Saturday, January 21, 2006

What we know.

Victor Davis Hanson has an excellent analysis of the real story in The Middle East:

"In the larger Middle East, the democratic splash in the Iraqi pond is slowly rippling out, as voting proceeds in Egypt and the Gulf, Syria leaves Lebanon, and Moammar Gadhafi and Pakistan’s Dr. Khan cease their nuclear machinations. Hundreds of thousands of protesters hit the streets in Lebanon and Jordan—not to slur the United States, as predicted, for removing Saddam Hussein, but to damn Bashar Assad and al-Zarqawi as terrorist killers. Walid Jumblatt, the Lebanese Druze leader, now calls for Western pressure to root out the Syrian Baathists.

You’d never know all this from the global media or state-run news services in Europe and the Middle East."

Democracy spreading???? Who would have imagined that? Oh yes, President Bush did.

Hanson continues:

"Americans tried to remain idealistic on the principle that Iraqis, if freed and helped, could craft a workable democracy, and that such consensual governments would make the volatile Middle East safer, since elected and legitimate governments rarely attack their own kind. In response, the supposedly idealistic Left charged that we were bellicose and imperialistic — as if being on the side of the purple-fingered Iraqi voter was not preferable to being on the side of the terrorist and insurrectionist, who masked his fascism with national rhetoric."

And this is the most necessary to understand:

"Despite the fact that al Qaedists were in Kurdistan, Al Zarqawi was in Saddam’s Baghdad, terrorists like Abu Abas and Abu Nidal were sheltered by Iraqis, and recent archives disclose that hundreds of Iraqi terrorists were annually housed and schooled by the Baathists, we are nevertheless assured that there was no tie between Saddam and terrorists. Those who suggest there were lines of support are caricatured as liars and Bush propagandists.

"Apparently, we are asked to believe that the al Qaedists whom Iraqis and Americans kill each day in Iraq largely joined up because we removed Saddam Hussein."

The left couldn't be happy about the purple fingers because it was a victory for Bush, but we all know that it really was a victory for America. The left refuses to admit they were wrong about terrorist activities in Iraq before the war no matter what evidence is presented that shows there clearly was, because that would make Bush right, and they cannot have that even though, in reality, it makes America right.

And then Hanson points out why everything Bush did after 9-11 worked at keeping us safe:

"After September 11, many of our experts assured us that it was “not a question of if, but when” we were to be hit again—with the qualifier that the next strike would be far worse, entailing a dirty bomb, or biological or chemical agents.

Yet when we are still free from an assault 52 months later, censors assure that our safety has nothing to do with the Patriot Act, nothing to do with wiretaps, nothing to do with killing thousands of terrorists abroad in Afghanistan and Iraq, and nothing to do with creating democratic Afghan and Iraqi security forces who daily hunt down jihdadists far from America’s shores. And yet, strangely, there is no serious legislation to revoke the Patriot Act, to outlaw listening to calls from potential terrorists, or to cut off funds for operations in Iraq or Afghanistan."

Democracy spreads and we are safe. Simple. Thank President Bush. Thank our troops. It hasn't been easy, but nothing great comes easy.

We will win the mid-term elections.

Because we get national security:

"White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove offered a biting preview of the 2006 midterm elections yesterday, drawing sharp distinctions with the Democrats over the campaign against terrorism, tax cuts and judicial philosophy, and describing the opposition party as backward-looking and bereft of ideas.

"At the core, we are dealing with two parties that have fundamentally different views on national security," Rove said. "Republicans have a post-9/11 worldview and many Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview. That doesn't make them unpatriotic -- not at all. But it does make them wrong -- deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong." ...

It was four years ago this week when Rove, appearing at another meeting of the RNC, said Republicans would make terrorism a central issue of the 2002 midterm elections. Rove's remarks infuriated Democrats, who protested that, until then, Bush had stressed bipartisanship and national unity in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."

Captain Ed says it much better than I ever could:

"And in four years, the Democrats have not learned a damned thing about national security. Four years ago, Rove spoke to the political situation as it was -- highly partisan on the war and Iraq. Far from the rosy picture of bipartisan comity they now paint of the immediate post-9/11 period, Democrats balked at military action in Afghanistan, arguing that the Soviets and the British had both broken armies in that country during the past century. MoveOn protested continuously about the "violence" and predicted a winter disaster on the scale of Napoleon in Russia. Action against Iraq had come into debate by this point and would consume the 2002 election cycle, not to mention the partisan recriminations flying all over Washington over the success of the 9/11 attacks.

Four years later, the Democrats still argue for withdrawal and isolationism. Their only coherent strategy offered is a "strategic redeployment of troops over an event horizon", which translates to "retreat until we're out of sight of the battlefield". And that's just on offense. For national defense, the Democrats want to impeach the President for conducting surveillance on international communications on people identified by evidence and intel as terrorists, including the common-sense tracking of such calls into and out of the US to identify potential terrorist cells before they strike here. Their leadership knew of this program and all its implications since the month after 9/11 and have been continuously briefed ever since, and not one of those briefed have called for an end to the NSA program -- not one.

Democrats have one strategy, and it boils down to I Hate George. Rove and Mehlman simply want to show America that on national security, they have some 'splainin' to do."

Friday, January 20, 2006

A blogger helps catch a terrorist.

Which is totally cool.

The Reagan Revolution.

The WSJ has this:

"Twenty-five years ago today, Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as the 40th President of the United States promising less intrusive government, lower tax rates and victory over communism. On that same day, the American hostages in Iran were freed after 444 days of captivity. If the story of history is one long and arduous march toward freedom, this was a momentous day well worth commemorating.

All the more so because over this 25-year period prosperity has been the rule, not the exception, for America--in stark contrast to the stagflationary 1970s. Perhaps the greatest tribute to the success of Reaganomics is that, over the course of the past 276 months, the U.S. economy has been in recession for only 15. That is to say, 94% of the time the U.S. economy has been creating jobs (43 million in all) and wealth ($30 trillion). More wealth has been created in the U.S. in the last quarter-century than in the previous 200 years. The policy lessons of this supply-side prosperity need to be constantly relearned, lest we return to the errors that produced the 1970s." via
Blogs for Bush

I voted for the first time in 1980 and I voted for Jimmy Carter. It's a fact I'm not proud of, but we all have the indiscretions of our youth. Growing up in a political family I was quite tired of politics by the time I went to college. I wanted nothing to do with it. But ever since high school I had started questioning the welfare state. It had done such damage to the black community in my state. I had seen firsthand how truly awful it really was.

I remember when Reagan won, my father was disappointed, but I didn't really care one way or another. But over the next few years Reagan's positive messages and the renewal of pride in our country and our military sort of took me in. I started paying attention again to world events and to this charismatic caring President.

Over the 2 terms of Reagan my whole outlook changed. I started to realize that the good intentions of the Democrats really did pave the road to hell for the poor. In trying to give a helping hand, we had actually squashed any hope of coming out of poverty. Welfare, despite reforms, is still a generational cycle of poverty that cannot seem to be broken. I started to realize that the overburden of taxes wasn't just something we had to accept. That we could fight for change in the tax codes and stop the billions of dollars of fraud that overruns the beaucracy of our government. I realized that people deserved to keep more of the money they worked so hard for and that they could do a better job of using that money to help the poor than the government ever did. Which is why, I suppose, that more people gave more to charity during the Reagan years than ever before. But even Reagan couldn't fight the bloat that is government and it continues to be the growing blob that it is and both parties can be to blame for that.

Anyone who reads this blog knows it was also then that I became concerned about what abortion was doing to my generation of women. Reagan spoke out against abortion when it was an issue that even Republicans wished would go away. It would have been easy to stay quiet on such a controversial issue, but he didn't. That impressed me and made me look at this issue more closely. Which in many ways changed the course of my life. I started to focus on others instead of myself. I decided to be a mother instead of an actress. Everything that is good and wonderful in my life came from that decision. My family, my best friends, and my faith.

10 years after Reagan was sworn in, the Soviet Union was dissolved and Russia would begin applying for membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. No one dreamed that would happen except maybe Reagan. And that's why we loved him. He believed in what we desired, but thought impossible, and he made it happen.

Do not go gentle into that good night.

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Open Thread.

I just beg those whose screen names begin with a "j" to please keep it to 2 paragraphs...;-)

The real war.

Not just hollywood's sissified version of it. Click on "watch." via Going Down Range.

Only Bin Laden..

could imagine "a truce" that included attacking the United States again.

Read the transcript of Bin Laden's tape at that link.

I thought these interesting excerpts:

"To go back to where I started, I say that the results of the poll satisfy sane people and that Bush's objection to them is false."

Like he would know anything about being sane.

In fact, Iraq has become a point of attraction and recruitment of qualified resources.

Now...where have we heard that before??

You can always count on...

Helen Thomas parroting the Kos talking points (or questions).

Michelle Malkin asks the question that I keep wondering:

Will Bush-deranged journalists, so-called, like Thomas ever acknowledge the existence of Saddam's terror training camps?

The Weekly Standard has more on that story. via Michelle.

Blogger power.

Uncovering media bias, taking down a partisan newsman, revealing false photographs, and showing the world what is really going on in Iraq are just a few examples of the blogger power.

Now, we on the right, have an opportunity to change the Republican party in the direction that WE want it to go.

Shadegg. Let's make it happen.

Update: Michelle has a roundup of blogger reaction to a conference call with Shadegg today.

Gitmo works?

Malkin has this:

Here's a very interesting story from Reuters: "Guantanamo prisoners tied to London bomb probe." Excerpt:
GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE, Cuba (Reuters) - Prisoners at the Guantanamo base in Cuba provided important information in connection with last summer's London transit bombings that the United States shared with authorities in the United Kingdom, the general in charge of the prison said.

I thought those prisoners were just innocents unfairly accused and imprisoned.

Someone alert Kos.

Oh, and then there is this:

There is one worrisome detail at the end of the Reuters piece. Army Maj. Gen. Jay Hood noted "that the Guantanamo prisoners learned about the London bombings shortly after they occurred, probably from visiting lawyers who are challenging their detention in the U.S. courts.


My love affair...

with John McCain may be over.

Go ahead. Say I told ya so.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006


Body care and grooming.

h/t BigDog.

60 Minutes With Murtha and Me

This is a MUST READ. Trust me on this. Greyhawk at Mudville on "60 minutes" with Murtha.


A hit.

As dave pointed out in the comments in the post below;

ABC News has learned that Pakistani officials now believe that al Qaeda's master bomb maker and chemical weapons expert was one of the men killed in last week's U.S. missile attack in eastern Pakistan.

I did read this earlier and I didn't post it because it seems we are doing these kinds of things almost daily. I read about raids and such from the milblogs and I know what a fantastic job our boys are doing. Maybe it is a good idea to post regularly on everything I hear and read about our soldiers winning this war on terror. Maybe some of my commenters ( and you know who you are) would appreciate their sacrifice a bit more.

Today's SCOTUS decision in....

Ayotte. Here's the money quote for me:

"States unquestionably have the right to require parental involvement when a minor considers terminating her pregnancy..."

Whew. That only took 33 yrs.

Meanwhile I guess we just say "we're sorry" to the walking wounded.

Backtracking on race. Should that be necessary?

First we have Mayor Nagin of New Orleans saying that New Orleans would be "chocolate" again and then backtracking and spinning that he really meant "a delicious drink" when you mix dark chocolate and white milk.

Then, speaking to a black audience, Hillary compared Congress to a plantation. One of the black men behind the podium where Hillary spoke, was on Hannity and Colmes last night. (I can't remember his name) He is a former black panther and a NYC council member. He wasn't too happy about the remark either. And finally you have Elaine Kamarck, an advisor on the Gore 2000 campaign, sort of making things worse by saying, "Plantations were terrible places where people were forced to do various jobs. But at least they were doing a job."

Aren't we getting a little ridiculous here? First of all, we should all stop using slavery and Hitler as the measure of all that we perceive to be evil. We are all guilty of it, Republican and Democrat. But it really is an insult to what people suffered during slavery and the Holocaust. Unless something is ACTUALLY about slavery (which does still continue in the world today) or about the wholesale killing of a people because of who they are, then we should not be using these analogies.

That being said, must we also watch everything we say? (such as Nagin's chocolate remark) Yes, I thought it a bit weird, but I wasn't offended as a non-chocolate person. It should be fine, in public discourse, to discuss issues of race, to be honest about the goals of our agenda. If it is important to Nagin to re-populate New Orleans with blacks, then he has a right to say that. Why can't we say what we mean? And if Hillary makes an inappropriate analogy, so what? Let's not be so sensitive to every little thing people say regarding race.

We will never be able to have a good open discussion about race if we feel we can't say certain things.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006


hears from someone who reminds us of bravery and courage. And he lets Teddy Roosevelt remind us why.

Mudville also has America's Son, (pictured here) a soldier from Iraq with this observation:

Today, I saw some fruits of our labors here. As I was on a patrol with the Iraqi army, I saw large groups of children walking to school. Backpacks, books, and smiles. It was a real joy. I saw an American soldier help a young girl fix her shoe which had broke sometime on her way to school; 550 cord and duct tape will fix absolutely anything! It was moving. I have said all along that among other things, this is a generational war we are fighting. These young children will one day lead this country. Every simple gesture, such as what I witnessed today, will be a memory tomorrow that will eventually lead to our long-term success in this country. It has without a doubt been a collective effort, but I gained a real sense of personal satisfaction by what I witnessed today, and I hope and pray that tomorrow will bring the same.

Alito vote delayed.

The Washington Post has this:

Democrats, anticipating that Alito ultimately will be confirmed, are trying to deny the White House that victory as long as possible, particularly in the days before the State of the Union address President Bush is to deliver Jan. 31. Although Senate rules do not enable them to defer the confirmation vote until after the speech, Democratic senators would like to reduce the victory period immediately before the speech, one of the broadest public stages the president commands each year.

As Jeff at Protein Wisdom points out:

Baldly partisan, revoltingly petty, personally unfair to Judge Alito and his family, and instituted—admittedly—for no other reason than to punish the GOP for its “victory” in nominating a qualified (and unanimously approved by the ABA ) SCOTUS replacement justice by shortening the period in which the story will receive extensive media play in advance of the State of the Union Address.

But hey, what do you expect? It's all about hurting Bush. That is their entire platform. Seriously.

Assisted Suicide Ruling.

WASHINSTON-The U.S. Supreme Court, with Chief Justice John Roberts dissenting, upheld Oregon's one-of-a-kind physician-assisted suicide law Tuesday, rejecting a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die. The 1997 Oregon law used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people trumped federal authority to regulate doctors.

In other words, the state gets to decide regarding assisted suicide over the federal regulating medicines that Doctors give to assist in that suicide.

Sometimes I can't believe what I type. Doctors helping people to commit suicide. *shakes head in amazement*

Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented. Scalia, writing the dissent, said that federal officials have the power to regulate the doling out of medicine.
"If the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death," he wrote.

The media has falsely presented this as the Bush administration trying to overrule the Oregan law. Not true, as Wesley J. Smith pointed out here:

Not only did the Bush administration not ask the federal appeals court to
overturn the Oregon law, it has never asked any court anywhere to strike down
Oregon's law. Indeed, even if Ashcroft prevails in the case, doctors could still
assist patient suicides under state law. Moreover, if doctors prescribed drugs
to cause death not covered by the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), they would
face no federal administrative sanction. So if the case isn't the legality of
assisted suicide in Oregon, what is it about? No, not "states' rights" as the
media and assisted-suicide advocates claim, but something we don't often hear
much about — "federal rights" — specifically the ability of the United States
government to enforce a uniform and nationally consistent standard governing the
legitimate medical use of narcotics regulated under the CSA.

In scrolling through the statistics on the Oregon law I found this one the most interesting, Of the most frequently mentioned end-of-life concerns of the patients who used PAS during 2004, the number one reason was "a decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable." (92%)

I would have thought it would be physical pain. But it wasn't. Should we say to people that feel they can no longer participate in activities they enjoy that that is enough? Go ahead and die. Heaven forbid we do something to make your life enjoyable. Easier to just throw some drugs at you for you to overdose on.


Even if this particular case wasn't about the specific legality of PAS, it still brings us to that painful subject. As I have said before, I volunteered at a nursing home many years ago and visited my grandma and great aunt in one as well. Sickness is not enjoyable, but I have to wonder that if people who are terminally ill really felt loved and cared for by those with them, would they want to leave them sooner rather than later?

Turn off the machines, make them as comfortable as possible and let nature take it's course. But most them. Care for them. Let them feel that they mattered in this world. Don't push them out the door because they don't feel they matter anymore.

What does it say about us as a society if we keep making laws that rid us of "burdens?"

Rant Digest.

Read about Al Gore's rant yesterday (if your interested) here. And about Hillary's rant yesterday here.

To save you time I will give the reader's digest version:

Gore's rant-"The President is a criminal."

Hillary's rant- "The Democrats are the slaves of the Republicans." (gotta keep the black vote on board, ya know)

Monday, January 16, 2006

In the personal section.

I never watch TV in the evenings. Between sports practices, church activites, cooking supper, cleaning up supper, helping with homework and bedtime rituals, I couldn't watch TV if I wanted to. Usually during the day when I must do mindless chores such washing and folding, ironing clothes, or cleaning the kitchen, or cooking early, I watch TV. If I can't find anything interesting I usually watch comedy central.

But now I have discovered that Spike TV shows re-runs of the original CSI set in Las Vegas. I LOVE THIS SHOW. Love it. Love it. All the men are totally hot. But it could be the smart stuff that gets me all jingly jangly instead of the actual looks.

I do love the smarts.

I love the females too though. I love their reactions to the wierdness of people who commit crimes. Today they had a CSI marathon on Spike, so I fired up the washing machine and watched for hours. Got the whole week's laundry done too.

Nagin says God is mad at us.

Which, as NRO points out, sounds a bit like Pat Robertson. Do you think he will get as much grief about it from the media and the left?

yeah, me neither.

Oh, and Nagin says,"It's time for us to rebuild New Orleans _ the one that should be a chocolate New Orleans."

Chocolate? Chocolate???

My small tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

I will probably repost this every year on this day, but this was from Dr. Martin Luther King Day last year.

As you can see I have a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. under my blog name. I think I chose it because I feel that there should be something in every one's life that they feel passionate about. Something bigger than ourselves.

Before blogging I was an avid writer of letter to the editors of newspaper and magazines. I also had an occasional article. The following was published in the Fort Worth Star Telegram in January of 1994. I repeat it here in honor of Dr. King.

In 1971 I was in the fifth grade in Jackson, Mississippi. Busing had just begun in order to help integrate the schools and I was bused to a formerly all-black elementary school across town. My best friend was a little girl named Sondra. To say we were different would be an understatement. I was white; she was black. I was well off; she was poor. She had seen a lot of abuse in her short life; I had seen none. But I loved her with a fierceness that only 10 year girls know.

One day, another little black girl whom I didn't know stabbed me with a pencil in the hallway. I told Sondra, and she wasted no time finding that girl on the playground. The girl told Sondra that she didn't like me or my blond hair and that I must think I was really something. I remember Sondra saying, "No, no, she's not like that. She doesn't care if we're n*ggers." I grew up in a time when that word was used freely and often to describe blacks, but I remember being shocked that Sondra would describe herself that way. I've always had a lot of self confidence. But Sondra was the strongest person I knew. It made me feel bad that she used that word.

Like most little girls, Sondra and I talked on the phone for hours, but we were never allowed to play at each other's house. It just wasn't done. It is sad to think that my best friend in the fifth grade never "slept over," never played with my dolls, never played dress up with me. We accepted it though. It was just the way things were.

Sondra and I went to different schools after that year, and I didn't see her again until four years later, when my 9th grade basketball team played her team. We were sitting across the gym from each other before the game. I heard someone scream out my name. I looked up and screamed her name, and we ran across the gym and hugged and danced around as only 14 year old girls can do. I'll bet we were quite a sight in the middle of the gym floor. Sondra had grown about a foot, and here I was, this little bitty blonde thing being hugged to death by this tall, tough-looking black girl. I don't remember who won the game, but we grinned at each other the whole time. We got caught up on each other after the game, talking for an hour making our parents wait for us. But in 9th grade your world revolves around your school and friends. We exchanged numbers but we never talked again.

I often wonder what happened to Sondra. I wonder if she pulled herself out of poverty. What kind of life did she make for herself? But, most of all, I wonder if she has a little girl like mine, a little girl who would never think twice about asking another little girl of a different color over to her house to play with her dolls or play dress up.

If that isn't a little of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream come true, I don't know what is.

Sunday, January 15, 2006

An appeal from Center-Right Bloggers.

We are bloggers with boatloads of opinions, and none of us come close to agreeing with any other one of us all of the time. But we do agree on this: The new leadership in the House of Representatives needs to be thoroughly and transparently free of the taint of the Jack Abramoff scandals, and beyond that, of undue influence of K Street.

We are not naive about lobbying, and we know it can and has in fact advanced crucial issues and has often served to inform rather than simply influence Members.

But we are certain that the public is disgusted with excess and with privilege. We hope the Hastert-Dreier effort leads to sweeping reforms including the end of subsidized travel and other obvious influence operations. Just as importantly, we call for major changes to increase openness, transparency and accountability in Congressional operations and in the appropriations process.

As for the Republican leadership elections, we hope to see more candidates who will support these goals, and we therefore welcome the entry of Congressman John Shadegg to the race for Majority Leader. We hope every Congressman who is committed to ethical and transparent conduct supports a reform agenda and a reform candidate. And we hope all would-be members of the leadership make themselves available to new media to answer questions now and on a regular basis in the future.

N.Z. Bear, The Truth Laid Bear Hugh Hewitt, Glenn Reynolds, Kevin Aylward, Wizbang! La Shawn Barber, La Shawn Barber’s Corner
Lorie Byrd, Polipundit Jeff Goldstein, Protein Wisdom Stephen Green, Vodkapundit John Hawkins, Right Wing News John Hinderaker, Power Line Jon Henke / McQ / Dale Franks, QandO James Joyner, Outside The Beltway Mike Krempasky, Michelle Malkin, Ed Morrissey, Captain’s Quarters Scott Ott, Scrappleface John Donovan / Bill Tuttle, Castle Argghhh!!! Kathy, Rightwingsparkle

Bloggers who support this statement can sign on here at Truth Laid Bear.


They want to have a conference to question the evidence that the Nazis killed Jews during World War II.

It's like your drunken redneck uncle spouting politics at Thanksgiving. It's just annoying until he pulls out his revolver. via LGF

(pic via Captain's Quarters h/t dave)

The Bully.

I'm a lover, not a fighter. I also hate war. So why do I support war? I think a schoolyard analogy might help. It keeps it simple.

Clinton represents America (not to blame him, I don't, but he was President during my examples) At the end Bush represents America. The Bully represents the terrorists.

Clinton: *walking peacefully along the schoolyard*

Bully: *comes up and knocks Clinton down*(The 1993 WTC bombing)

Clinton: "Hey! leave me alone or I will hurt you." (The cruise missile strikes of 'Operation Infinite Reach.')

Bully: *slaps Clinton hard* (The 1996 Kohbar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia)

Bully: *knocks Clinton down with a hard punch that bloodies and breaks his nose. *(The 1998 U. S. Embassy bombings in East Africa.)

Clinton: *moaning*

Bully: *Kicking Clinton as he lay bleeding* (2000 Yemen attack on the U.S.S. Cole) '

Bully: *leaning over Clinton* "It aint over buddy, I'm going to come back and find you and then you are either going to be dead or wish you were dead."


Bully: "Who the hell are you?"

Bush: "Who wants to know?"

Bully: * Beats the living crap out of Bush*(9-11)

The War: *Bush beating the crap out of the Bully*

One thing we know about bullies, if you don't fight back, they just keep beating you up.