, 14, 15, or 16 yr old is on the computer EVER with out you right there I guarantee he or she have read and seen MUCH MUCH worse than anything Foley wrote to that boy.

So some of you can spare me your indignation. You don't care how our children are hurt on the net by what they see or who IM's them. It's only the parents responsibility, right? I mean we all know that at least one parent is home all the time with their older kids, right?? We all know that kids never get on other children's computers where the parents don't care, right? Because it's all about free speech and the smut and porn that pops up to your 12 yr old is just a part of that, right? It's what our forefathers fought for, right?

So if you are going to get mad and disgusted at Foley, get mad at the hundreds of thousands of porn and smut sites that target our kids everyday. One click and they are there. One innocent looking ad or pop up and our kids are THERE, seeing and reading far worse things than Foley every thought about.

Today, I am just sick and mad at the world.

Let's keep the Foley scandal honest

Good grief, it's one thing for the blogosphere to run with distortions, but quite another for the mainsteam media to do so regarding what Republican leaders knew about Congressman Mark Foley. Many of you may have been hearing that Republican leaders knew of e-mails between a former 16 yr old male page and Foley. They did, but it wasn't the sick instant messages that you have seen on the news of late. The Democrats only want you to think they were the same.

The e-mails sent in the fall of 2005 were initiated by the former page, Foley asks the former page how he is after Katrina (the boy was from Louisiana) and Foley asked for a photo. That was it. No sexual discussion occurred. These were the e-mails made known to Speaker Hastert. The former page contacted the St. Petersburg Times with an exchange of emails between himself and Congressman Foley. The editor said they never ran the story. They assigned 2 reporters. They interviewed several pages and spoke with the page of the e-mails mentioned above and he said that the asking for the photo had made him uncomfortable, but that was as far as they got. No other page they interviewed spoke to them about anything Foley had done inappropriate.

Now, if reporters had investigated and found nothing, don't you think it was probably the same with Speaker Hasert? If you click on the link below you will read how the Republican leadership acted on the innocuous e-mails. It was clearly acted upon by many. The Clerk of the House asked the family to see the e-mails and they assured the Clerk that it was not sexual in nature. The family did not want this incident to be made public either. The leadership still immediately spoke with Foley who denied anything inappropriate and was told by the Clerk to cease e-mails with the young page and Foley agreed.

Let's be clear. Speaker Hastert has stated that he never saw or knew of any sexual explicit instant messages between Foley and any pages.

The Democrats would love for this to be some sort of a coverup, but it simply isn't and it is unfair and demeaning to Speaker Hastert to keep mixing up the facts here to make it seem as if Hastert had seen the sexual instant messages when in fact it was the innocuous e-mails. I can't imagine what Hastert was expected to do with such little evidence.

What Foley did was sick and unacceptable and he is gone. That's what Republicans do with sexual immorality, we kick them out. Other politicans who are sexually immoral are luckier, like Bill Clinton, Gerry Studds, Barney Frank, and Ted Kennedy, they are Democrats.

The Democrats know that a sexual scandal, no matter how sick, is the responsibililty of the adult involved. They know that that would not be enough to change the course of the Nov. elections. But if they can paint the leadership as covering this up, then they can win more seats.

It is almost as dispicable as what Foley did. But I am not surprised.

source: American Thinker

crossposted at TexasSparkle

Update: The Gay Patriot wonders if the Democrats set Foley up and exposes leftwing sites that declared Foley gay in 2004 and were angry that he was a Republican and vowed to take him down. Notice that the "slur" was not that he was a pedophile, but that he was gay and Republican. Foley has no one but himself to blame here of course, but it is interesting how gay bashing is ok as long as you are a Democrat.

Back at Bill

Did any of you see Fox News Sunday yesterday with Chris Wallace? He showed that part of the clip in his interview with Bill Clinton where Clinton gets in his face and with a big smirk and asks Chris if he ever asked the Bush administration if they were soft on terror before 9-11? Remember that part? Bill looks so self satisfied that he "got" Chris Wallace.

Well, Wallace said he looked through his interviews and then showed 3 or 4 clips where he did exactly that. On Rumsfeld he was especially harsh and asked directly if the Bush administration ignored terrorism before 9-11.

So there's that. And then there is this. Move America Forward isn't letting Clinton get away with trying to re-write history either. The Washington Times has this:

"If you think former President Bill Clinton has been in a sour mood, what with all the finger-pointing of late surrounding his administration's reaction (or lack thereof) to global terrorism, wait until he sees three television ads that will start airing in the coming days. The group Move America Forward, based in Sacramento, Calif., says it's had enough of Mr. Clinton and his loyal lieutenants trying to "rewrite history" about the war on terrorism and goes so far as to call the former commander in chief "shameless."

This ad will join two other ads on the war on terrorism. It's seems to be a way to tell "the rest of the story" that the media is not telling.

I can't wait for Clinton's reaction to it. Oh boy.

Sunday, October 01, 2006

"Pay attention to the better angels of our nature"

Hugh Hewitt has the best view of this whole Mark Foley scandal.

It's excellent.

"All of us have an appetite for sin. Part of the human drama and every life's challenge is to manage those appetites, to control them and vanquish them. It's something that most of us get much better at with age, which is why our truly hideous deeds are usually confined to our youths.

Politicians are often figures with outsized supplies of vanity and pride. It's not surprising considering how they give into these sins that they have appetites for other sins that are greater than the normal man's, and that they also grant those appetites more license than the normal man does."

Hugh chronicles a few well known politicians who have given in to their appetite for sin and he makes a bigger point. The Democrats misjudge the American people who will see Foley as a Republican scandal:

"His party identification will be a non-factor. He will be just another politician who indulged his appetites for sin without any apparent regard for the import of his job or the hundreds of thousands of people that he represented."

As Hugh points out:

"Normal people aren't like this. Most people don't closely identify with either party and they view political obsessives the same way they view avid stamp collectors or grown-ups who play with model trains. In other words, they view political junkies as freaks. Perhaps benign freaks, but freaks nonetheless."

So we, who are "the freaks" need to chill out on not just stories like these, but all the stories where the blogopshere goes crazy with stupid details, misinterpretations, and distortions.

Hugh ends with this truth:

"We all walk a tightrope trying to pay more attention to the better angels of our nature than the devils on our shoulder. When someone else fails, we might criticize him and his actions but we also think to ourselves, "There but for the grace of God go I."

Which is why Gerry Studds and Bill Clinton and Teddy Kennedy were re-elected. Especially when it comes to sexual sin, people don't want to judge because they themselves might be judged and found wanting.

That's what I believe anyway.

Someone please tell me.....

Why, in the Democrat"s view, what Mark Foley did was worse than what Gerry Studds did?

Gerry Studds actually had sexual relations with a minor who was a page.

Because Gerry Studds basically said "forget you" to those who judged him and went on to be re-elected five more times.

Now, I realize why Republicans wouldn't stand for Foley, but why did Democrats stand for Studds?


via Ace

The left side of smear and hate.

It's what they do best.

If you can't win in debate, just smear the the one who can.

What scum they are.

Should McCain be watching his back?

Times Online says yes.

Do I love his stand on the issues? Yes. But can he beat Hillary? I don't think so.

Because Mitt Romney is like me. He is a hard right religious fanatic that would take us back to segregation and back alley abortions. Oh...you didn't know that about me? Well, it's not true of course, but that is how the left sees me. And that is the brush they will paint Mitt with as well. And he is just a bit too perfect looking. He almost looks like a televangelist.

What I am saying is this. I love Romney on the issues. If I thought he could beat Hillary I'd be for him, but HE CAN'T. This is the same country that elected Bill Clinton twice and then George Bush twice. The issues don't matter as much as the perception of the person. Hillary has spent her time in Congress being Miss. Moderate. They can't touch her there, even on the issues. Mitt has spent his time in service being true to what he believes in, which is conservative values. The snarling monster of the left will eat him alive.

But they won't eat McCain alive. McCain knows what it is like to fight a snarling monster. He's an expert at it. And he knows how to fight Hillary, a wolf in sheep's clothing. The one who beats Hillary is the one who knows what it is like to go up against what is wrong and valueless and win.

McCain knows.

That's all I am saying.

Friday, September 29, 2006

Breaking News Baghdad.

Iraq The Model says there is a total curfew there until Sunday morning.

Small Dead Animals thinks that this might be the anticipated showdown between Muqtada Al-Sadr and the Iraqi government.

BBC has more.

h/t Dave

The shame of Mark Foley

Rep. Mark Foley resigns after sending provocative e-mails to a male page. The whole thing is sick. There was no way we would have allowed him to continue.

Good riddance.

What is it with seduction and power? Does it create stupidity?

Update: I just remembered something. I was a page in the Mississippi State legislature when I was 16. There were wildly inappropriate comments to me as I recall. A young legislator (I can't remember his age, but in his 20's) not only asked me out, but followed me home one day and drove by my house several times until my father put a stop to it. At the time I was too young to realize how really wrong many of the comments were. (not as sexual as they probably are today, but more the leering type comments like "you should wear shorter dresses with those legs" type of thing.

I hadn't thought of that for years. I guess some things never change.

My John McCain Crush Post #25

RCP interviews McCain. My favorite parts:

"By the way, I don't mean to stray from the subject but a really entertaining thing happened day before yesterday. The Democrats had this hearing with two generals and a colonel, and it was a Rumsfeld-as-pinata encounter. But the interesting thing is that at the very end they made a terrible, cardinal error: they asked the generals and the colonel what we should do and they answered "stay the course," "more troops," "can't afford to lose." Oops. Hearing over. I thought it was wonderful. I'm sure they weren't pleased to hear the generals say we need more troops and we have to stay the course and we can't afford to lose. I'm sure some staffer probably got reprimanded or fired for allowing such a question to be asked."

He get's what the American people are feeling about the war:

"But I want to mention this about the war. Americans are frustrated, they're saddened, and they want to get out. But they don't want to get out according to a calendar. They want to get out according to conditions on the ground. And still, significant majorities, although frustrated and may think that we shouldn't have gotten in there in the first place, still don't agree with this set a date with for withdrawal. Thank God."

On Immigration:

"Here's how I think the compromise comes out. We set up a framework that all of the necessary measures to secure our border - not seal, by the way, the Israelis found out you can't seal a border - to secure our borders have been taken. In other words, authorize increased number of border patrol, facilities that need to be built, a fence, and the money appropriated so that we can go to our constituents and say "look, here's what every expert says is necessary to secure our borders, and these are the measures we've taken. " And that's going to take us a couple of years - to build the fence, install the sensors, build the towers and hire the border patrol, etc- and now we're going to try to address a temporary worker program and somehow dispose of the 11 or 12 million people who are already here. Just, for example, the temporary worker program. Suppose tomorrow we said "ok, anybody who works here as a temporary worker is going to have to have a biometric tamper proof visa." It would take us a year and half or two years anyway to set up such a program, starting from scratch. So our proposal is: take the steps necessary to secure the border, have it in place, but also start trying to address these other two issues, because the great fear of our base, and it's understandable and legitimate, is that we do what we did in the 1980s: promise to secure the borders, give amnesty, and yet the flow continues."


"So this is a bridgeable gap. But again, the fear of our Republican base, and it's legitimate, because of what happened in the 80's is we say: OK, now we're going to give these people a path to citizenship and we're going to have a temporary worker program, but we don't secure the border so 10 years from there are 12 million more who've come across the border. They want a commitment to make the border secure. I understand that."

He gets why we are angry about spending:

"But there's one other aspect of this that doesn't get discussed and should be. Every time I talk to the party faithful about spending, they get angry. They are angry. They don't get angry, they are angry. The part of our base that has to do with fiscal discipline is angry at us - and they should be. There's no reason why they shouldn't be. When I mention the Bridge to Nowhere, they know it. They know it. And so, one of my major concerns is that - they won't vote Democrat, that doesn't bother me - but they might stay home. That's a concern that I have in talking to all these Republican audiences."

This warms the heart in a cold region of our country...

4 villages shun gift of free oil

"Leaders from four Western Alaska villages have rejected an offer of free heating oil from a Venezuelan- owned company because that nation's president this month called President Bush "a devil" and made other inflammatory comments about the United States.

"Despite the critical need for fuel in our region, the Unangan (Aleut) people are Americans first, and we cannot support the political agenda attached to this donation," read a statement from Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association released late Thursday."

America first. How about that?


h/t Dave

Update: These fine Alaskan people aren't the only ones having 2nd thoughts about Chavez's "gift" of heating oil:

"Last winter, Crosson enrolled in a heating oil program backed by CITGO Petroleum, controlled by the Venezuelan government, to fill her 250-gallon heating oil tank. She saved $200 on the purchase.

Despite the savings, Crosson is having second thoughts about re-enrolling this year after reading about Chavez's speech last week at the U.N. General Assembly. Chavez called President Bush "the devil" and U.S. policies "genocidal."

"I'm not a Bush person, believe me," said the trim, 75-year-old widow, "but I really resented that."

That's fine sweetie, don't be a "Bush person," Be an "American person." You get it.

Heck, even some Democrats get it:

"Still, the U.N. speech has cost Chavez support. Rep. Bill Delahunt, the Democrat who represents Quincy and a backer of the heating oil program, co-wrote a letter with Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., condemning the "gratuitous personal attack" on Bush as "a direct insult to the people of the United States."

John Baldacci, the Democratic governor of Maine, which received 8 million gallons of discounted heating oil last winter, said that "based on current events," he won't renew his agreement with CITGO."

Ed Koch..unplugged.

Years ago if you had told me that I would agree with everything in a speech that Democrat Ed Koch gave, I would have laughed. But former Mayor Koch spoke on first day of Rosh Hashanah at his Synagogue and his remarks were profound and full of wisdom. Here are some snippets:

"During the service this morning an elderly man came over to me and said, "Tell the Jews how foolish they are not to appreciate how good and supportive the President has been to the Jewish community. When I look back on the Nazis and remember what they did, I know how important it is for the President to stand up for Jews and others who are being terrorized throughout the world."

I replied, "I have and I will."


"President Bush needs continued strength and courage to protect our country from the Islamic terrorists who want to kill us. Their goal, as clearly stated in the words of Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi, the head of al-Qaeda in Iraq before he was killed by an American bomb, is "Killing the infidels is our religion, slaughtering them is our religion, until they convert to Islam or pay us tribute." The infidels alluded to are you and I as well as other Jews, Christians (called Crusaders), Hindus and dissenting Muslims who disagree with them on religious or political issues.

I admire the strength and intelligence of Pope Benedict XVI. He understands the Muslim threats of violence against people unwilling to convert to Islam. He has called for a dialogue with the Muslim world."

Referring to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez addressing the General Assembly of the UN as he vilified President Bush, referring to him as "the devil:"

"What offended me even more than Chavez's ludicrous remarks were the responses of the U.N. delegates. No one stood up and told Chavez that he was out of order and demanded that he stop or sit down. They should have told him he was a disgrace to the U.N. Instead they are reported to have applauded this monster and laughed with him, instead of at him. The Times reported:

"So while there was official outrage over Mr. Chavez calling Mr. Bush 'the devil,' there was also a lot of applause and giggling, from dignitaries including the president of the General Assembly herself, Haya Rashed al-Khalifa of Bahrain, who was caught chuckling from her seat on the dais behind Mr. Chavez."

And finally:

".... do you remember the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl who was taken hostage by the terrorists in Pakistan? They paraded him on television and forced him to say, "My father is Jewish, my mother is Jewish, I am Jewish." Then they slit his throat and decapitated him with the world watching the video of the murder.

The Rabbi told us this morning that we recite very important prayers today, and we should be conscious of their special significance. I hope that some day soon we will add Daniel Pearl's words to a special prayer to be said today, as I say it now, "My father is Jewish, my mother is Jewish, I am Jewish." And I am proud."

Whenever we wonder about this fight we fight, we need to remember Daniel Pearl. He wasn't a soldier. He had no political agenda. The terrorists hated him for the same reason Hitler hated so many before...because he was Jewish.

Today Pres. Bush said that we do not create terrorism by fighting terrorism. That idea, being promoted by Democrats, that somehow not fighting terrorists will make them hate us less, is simply disproven by the past.

It was our ambivalence that allowed 9-11.

When we are tempted to give up this fight, let us remember Daniel Pearl. We stand with our Jewish friends and they stand with us. Never again will we allow others to kill innocent humans for simply who they are. Never again.

h/t Errol Phillips