Friday, January 06, 2006

No surprise here.

Betsy's Page caught this:

Powerline has a preview of what Stephen Hayes's story in the Weekly Standard about the new evidence that Saddam Hussein was hosting at least three active terrorist training camps in the four years preceding our invasion of Iraq.

The secret training took place primarily at three camps--in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak--and was directed by elite Iraqi military units. Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000. Intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis. According to three officials with knowledge of the intelligence on Iraqi training camps, White House and National Security Council officials were briefed on these findings in May 2005; senior Defense Department officials subsequently received the same briefing.

The photographs and documents on Iraqi training camps come from a collection of some 2 million "exploitable items" captured in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan. They include handwritten notes, typed documents, audiotapes, videotapes, compact discs, floppy discs, and computer hard drives. Taken together, this collection could give U.S.
intelligence officials and policymakers an inside look at the activities of the former Iraqi regime in the months and years before the Iraq War.

Maybe my british friend dave bones will be interested to read this since he just thinks the bombers are a "few confused misfits."

Please check out my blog on Sunday!!

I'll be leaving tomorrow for Philly to live blog for "Justice Sunday III." Which seems to be getting some attention. This will be a pro- Alito rally leading up to the hearings next week. From what I have read these "Justice Sunday" rallies have been about threats to religious rights posed by the federal judiciary. I'll start blogging in the afternoon, but the event begins at 7pm e.s.t. It will be carried on hundreds of radio and Christian TV stations, and via live webcast on the "Justice Sunday" website.

I have to agree that there is this notion out there that just because one is religious means he or she should have no say in the judicial process. Some even believing one should have no say in the political process either. But people of faith, all faiths, have as much of right to an opinion and to fight for those beliefs as anyone else. It's called freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion.

When a society or government seeks to oppress views that are held by a great many people you can expect something like "Justice Sunday" to occur. It isn't, as many liberals would have you believe, about "imposing their values" on others. It is about expressing those values and fighting for change. (Just as so many groups have throughout the history of our country) Especially since so many moral issues have become political, such as partial-birth abortion, abortion without parental consent, and assisted suicide. Does anyone honestly think that people of faith have no right to speak out on these issues or support those in positions of power who agree??

Act Up and Planned Parenthood are planning protests at "Justice Sunday" and I think they have every right to do so. Peaceful protest and debate is what makes our country great. I'm going to try to speak with some of them.

In fact the forces against Alito are putting up quite a fight themselves. At the federal building in Center City, a coalition of opponents, including Julian Bond of the NAACP, presented representatives of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R., Pa.) with anti-Alito petitions. The usual suspects are spending vast amounts of money on defeating Alito. These are the AFL-CIO, NARAL Pro-Choice America, Alliance for Justice, and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and People For The American Way .

Click on any of those links and Alito is front and center, with many running commercials you can click on there at the site.

The bottom line is that these organization have every right to fight Alito's nomination, but the Family Research Council and any other right of center organization has just as much of a right to fight for it.

Something many seem to not be understanding.

Where is the anger?

I'm keeping this at the top until one of my MANY leftwing commenters decides to answer it.

Something occurred to me while perusing some blogs about the war. I see the liberals constantly criticizing the war. They bring up the numbers of dead civilians and our dead soldiers. But one thing they NEVER bring up is who is killing them.

Have you noticed that? In all the "Blame Bush" rhetoric there is never a peep about the insane monsters who blow themselves up and kill innocents. Where is all the anger at those guys? If you can find any liberal who has written about his anger at the guys who are actually responsible for all the blood and gore, let me know.

It would make me feel better.

We have been safe.

Tech Station makes the statement:

As I write, 1,576 days have passed since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and
still there has been no subsequent terrorist assault on American soil.

And asks the question:

Is this just good luck, or is it the result of good policy?

And answers it:

The terrorists' lack of success is the result of a response that has
beenaggressive and single-minded -- at home, in Iraq and in places we know littleabout. The policy is working. It has kept us safe. We tamper with it at our own extreme peril.

As the article points out about the movie "Munich,"Spielberg is trying to make a statement for peace. In an interview Spielberg says:"A response to a response doesn’t solve anything.” Instead, you need to sit down and talk things out “until you’re blue in the gills.”

It is obvious, especially since the last shot in the film shows the twin towers of the World Trade Center in the background, that Spielberg is making a statement about our response to 9-11 as well. I find it incredible that anyone could believe that we could "talk out things" with terrorists. Especially since they see Americans as "infidels" and America as evil in and of itself. I mean what is there to negotiate here? Will we agree to change our ways? To try to go to Mosque? To make women wear burkas? To throw out all of our R rated movies? Because that is just the beginning of the "compromise" they would wish for.

We aren't going to change our Democracy and I don't think Spielberg would want us to. So I don't see how he thinks we can possibly "talk it out" or "compromise" with these monsters.

As I stated in a previous thread, does anyone seriously believe that if we had not gone into Afghanistan and Iraq that the terrorists would have just left us alone? We can be pacifist all we wish, but that does not stop those who wish to kill us. Bloodshed would have continued without a doubt in my mind.....

it just would have been here.

Wiretapping story bolsters the President's image.

Captain's Quarters has an excellent update on the "outrage" of the Democrats regarding the wiretapping story, including their hypocrisy on being briefed on it and never saying a word, and suddenly feeling a need to write indignant letters to the white house. But as I said before, it's a losing issue for the Democrats. Let the madmen rave. Here's the Captain:

In the meantime, since the story appears to have gone nowhere in terms of damage to the administration -- if anything, it's helped bolster his image as a wartime president protecting America -- the Democrats and the media want to start going on a fishing expedition.

This is what the Democrats don't get. They may enjoy blathering about the President listening in on their conversations with their grandmother while discussing her apple pie recipe, but Americans understand how silly that is, and they WANT a President to make sure terrorists aren't planning attacks.

I say let's keep on with the wiretapping story. It's keeping the Democrats busy. It's like giving a toddler a new toy. At least he won't be yelling for a cookie for a little while.

On a related note, Powerline lays out how the New York Times is actually the one who has committed a crime in this case, and cites the law to prove it.

On another related note. Michelle Malkin has this important update regarding the speculation that Christiane Amanpour was spyed upon:

Via Tom

CNN is reporting that the NSA did not target Amanpour:
A senior U.S. intelligence official told CNN Thursday that the National Security Agency did not target CNN Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour or any other CNN journalist for surveillance.

And this important thought from Michelle (who absolutely rocks btw)

However this story plays out, NBC's activities are troubling. First, it
published what amounts to an unsubstantiated rumor. Then it edited the transcript to remove the unsubstantiated rumor but did not acknowledge it had done so. Only after bloggers got on the case did NBC acknowledge what it had done. Remember this incident the next time some media poohbah criticizes bloggers for publishing unverified information and speculation.

Thursday, January 05, 2006

God says what???

It's time for Pat Robertson to retire to a nice little townhome in Florida and play golf. Seriously. It's embarassing.

Update: Concerned Women For America (the largest Christian women's organiztion in the country) sorta has a different view.

Where is the anger?

Something occurred to me while perusing some blogs about the war. I see the liberals constantly criticizing the war. They bring up the numbers of dead civilians and our dead soldiers. But one thing they NEVER bring up is who is killing them.

Have you noticed that? In all the "Blame Bush" rhetoric there is never a peep about the insane monsters who blow themselves up and kill innocents. Where is all the anger at those guys? If you can find any liberal who has written about his anger at the guys who are actually responsible for all the blood and gore, let me know.

It would make me feel better.

Same song, second verse, same as the first...

"STOP (insert name) OR WOMEN WILL DIE." Kathryn Jean Lopex of NRO found an old pdf from the NOW gals who seem to be repeating themselves, (Stop Alito or women will die! is the latest), but back then the name inserted was SOUTER! Gee, they were way off on that one.

Last words.

Just now on Fox News, the anchor was speaking on the telephone with the nephew of one of the miners who died in W. Virginia. The nephew said that the family had been told that his uncle had scratched a note in the ground for them. Part of it said:

"I'll see you on the other side."

"It's not that bad, we are just going to sleep."

A Calling.

You may have noticed a great deal more religious content than you are use to here. I am trying to post a bit on my faith leading up to Justice Sunday III. The following is a re-post from March 15th, 2005.

When I went to college my goal was to become a trained actress. Growing up in politics, I was sick of it. All I wanted to do was be a movie star one day. I never wanted to even hear the word politics again. When I was 18 my dad made me drive 6 hours from Florida to vote in my 1st Presidential election. MADE ME. And like a good Democrat, I voted for Carter.

I had been a Christian for a long time (thank goodness, looking back) by the time I entered college. During my college years I began to be bothered by the abortions my friends were having. Their pain was hard to see. I didn't see relief afterwards. But I told myself that was their decision and had nothing to do with me. Luckily for me, I had decided many years before that I was going to wait until marriage for sex, so I didn't have any worries in the department of pregnancy and abortion. In the late 70's and early 80's the common belief was abortion was performed when the baby was still a clump of cells, not even a fetus. Totally untrue, but everyone believed it. Sonograms were just beginning to be in use in OBGYN offices.

A lot of things happened with friends during those years regarding abortion and none of them good. I finally realized God was trying to tell me something. Now for those of you with faith the following will be probably be something similar that you have been through. For those of you without faith I suppose it will sound silly, but here it is nonetheless.

During my senior year after doing some study into fetal development and other things I finally did decide that abortion was the taking of a life and morally wrong. "There," I said to God, "You have convinced me, thanks for making see the reality of this. I really appreciate it. If I have more friends going through it I will do whatever I can to get them to have the baby. You can count on me. Later."

But God wasn't through with me yet. That Hound of Heaven has always done this to me. I want to go one way, He wants me to go the other. We have argued all my life. Seriously. Most of the time I went His way because I'm smart that way, and He was always right. In fact, all the best things in my life now are a result of having gone into pro-life work. My best friends and my children. But I fought going into it the whole way. The very few times I went my way, I always screwed up.

In my early 20's when it became clear that God wanted me to go into pro-life work, I simply refused. "God," I said, "look, I don't want anything to do with politics and this is political now. Isn't this a woman's choice to sin? Just like anything else? Plus, everyone thinks anyone in pro-life is a fanatic. I don't want to do this. Nope. No way. Let's move on, shall we?"

He would NOT leave me alone so I made a deal with him. I told God I would go do ANYTHING else to help his children. In fact, I will do the hardest thing for me. I will go volunteer in a nursing home. There I will be doing good, and politics is totally out of it. So I did. Many days I came home crying. I told my husband how hard it was to see these old people so lost and alone. Some so sick. Why do they have to live that way? It was so much harder than I ever thought it would be, but I had a deal with God and I kept going back.

One day one of my favorite elderly ladies, Emily, asked me for a glass of water. I got it for her and was sitting there watching her drink it when I felt God speak to my heart. (for ya'll who are rolling your eyes right now, NO, it isn't an actual voice, ok?, but it is clear just the same) First He spoke of the verse in the Bible where Christ says "For I was hungry and you fed me; I was thirsty and you gave me water...." Christ goes on to say "When you refused to help the least of these my brothers, you were refusing to help me." (Matthew 25:35-45) "Don't you see?" I heard God say to my heart. "These people you help are a burden and unwanted by the world, but I love them. They are my children. The same is true for my unborn children. They may be unwanted, but they are loved and wanted by me. You can be my hands, you can be my voice. Go and help the least of these."As I sat there with tears rolling down my face, I knew that I was going to do exactly what I did not want to do. Get involved in a controversial political issue. One that I didn't feel have anything to do with me. I was an actress and that is what I wanted to do. Not this. But God had always been my strength, my guide. I sounded like a petulant child, but I said to God, "Oh, alright...."And I did.

It was never easy to watch girls walk out of the pregnancy crisis center I worked in and know they were going to have an abortion no matter what I said. A boyfriend was usually urging them to, or a parent. It was never easy to see people think you were some sort of fanatic for being in this work. And it was NEVER easy to explain why. My family came around. They are all pro-life now. But there were years when I know they wanted to put duct tape over my mouth to make me shutup about it. President Reagan wrote an essay while in office called "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation." It was beautiful and expressed perfectly why we should fight for the rights of the unborn. The media largely ignored it and I'm betting you here, all politically aware, have not even heard of it. The media hoped that a blackout of what we were trying to do would make us go away. But we didn't.

Although abortion laws didn't change, abortion rates lowered or stayed steady. Considering that in the last 30 yrs all other societal ills like drug abuse, domestic abuse, suicide rates, ect. have increased 300% and more, I think we have had an impact and that is with NO help from the media or funding. One night a few years ago, upset at a woman I knew who was pregnant with twins who happened not to be her husband's (who she was separated from but planning on getting back together), was having an abortion that day. I had offered to keep her from her husband until the twins were born and then adopt them ourselves. I cried and cried for those two little ones who would never feel the breeze in their hair, or swing on swing sets. Ones I would never get to hold. In my pain, I asked God what was the purpose here if nothing in the law had changed??? Once again I heard Him speak to my heart. "I never asked you to do anything but what you have done. Men will make and change laws. I wanted you to change hearts and let them know the truth."

You see, God does not care about politics. He cares only for us. Is it just and right that we allow unborn children to be destroyed? No. Of course not. But the truth about abortion was never getting out there and it still isn't in so many ways. I truly don't expect a President to change this law (although I would wish for them to) But I do want a President who understands as I do that what defines who we are is how we treat "the least of these."

Hollywood? Anyone?

I've always thought a really cool idea for a movie would be to bring back George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, (or Thomas Jefferson) and Dr. Martin Luther King into modern times and show them how the constitution has been interpreted and how the black community has made out since the civil rights movement.

Just not sure how it could be done without being cheesy and without a certain political view being put forward.

One thing for sure, they would be astonished at our medical care after they have heart attacks at what they see.

Looking forward to this weekend.

I'm looking forward to hearing all of the speakers this Sunday for "Justice Sunday III" because I have never heard any of them in person. In fact the only one I am really familiar with is Dr. James Dobson, who I know through his newsletters from Focus On The Family.

16 years ago I was the mother of a newborn and an out of control 2 yr old. We had just moved to a new city. I had no friends or family there. I was tired, stressed, and at the end of my rope. Then a family member sent me Dr. James Dobson's books, "Dare To Discipline " and "The Strong Willed Child." Both these books not only saved my sanity, they helped me and my husband get control of our strong willed child and not only helped us to raise a wonderful son, but actually enjoy doing it. I'm not big on self help books at all, but these two books for young parents are a must read.

I started getting newsletters from Focus On The Family and I was impressed with Dr. Dobson's intelligence and views on faith. After years and years of reading these letters there is no doubt in my mind that Dr. Dobson is a man of God. That doesn't mean he is perfect. I think he would be the first to say that he isn't. But unlike a great many high profile "Christian leaders" I was impressed by Dr. Dobson's not accepting one penny for his work (which is tremendous ) with Focus On The Family. If he even received 1% of the money that comes into this organization for it's many helpful books, tapes, and DVD's, he would be extremely wealthy. But he decided after 14 years as an Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Southern California School of Medicine, and serving for 17 years on the Attending Staff of Children's Hospital of Los Angeles in the Division of Child Development and Medical Genetics to only live off his child rearing books. Considering what people will do for money these days, and the fact that no one could have blamed him for taking a %, I thought that very impressive indeed. One thing that greatly disturbs me is a preacher who lives large.

The only impression I have of Dr. Jerry Falwell is from the media. So I am interested to actually hear what he has to say. I don't think Dr. Falwell is the best spokesperson for Christian issues only because of his persona. Not that this reflects on him personally, but in my opinion, putting a fresher, younger, more media savvy face on Christian views would be a better idea and letting Dr. Falwell work more behind the scenes. This is a visual society and even Christians need to recognize that.

The only other speaker I am familiar with (other than Sen. Santorum, which I have posted on) is Dr. Alved C. King. She is the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King. Her main issues are pro-life after having 2 abortions herself, she is associated with "Silent No More" an organization of post abortive women focusing on saving other women from this horror. She is also very involved in school choice.

Both Dr. Dobson and Dr. King work closely with Catholics as well and understand the need for our unity. Which I really like as well.

I want to add here how much I appreciate Charmaine Yoest of Reasoned Audacity who is a Senior Fellow at The Family Research Council, asking me to come and blog this event. She made it clear to me that I am in no way obligated to not disagree with speakers or issues.

I will give you my honest opinion of each speaker and my experience there.

Hook 'em horns!

I'm not a football fan, but my sports nut 9 yr old made me watch the Rose bowl last night. Pretty intense, huh?

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Lynn Swann to run for Governor of Pennsylvania.....

as a Republican. Cool. He is pro-life too. Even cooler. Here is the money quote:

The Democratic Party has "taken the African American vote for granted," Swann said.

Understatement of the year.

Here are the featured speakers at "Justice Sunday III" where I will be liveblogging this weekend in Philly. From left to right, Dr. James Dobson, Dr. Alveda C. King, Bishop Wellington Boone, Tony Perkins, Rev. Herbert Lusk, Senator Rick Santorum, and Dr. Jerry Falwell. I hope I get to speak with them in person.

It seems that Act Up is planning a protest too. I am going to try to speak with one of them as well. So tune into my blog on Sunday, ok?????

What the hell....

is going on with Wikipedia? Excuse the pun. (you will see what I mean)

via NRO

Gore not a bore?

Gore showed up voluntarily to give a speech on global warming to a room full of people from the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. It seemed to have turned out pretty well. Who says we can't get along?

Caption Contest!

We haven't had one for a while.

Have fun!!!

Have you guys seen this? It's a map of bloggers made up by The Commissar. I am "Sparklony" in green in the middle. Click on image for bigger picture.

Cool huh?

Down the slippery flipper slope.

I've heard this story all day, but maybe you haven't. A woman marries a dolphin.

An unusual wedding ceremony was held in the southern resort town of Eilat on Wednesday, as Sharon Tendler, a 41-years-old Jewish millionaire from London married her beloved Cindy, a 35-years-old dolphin, Israel's leading newspaper
Yedioth Ahronoth reported Thursday. "The peace and tranquility underwater, and his love, would calm me down," the excited bride said after the wedding. After the ceremony was sealed with some mackerels, Tendler was tossed into the water by her friends so that she could swim with her new husband." I'm the happiest girl on earth," the bride said as she chocked [sic] back tears of emotion. "I made a dream come true, and I am not a pervert,"she stressed. Tendler said she and her newly wed husband will probably spend their wedding night bowling. But what kind of children would they have?" one of the children in the crowd asked his father.

Another story reveals this:

Sharon kissed Cindy and whispered "I love you" in his blow hole.
According to The Sun she said: "Cindy is 35 and I've been visiting him on holidays for 15 years. He's lovely." After the ceremony she dived into the water in her dress to give Cindy a hug.

Well, we knew something like this was bound to happen, right? I'm curious to why the story is titled "Brit Jew marries dolphin." What does she being a Jew matter. Why not "Woman marries dolphin?" Weird. But then the whole thing weird.

2 words. Pandora's box.


via LST

The Future of The World.

I know. That sounds pretty serious. Papa Ray sent me this WSJ article by Mark Steyn. It is a long read, but well worth it. He covers quite a bit of ground, but the facts about Western birth rates diminishing while Islamic birth rates are flourishing is interesting and worrisome.

There is no doubt that Islam will grow if for no other reason than birthrates. Which clearly means their influence will grow. I read all kinds of opinions about Islam being evil and all that. But I don't ever paint a people or religion with a broad brush, (except liberals maybe...;-) )
But I think the one thing we can all agree on is that we would not want an Islamic state here. I think we all agree that Islamic countries have a history of sometimes abusing women, but always putting them in a second class. That is unacceptable to us all, but this influence is growing. France didn't have major parts of their city involved in violence and fire if the Islamic community was not happy. If there is one thing we have learned, Even those who don't practice their religion of Islam still feel a strong tie to it.

I have a neighbor who is from Iran. He has been in this country for over 20 yrs. He does not practice any religion and is completely westernized, but his extended family does practice and live there. He thinks the war is pointless because the Middle East has been about bloody religious war forever and he doesn't feel anything is going to change that. My question was has anything ever really been done to try?

Not until now.

We got a slap in the face on Sept. 11th. Before that I don't many Americans could tell you what Islam was. It is also time to wake up to a future where there are more Muslims than anyone else. As Steyn points out about parts of Europe:

What will London--or Paris, or Amsterdam--be like in the mid-'30s?IfEuropean politicians make no serious attempt this decade to wean the populaceoff their unsustainable 35-hour weeks, retirement at 60, etc., then to keep thepresent level of pensions and health benefits the EU will need to import so manyworkers from North Africa and the Middle East that it will be well on its way tomajority Muslim by 2035. As things stand, Muslims are already the primary sourceof population growth in English cities. Can a society become increasinglyIslamic in its demographic character without becoming increasingly Islamic inits political character?

He continues:

Europe continues: Europe is significantly more Islamic, having taken in duringthat periodsome 20 million Muslims (officially)--or the equivalents of thepopulations offour European Union countries (Ireland, Belgium, Denmark andEstonia). Islam isthe fastest-growing religion in the West: In the U.K., moreMuslims thanChristians attend religious services each week.

Then think about our population growths:'ll eventually find the United States, hovering just atreplacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79,Australia 1.76. But Canada's fertility rate is down to 1.5, well belowreplacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral;Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, about half replacement rate. That's tosay, Spain's population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy's populationwill have fallen by 22%, Bulgaria's by 36%, Estonia's by 52%

What is clear is that as far as population grows, Muslims are leaping past us. Don't you think their intolerant views will have more and more influence in the world? The left likes to whine about religious conservatives in this country imposing beliefs, but we have NOTHING on the Muslims. It is really thoseMuslim religious that liberals, as well as conservatives, need to be wary of.

You might scoff that nothing like the Islamic states could ever happen here. I was watching a Discovery channel special on the fall of Rome last night. It was incredible how the Romans lived at that time. Their architecture alone was an amazing feat. The modern conviences they conceived of and built are so much like a modern city today that it is incredible. But something happened. Historians are not sure. Some say they were defeated by opposing forces and some say their decadence and injustice led them down the path to self destruction. But the lesson here is that great civilizations have fallen, even those whose intelligence and tolerance seemed to be about constructing a great society.

We should not be cocky. Even if we remain the great Democracy we are, will most certainly have to contend with a mostly Muslim European and Middle Eastern people. That could very well mean contending with Muslim leaders of many countries who see our way of life as evil. We have seen what many radical Muslims wish for the United States. The more there are, the more likely it is they can convince many to fight us. Many like to argue that our enemy is Islam itself. I'm not ready to accept that. Nor do I wish to spread a fear of Islam. I just want us to be aware of the probable future of our divide.

The answer? It is certainly not to believe that we must destroy Islam or fight a war about our religious faith. No, the answer is simple, natural, and freeof violence. I can't tell you how many people I have argued with over the years about population growth. The hard left environmentalists have always seen more people as the problem. It is not. It is the answer.

We need to welcome more children into our lives, not just to ensure the growth of Democracy and business and not just because we will have enough young people to take care of the elderly. But because children are the greatest gift we are given. They are our hearts and our future. We have for too long looked upon them as"birth control failures" or"unwanted" or"burdens." We have and are raising a generation of spoiled bratty children who lazy and are given too much materially. One thing a baby gives his or her siblings is a sense of nurturing and selflessness. Virtues we all need.

Families are the answer. Not the broken ones we have come to accept. But the loving, giving, messy, loud, and strong ones that could make all the difference......for the future.

Sen. Rick Santorum

Senator Rick Santorum will be one of the speakers at Justice Sunday III this weekend where I will be liveblogging in Philadelphia, and I am really looking forward to it. He took a lot of heat from the left regarding his opposition to same sex marriage as you might recall. I have always found him to be intelligent and charming and a compassionate conservative.

You gotta love a guy who has listed on his webpage under "calendar of events" a happy hour. Heh.

In researching a bit about Sen. Santorum, I found the usual sick sites that don't just disagree, but have to be disgusting as well. Ugh.

Here is the interview regarding homosexuals that got so much attention. This is the first time I have read the whole interview. (the man on dog statement is what got so much attention) At first I was a bit disturbed by these statements:

You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral
relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if
you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in
the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised
that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say,
there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then
don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're
sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't
really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is
nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you
have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it.

I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual
acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside
of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of
different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against
anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I
have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you
act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions.
And you have to separate the person from their actions.

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality — (interviewer interrups)

I was disturbed from a secular point of view because I believe constitutionally that what goes on between 2 consenting adults is private and none of our business, but when I re-read it I realized the Senator was talking about the Church, not the state. He begins by saying "within the church...." Well, then I totally agree. When you tell people that anything goes, then anything does go and we reap the consequences. Now, in a free society people are free to do that. I wouldn't have it any other way. And apparently neither would Sen. Santorum. He just wants it our laws to reflect what the people want. (even if it disagrees with our religous belief) Not some judicial activist judge overiding the people. Here is how he ends the interview:

I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was
created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions.
And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President,
or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it
is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people
of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's
their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.

So it is clear that Sen. Santorum was defining his beliefs within the Church, but saying that even though they may differ with what people vote or decide, he would, of course, accept that. Which is exactly how I feel.

We religious conservatives are often bashed for trying to "impose" our beliefs on society. Well, I have news for you. The entire political spectrum from people for gay rights to environmental rights are trying to "impose" their beliefs on society. Why should someone's religious belief be any different? The people look at the issues, hear all sides, and then vote on what they want. That is Democracy. But being religious does not exclude me from stating my beliefs within the political arena. If they don't vote the way I wish, then that is just the way it is. And I accept that just as Sen. Santorum clearly does.

Mitt Romney, the future of the G.O.P?

Kathryn Jean Lopez thinks so.

He may be great, but he can't beat Hillary.

How to apologize to a feminist.

It's difficult.

via NRO

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

Mr. President, How are the soldiers doing?

The Cool Blue Blog brought up an interesting point:

After visiting wounded soldiers at Brooke Army Medical Center in Texas, President Bush stopped to answer some questions from reporters. No reporter asked about the condition of any of the soldiers.

No, what was on their minds was the topic du jour in Washington; the fact that he ordered the NSA to intercept calls from al Qaida to American citizens.

Q: "Mr. President, with this program, though, what can you say to those members of the public that are worried about violations of their privacy?"

THE PRESIDENT: "Ed, I can say that if somebody from al Qaeda is calling you, we'd like to know why."

Do you suppose it could have hurt to ask one simple question about the wounded soldiers? The media and the left are always telling us they care about the soldiers too.

Gee, kinda hard to tell.

But no, the focus must be on trying to embarrass the President. Nothing else matters.

Here is a thought. Let's let the process of investigation move forward and get a full answer. Meanwhile stop badgering the President who has made it more than clear the legality of his decision.

Oh, and by the way, if Al Qaeda is calling someone, I want to know why too.

via BA

The Losing Issue.

Remember when I said Democrats would sink their teeth into the wiretapping story and not let go even though it seems to be proving to be a losing issue for them?

Well, here ya go.

Democrats on Capitol Hill are drafting a strategy to attack the Bush
administration and Republicans as having little regard for the privacy of
Americans. "We will initiate at the beginning of this year one of the most
serious debates and discussions on Capitol Hill in our history about individual
rights and liberties," Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin said just before

The article goes on:

The topic will be a major focus of the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of
federal Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. as privacy rights -- the political code phrase
for abortion rights -- already has become a major issue, Mr. Durbin said.
Democratic leaders then plan to keep the issue alive as they continue their
opposition to key parts of the USA Patriot Act, which is set to expire in early
February unless extended.

When it comes to individual rights and liberties, the general public understands that the administration was not listening to their phone calls. They were listening in to suspected terrorist's phone calls. And Democrats, get a clue, everyone WANTS that.

The Democrats keep using the phrase "wiretapping American citizens" like Bush cares about the business meeting you are setting up. Please. He was wiretapping those who wish us harm. And the Democrats opposing the Patriot Act, which has clearly kept us safe for over 4 years, isn't exactly a winning issue either.

If this is all the Democrats have going into the Alito hearings, then things are looking good for us.

Time Magazine's photos of 2005.

Tragic and stunning photos. It occurs to me that all but three show the suffering of man. Whether it be nature's wrath or the tragedies that man brings upon himself.

Monday, January 02, 2006

B.E.T .com users, Shame on you. users name Louis Farrakhan as 2005's 'Person Of The Year.'

"They agreed that he has done what no other African American leader has: "mobilize hundreds of thousands of Blacks around the issues of atonement and empowerment, and to convince the masses of our people that we must be the primary catalysts and engines for positive change in our communities,"

Positive change? Read this part of a past post of mine from Oct. 18th 2005 and tell me how "positive' he is :

Despite Farrakhan's supposedly reaching out to a more diverse group, here are some of his recent remarks:

Remarks at Shelter for Hurricane Katrina Victims, Charlotte Coliseum, Charlotte, North Carolina, 9/12/05

"I heard from a very reliable source that under that levee there was a 25 foot hole, which suggested that it may have been blown up, so that the water would destroy the black part of town, and where the whites lived, it would be dry."

Power Center, Houston, Texas, 9/11/05

"FEMA is too White to represent us and so is the Red Cross."

Saviour's Day: Chicago, 02/27/05

"Listen, Jewish people don't have no hands that are free of the blood of us. They owned slave ships, they bought and sold us. They raped and robbed us. If you can't face that, why you gonna condemn me for showing you your past, how then can you atone and repent if somebody don't open the book with courage, you don't have that, but I'll be damned, I got it."

"I'm not into integration. I ain't for that. God told the Jews, he didn't want you intermarrying with others. But you disobeyed him. He don't want us uniting into this that he's come to judge… You can't integrate with wickedness if you want righteousness."

8th Anniversary The Holy Day of Atonement speech at Mosque Maryam, Chicago, 10/16/03

"You can go to Palestine, called Israel today, you can see Sodom, you can see Gomorrah, ain't nothing built there. God hadn't let anything be built there to show you his displeasure against homosexual behavior. Now the church says it's all right. I was an Episcopalian before I was a Muslim, and I liked my church. I can't remember anybody in the church, if they were gay they were hiding that. They were sure acting like men, you know what I mean."

8th Anniversary The Holy Day of Atonement speech at Mosque Maryam, Chicago, 10/16/03

"And you do with me as is written, but remember that I have warned you that Allah will punish you. You are wicked deceivers of the American people. You have sucked their blood. You are not real Jews, those of you that are not real Jews. You are the synagogue of Satan, and you have wrapped your tentacles around the U.S. government, and you are deceiving and sending this nation to hell. But I warn you in the name of Allah, you would be wise to leave me alone. But if you choose to crucify me, know that Allah will crucify you."

Saviours' Day Speech, Chicago, 2/25/96

For more quotes go here.

A commenter suggested that we should get use to Farrakhan because whether we like it or not, Farrakhan represents a great many black people.

No. I will not get use to it. I will not accept it. I will not stand by quietly and watch a bigot lead young African Americans into this sort of hate and separation. Nope. I am not going to do it. I will write about it, talk about it, write newspapers about it, and write Congressman about it. But I will not be quiet about it.

I didn't grow up watching brave black men and women get hosed and beaten and having dogs snarling and tearing at them as they fought for equality, to watch some insane bigot teach their grandchildren to hate as their grandparents were hated, to separate as their grandparents were separated.

No. I will not get use to it. I will not.

via NRO

What divides Us.

In a previous thread there is discussion between my Democrat commenters about the nasty division there is in politics. I never read Atrios, but I hear about him quite a bit. Maybe one of the reasons there is an ugly divide is because of statements of his like this:

2005 was the year that the president of the United States declared proudly that he had broken the law repeatedly and with full intention, that he had the power to do so whenever he wanted to, and that he would continue to do so whenever he
determined it to be desirable. This declaration was met with basic approval from much of the beltway chattering classes, prominent libertarian bloggers, and just about every small government conservative.

That's right. You mean you missed Bush press conference where he said, "I proudly broke the law and I can do it whenever I want to?" Well, that's because it never happened of course. In fact no reasonable news story is saying anything close to what Atrios is implying. In fact, because there is even a question of the legality of it, many of those in Congress, Republican and Democrat are saying we should have hearings into it to make sure of the law.

The administration has cited as legal justification for the program Article II of the Constitution and a post-9/11 law that authorized the president to use force against al Qaeda. That doesn't sound like Bush declaring he had broken the law. It sounds like Bush defending himself saying that he had in fact not broken any law.

Now you might ask what difference does it make if a leftwing blog makes some ridiculous claim about the President of the United States?

It makes a difference when that blog gets 2 million hits a day. That's right. 2 million. Liberals come to Atrios everyday to see what he has to say.

This kind of over the top rhetoric is what divides us so badly. This is what causes so much hate.
Now, are there rightwing blogs that have similar over the top statements? Yes. But I can't think of one influential rightwing blogger that has that kind of traffic and respect that has ever said anything close this kind of harmful lying rhetoric. If you know of one let me know.

The Big Tent.

I usually pay little attention to Andrew Sullivan. But when I saw this excerpt over at NRO, I had to look.

"The GOP is now a fundamentalist, Christian, Southern party first - and
tries to cobble some more slices of the pie onto that base."

Has this guy even looked at the Red/Bue state map of the last Presidential election? It is always silly when people try to stereotype each party. If there is one thing the blogosphere has convinced me of is that libertarians make up a large portion of our party. The 3 bloggers I link the most are most decidely not "fundamentalist Christian or Southern." (Ace, PW, Beautiful Atrocities) and I wouldn't have it any other way. I realize we need them to win and they need us. We differ on many social issues, but then, they don't agree with the Democrats on those issues either. But we do agree on enough to stay together under this big tent.

Sullivan and many others only want to pretend the G.O.P is like this because it makes them feel better about their own prejudices. When they portray Republicans as big bad fundies pointing judgemental fingers at them, it makes them feel better about hating Republicans.

Gay or Straight, black or white, Jew or Christian, libertarian or conservative. We are all Republican and proud.

Andrew Sullivan has never made much sense, and he makes even less with that false statement about the G.O.P.

A Journey to LIfe.

In my lead up to live blogging at the Family Research Council's "Justice SundayIII" I am going to re-post some of my earlier writings regarding my faith and the relation of that to my politics. In the following I describe how I became pro-life. I didn't mention my faith here because I feel pro-life is not just a religious issue. It is a human rights issue. But it was clearly my faith that led me to the realization of the horror of abortion. I am also going to post what I do know and think about many of the speakers that will be speaking at "Justice Sunday III" and we will see if hearing them speak changes my opinion of them at all.

The following is from January 2005:

Getting into pro-life work 20 yrs ago, I recognized at the time the mistake pro-lifers were making. First and and foremost they were totally naive to the nature of politics and PR. They didn't understand either one nor did they try to. It was simply a calling to them to reach out to women in crisis pregnancies and to educate the public on the horror of abortion and the sanctity of each and every child's life.

But the other side was very savvy on politics and PR. In the late 70's through most of the 80's most people believed that abortion was being used only for hard case such as rape, incest, and health of mother. When in fact less than 1% of all abortions occur for these reasons. Planned Parenthood was the master of PR. The owner and operator of the largest number of abortion clinics in the country. It runs a muti-million dollar industry that profits off the agony of women.

It isn't that I believed them to be cold heartless monsters set out to destroy babies in the womb, I knew that they believed deeply that they were helping women at a terrible time in their life. They still believe that. But, they are wrong. When a wolf has her leg caught in the jaws of a steel trap, it will gnaw it's leg off because it sees no other option. I think this is how most women in crisis pregnancies feel. Isn't it more compassionate to gently help remove the steel trap and help the leg to heal so that the wolf does not spend her life knowing that there is something missing that was there before?

In the 70's I was pro-choice and had many friends who had abortions. What I couldn't understand was why they were not experiencing relief afterwards. I too had bought into the lie that it was just a blob of tissue, not a baby yet. It was later that I learned that abortions are not performed before 6 weeks. And it was later that I would see my daughter's heartbeat at 6 weeks on a special sonogram. The same heart that beats in her chest today. Same heart. Same child. I thought of my friends who had had abortions and now years later were having children of their own as well. They were looking at sonograms as well. Were they thinking of the child they aborted? Were they wondering why they were never told the heart was beating?

In these many years I have heard many post abortive women speak and their anguish is hard to hear. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s niece was on Fox News the other night describing the pain of her 2 abortions. She is an active pro-lifer now. Norma McCorvey, Jane Roe of the infamous Roe v. Wade case is an active pro-lifer now, she describes how they used her in that court case and told her to lie and say that she had been raped. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist who spear headed NARAL (National Abortion Rights League) and was instrumental in the Roe v. Wade case, is now an active pro-lifer. He admits they lied about the number of women dying in illegal abortion.

The bottom line is that this is an issue that tears at the heart of us all. We all hate it. We hate discussing it. Arrows are thrown back and forth, but a true debate has never been put on the table for all Americans to see. In 1973 nine men decided a case that has divided this country since because we, the people, never got to decide how we felt about it. We never got the whole story.

I wonder if the democrats realize how much they lost in this debate. It is certainly one of the prime reasons I left the democratic party. At the very heart of what we believe in this country is right of every human being to live. Back in the 70's at one of the first Right To Life marches Rev. Jesse Jackson spoke and said "Never let them tell you that a fetus is not a human being, that is what they tried to say about the negro." Jackson changed his tune when he ran as a democratic nominee for President. But it didn't change the truth of his words.

Since 1973 we have averaged 4000 abortions a day in this country. And there is one question that is rarely asked. Are women's lives better for it? I don't see it. I see women in the past 30 yrs more prone to suicide, promiscuity, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, domestic abuse, eating disorders, and depression. I don't see how this helped women. I only see heartache and regret.

Whether you agree or disagree with me, we do know that there is no celebration here. There is no good feeling. If we can agree on that, then let's work together on 2 things. Helping women to appreciate their fertility and the gift that it gives them. Not looking at children as burdens or birth control failures, but as the greatest gift we are given on this earth. Let us help women to understand that sex means something. And that even with all that we know to prevent having a child, it can still happen. Women need to carry that knowledge in their heart whenever they want to make love, so they will be ready to carry that child in their womb as well.

Sunday, January 01, 2006


The Jerusalem post is reporting this:

'US planning strike against Iran.'

I seriously doubt it. The carnage here woud be brutal. Think of all the Democrats whose heads would explode.

via Drudge

Even when someone is a dyed in the black moonbat....

You have to give credit where credit is due.