Monday, February 27, 2006
Big news from the world of psychiatry: When you kill your child you are likely to become bummed out, or depressed as we say in Greentown.
A study published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry has found that women who have abortions are more likely to suffer psychological problems than those who don't.
"Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviors and substance use disorders," reports David Fergusson, a scientist at New Zealand's Christchurch School of Medicine & Health Science.
See, to me this is like a study that would find that when people have a leg amputated... they walk with a limp.
Some would place this malady at the feet of pro-lifers whose efforts to save fetuses might cause these women pause. But I thinnk it goes back to something as basic as say... maternal instinct? The guilt these ladies feel is born of a conscience that often rears its head when we commit an ugly act.
For me a more interesting study would be follow these same women and see if the ones who subsequently have a religious experience, repent and reject this form of birth control... see if they have better mental health.
Justice Antonin Scalia spoke at the National Wild Turkey Foundation annual convention and said:
"The attitude of people associating guns with nothing but crime, that is what has to be changed," Scalia told the audience of about 2,000.
"I grew up at a time when people were not afraid of people with firearms," said Scalia, noting that as a youth in New York City he was part of a rifle team at the military school he attended.
That's fine Judge, but you might have mentioned that the founding fathers were not all that interested in shooting for sport. They understood that a well-armed society was a free society... free from tyrants both foreign and domestic.
We don't talk about it much in this country, but there may come a day when our freedom will depend upon another American Revolution. The founding fathers understood this better than we do today.
The Federal Government has, step by step, taken from the states the powers guaranteed to them by the 10th amendment. The Judicial Branch, the Congress, and the Executive Branch have all shown an incredible hunger for power and centralized authority.
You see, the second amendment is not about sportsmen. It's not just about maintaining a militia because that could be accomplished without our right to keep and bear arms. To understand the thinking behind this amendment, all you have to do is ask the question, "Why would the government choose to make a law that infringes on a law abiding citizen's right to own a gun?" Hmm?
I believe the founding fathers knew that freedom was fragile and feared this very thing. Perhaps they thought their children or their children's children might one day have to talk a little treason in order to secure their liberty. Is it that hard to imagine? It was none other than Thomas Jefferson who suggested that an occasional revolution was good for democracy.
So the next time the Supreme Court strikes down a state law because they've invented another clause in their "living constitution..."
...the next time Congress raises your taxes so that they can purchase a few votes... support a foreign country that hates us... or fund the healthcare and education of illegal aliens...
...the next time the ATF assassinates an innocent women with her baby in her arms...
Remember that the spirit of King George is alive and well and now operates in Washington. So be a good citizen. Write to your congressman... and buy a gun. I suggest you do it before the Supreme Court invents a reason to outlaw them.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
McCain, considered a maverick Republican for opinions often differing from many GOP lawmakers, has just kicked off a national campaign promoting his new legislation co-authored with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
Their bi-partisan proposal would allow illegal aliens to stay in the U.S. legally as ''guest workers," having the opportunity to earn U.S. citizenship.
Whenever I see a Republican cozying up to a national joke and embarrassment like Teddy Kennedy, the red flags appear instantly and I immediately wonder why anyone, let alone a Republican that seeks national office, would pursue such an association. I can only assume that McCain has spent a little too much time with Hollywood types who are old enough to remember when the Kennedy name still held its ridiculously unwarranted mystique. Poor clueless John.
Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado evidently failed to receive the memo which explained how our government had surrendered to Mexico (pronounced me-hee-ko) and wants to debate McCain on this issue. He states:
Your (McCain's and Teddy's) plan has its fans among big business. They want to continue reaping profits from cheap, low-skill labor while passing on social service costs of that labor to the taxpayer. They cloak their desire for open borders in their demand for one more amnesty, knowing full well that rewarding illegal behavior merely encourages more of the same.
Tancredo also has said:
It will not only encourage illegal immigration, but it will tell every single person who has done it the right way, who has waited in line, who has paid the fees, who has hired the lawyers, who has spent five or ten years trying to coming in, it's telling them they're nothing but suckers.
Well they are suckers, Tom. They've been reading too many books about America that were written back when we were a nation that respected laws.
As our country rapidly morphs into something very different from what we grew up in, and as our culture takes on an identity grounded in nothing, let's all give credit where credit is due... to those undaunted multiculturalist liberals and their leished fools like John McCain, who see nothing all that special about this country and recognize no advantage in preserving its unique character... that they never really liked anyway.
Friday, February 24, 2006
From the CEO of Dubai Ports World:
"The reaction in the United States has occurred in no other country in the world," the company's chief operating officer, Ted Bilkey, said in a statement. "We need to understand the concerns of the people in the U.S. who are worried about this transaction and make sure that they are addressed to the benefit of all parties. Security is everybody's business."
Now this Arab, Ted Bilkey, evidently is not the kind of Arab you've seen on TV lately. Seriously, I can't imagine how this corporation could be more reasonable and understanding. They are giving us time to check them out, and if they are open and forthcoming this should allay the fears of all but those who are politically motivated.
My understanding is that their government has been an ally in the war on terror. Our naval vessels use their ports and our military aircraft use their airports. True, the government recognized the Taliban prior to 9/11 and two of the hijackers were from this country, but the UAE has since been one of the few friends that we have in the region.
Besides, we are not turning the job of security over to these people. That job will still be in the hands of the United States Government and the people working the docks will still be Americans.
Why spit in the eye of an ally unnecessarily? We shouldn't discriminate against good people just because their name is Achbar, Mahmoud, or Ted.
Thanks to AICS at The Logic Lifeline, I have this by Krauthammer to recommend:
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Yes, I've decided that as a public service I will give one tip to young bachelors each month. (Who better than I?) After all I've been on my own for a long long time and I've learned the ropes, mostly through trial and error. So here is my inaugural tip for bachelors, sure to improve their lives and chances for survival into old age:
Should I vacuum sooner if I can actually see dirt? Yes. But let's say you have Dorito crumbs in front of your La-Z-Boy. Don't vacuum, just pick them up.
You see, many people, mostly neurotic women, make the mistake of vacuuming once (or even twice) a month. My theory is that this only serves to wear out your carpeting... which is very very bad. Also vacuuming may be harmful to your lower back and over-vacuuming is just asking for back trouble... and no one wants that.
What if it's been three months and I still can't see the dirt? Use your best judgement. Vacuuming quarterly is just a handy guideline.
Well that's it! In March I'll have some practical tips on how often you really need to wash your clothes.
South Dakota's state senate voted on Wednesday for an abortion ban aimed at giving the conservative-tilting Supreme Court an opening to overturn rulings granting women the right to the procedure.
Fine. But barring a miracle worked on the heart of Justice Kennedy there are not enough votes on the Supreme Court to strike down Roe. While I believe abortion laws should me made by state legislatures and not by any branch of the federal government... timing is everything on this contentious issue.
Will this "going nowhere" law in South Dakota give ammunition to pro-abortion groups and reinvigorate them? Yes. Will it inspire the "pro-Roe" Justice Stevens to hold off on his retirement for a Democrat or a more liberal Republican president? Well, we can hope not. Scratch that. We can pray not. This is definitely a matter for prayer.
My personal belief is that, with the present members on the Court, an incremental step would have been much more effective and revealed more of the present member's leanings. My guess is that the law will be struck down by a lower federal court and the Supreme Court, at this time, will refuse to hear it.
I'm sure abortion is here to stay in the blue states. But without Roe, laws and attitudes... and hearts... are more free to be changed in the red states. I pray the Lord gives our side the wisdom necessary to get the job done.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Back in the 90's when terrorism reared its ugly head in New York with the World Trade Center bombing and the attempted bombing of the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels, Bill Clinton was on the job collecting information about terrorists. This huge Clinton surveillance scheme was VAAPCON, the Violence Against Abortion Providers Task Force.
Front Page Mag has a story by Lowell Ponte that might strike fear in the hearts of those who shared personal problems or sins with Roman Catholic Cardinal of New York John O’Connor... because Bill was listening.
According to the U.S. Justice Department, VAAPCON “was charged with determining whether there was a nationwide conspiracy to commit acts of violence against reproductive health care providers.” The more than 900 targets of all this surveillance included the Christian Coalition, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Women’s Coalition for Life, Feminists for Life, Americans United for Life, the 600,000-member Concerned Women for America, the National Rifle Association, the American Life League, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, and even then-Roman Catholic Cardinal of New York John O’Connor.
VAAPCON was also designed to help enforce FACE, the Clintons’ 1994 law called the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. FACE is a peculiarly anti-First Amendment law that denies the right to free speech to certain groups but not others. Union protestors could legally block an abortion clinic access with a picket line while carrying signs that read: “Abortion Workers on Strike for Higher Wages! Local 69, AFL-CIO.” But those same protestors could be arrested and imprisoned if their signs read, “Mothers, think twice before aborting your baby.”
“To put VAAPCON in perspective,” wrote investigative reporter Jack Cashill, “imagine the Bush administration targeting the Sierra Club, Robert Kennedy Jr., and Al Gore to deal with the issue of the Unabomber or environmentalist violence in general.”
In fact, such Bush spying might be less outrageous. When the Unabomber was apprehended, authorities found Al Gore’s anti-capitalist book Earth In The Balance by his bedside, heavily underlined. Democratic Congressman Bob Filner of California in one radio interview was unable to distinguish quotes from the Unabomber Manifesto and Gore’s ideological writing.
The entire article is worth your time. Ponte ends by writing:
Until leftist leaders speak out against VAAPCON and the Clintons’ other government surveillance activities aimed mostly at Christian groups, it is hard to take seriously their alarmist statements about today’s purportedly excessive government monitoring of international telephone calls that include Islamofascist terrorists.
On 9/11 the civilized, educated Muslim world sat silent, probably enjoying just a bit the West being hit so brutally. But now they are the ones under the gun in the Middle East where government by mob is becoming the law of the day and the list of extremist Muslim restrictions on free speech increases each day. Journalists are facing trial in a time where holding a second opinion might lead to their death. Any influence reasonable Muslims had in this region is quickly being ceded to those who will gladly embrace a religious police-state.
Our country has watched this kind of thing before and delayed acting until the cost of action was tragically high. The secular Fascism of Hitler grew out of control and was the cause of enormous death and suffering. In the Middle East the juggernaut of Religious Fascism threatens to do the same.
Just as during the Cold War, today Liberals love to dream that evil can be thwarted with the right words and that mankind can rise above its darker, ugly side with just the right coaxing. But it's the hawkish, conservative leaders that lead us through the storms... and all those brave young men... and women.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
So globalization has surfaced in the form of Dubai Ports World which is buying the British company (Peninsular and Oriental) which runs many big US ports. DPW has been described as a state-owned (U.A.E.) firm run like a private corporation. From what I've read this private transaction between DPW and P&O would leave Americans and Brits working and managing the ports in question with the American government in charge of security.
More importantly for me, with George Bush's record on fighting terrorism I trust his administration to make the right call here.
Politically this transaction is a loser for whoever supports it. You could explain and reassure till you're blue in the face and it is still going to be used as a political football. As soon as I heard the Democrats climb onto this so-called "security issue" I knew the games had begun. The Dems are aching to look tough on a security issue... any security issue... and since reality is not an important element of their rhetoric this port situation will do just fine. Republicans in Congress have seen the writing on the wall and are following suit.
So stick a fork in it.
Monday, February 20, 2006
I'm not a historian, (or an historian as we'd say in Greentown) but these are my FAVORITES:
1) George Washington... He had bad teeth which is probably why he never smiled in his pictures. Great leader... a man of prayer... Just what we needed at the time.
2) Ronald Reagan... Best president of the 20th century. Saved us from a second term with Jimmy Carter... made the word "Conservative" respectable again and forever linked it with common sense and a strong defense... saved the economy with his tax cuts... and he won the Cold War.
3) Andrew Jackson... He married Susan Hayward in "The President's Lady" and teamed up with Yul Brynner in "The Buccaneer" (and he looked a lot like Moses who coincidentally also starred with Yul Brynner in the Ten Commandments)
The real Jackson was a warrior and a man's man... and he stood up to the Supreme Court when he said, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" (Dang! I love this guy!)
Abraham Lincoln... He freed the slaves and led the nation through its darkest hours... and was so kind when he shared his apple with Shirley Temple in "The Littlest Rebel."
5) Theodore Roosevelt... He was a great leader and a great and colorful (and hugely popular) 20th century president... though I always thought he looked Japanese in those glasses in the old news reels. But whenever I hear his name I think of "Arsenic and Old Lace." Charge!
George "W" Bush... Not a true conservative, but he does seem to get the big issues right. And he defeated, and thus saved us from, two of the poorest war-time candidates for the presidency that have ever stood behind a lectern.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt... Father of the welfare state. At Yalta he gave away half of Europe to Stalin, which paved the way for so much suffering. He is mistakenly given credit for leading us out of the Great Depression when actually that was accomplished by pilots from Japan.
John Kennedy... Twiddled his fingers as the Berlin Wall went up... ("Ich bin ein Berliner..." Yeah right)... Failed to support the freedom fighters in "The Bay of Pigs" slaughter... Then when his past weakness precipitated the missile crisis... and his spine finally stiffened...he almost stumbled into World War III.
James Earl Carter... America didn't know what malaise was until Carter. Panama Canal give-away... Hostages in Iran... Double-digit interest rates and double-digit inflation... High taxes... and not a clue... Gloom. I'm sure there is more but I've no doubt blocked it out.
Bill Clinton... And just where do you begin with this national embarrassment?
Note: All the movies listed above are great movies which you must see... my favorite being "The President's Lady."
Peter Heck, whose web site I highly recommend you bookmark, has an interesting piece that discusses the threat that a nuclear Iran poses for our hemisphere, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons into Venezuela and Cuba, pronounced "koo' ba." You can find Mr Heck's post here:
And, if you check out the featured audio you can listen to his radio show. Enjoy!
Yes the Muslims are a sensitive lot. Much has been said recently about how the press wishes to avoid hurt feelings by not publishing the infamous cartoons that caused the "cartoon riots," and that precipitated the death threats made by these poor sensitive Muslims. These are the same simple, sensitive folk that celebrated 9/11 and then bought videos of the event so they could re-live that day. Yes, this magic, colorful religion of suicide bombings, gang rapes, and beheadings has produced some of the most sensitive people on the planet.
But when these meek, gentle people possess nuclear weapons and turn Tel Aviv into a cinder, will it hurt their feelings if we retaliate? If we level Tehran will it cast a gloom over the Muslim world? Have we sufficient stockpiles of anti-depressants and mood elevators to treat so many sensitive people who are culturally prone to hurt feelings and being downcast?
Some would say that loving your neighbor and blessing those that persecute you... and turning the other cheek... is meant to be applied on a personal level and has no bearing on the actions of governments in their self-defense. But was Jesus aware of how sensitive these people are?
Friday, February 17, 2006
...then Abou says to Mahmoud, "So how many virgins does it take to have a respectable Jihad?"
Yes, who hasn't had a good belly-laugh at this classic punch line. But Islam isn't just light-hearted fun. No, lately it has shined a light on the inconsistencies of the liberal's notion of free speech.
Liberals love free speech. Well, they love the free speech that they love. They love it when it involves the hate-filled demonstrations against the Bush Administration, but not when it is what they call hate-speech on a college campus. They loved the "P_ss Christ," but they don't publish the Danish Mohammed cartoons, even though a major news story of the day revolves around these drawings.
That shy and demure little wisp of a woman, Ann Coulter has a new article which the Left would no doubt call hate speech. She calls the enemies of the civilized world derogatory names. For Ann this is an uncharacteristic departure into the land of sarcasm and political incorrectness. Perhaps it was something she ate.
Nonetheless, I will not be a party to the publicizing or circulating of this ribald, vulgar, and insensitive piece. You can find it here: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/anncoulter/2006/02/15/186732.html
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
I may die of old age before my small town sees its first mosque. Forgive me, but that would suit me just fine. I'm already ticked off that my bank machine requires an extra keystroke to choose between English and Spanish. I put money into a tax system that pays billions in healthcare and education costs for illegal aliens so that I can save 15 cents on the piece of fruit I buy at the grocery.
And I've got a snippet of reality for my congressman... There are groups of individuals that are coming to this country not to immigrate, but rather to colonize this land. There are cultures colonizing our country that are incompatible with our culture. Do you think maybe we should apply the brakes to immigration until we figure out where Europe went wrong?
My questionaire for immigrants...
1) Can you speak English?
2) Is your religion historically peaceful?
3) Do you have a college degree or a marketable skill?
That's a start... and by the way the answer to all the above would have to be in the affirmative to qualify for immigration. If a person comes to this country they should have something to offer this country. Something positive.
This is important because thousands of cars have been torched in France and Australia. It's important because in Sweden and Norway, once peaceful societies, there is an epidemic of savage rapes and violence commited by third world youths whose only contributions are births and a drain on the welfare system. It's important because Europeans are fleeing European cities.
In Detroit hundreds of thousands of Muslim immigrants refuse to speak English... nor do they embrace America’s culture and separate from their former countries and cultures. In the southwest millions of legal and illegal immigrants refuse to learn and speak English, expecting every tranactional experience to be translated into their language.
There is not even selective immigration allowed in China, Russia, India, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and most other countries for that matter. Are they suffering race riots, car burnings, a language crisis, and other such problems? No, these problems are reserved for the sophisticated, liberal countries of the West.
People who come to America should come because they want to be Americans. We speak and conduct business in English. We love our country and our culture.
I've got nephews and nieces. I want them to be able to raise their children in the same culture that I was raised in. I don't want their future sacrificed on the altar of multiculturalism.
Look at Europe. Look around America. Multiculturalism doesn't work. It's time to deal with that fact.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Al Gore Makes Friends
Last Sunday Al Gore traveled to a foreign – and hostile – country to denounce his commander-in-chief who is fighting a War on Terror initiated by citizens and expatriates of that nation, Saudi Arabia. In a surprise moment of solidarity the former Vice President announced that he would be legally changing his name to Al Jazeera Gore in honor of the Arabic language television network, and terrorist sympathizing, Al Jazeera. Mr Gore stated, "I've never met Al Jazeera, but he and I obviously have a lot in common."
Monday, February 13, 2006
The Leftist Democrat's Democrat
In every organization there is a person who speaks and conducts himself as most everyone in that organization would... if only they were honest or had the guts. I think for the Democrat Base that man is former Attorney General Ramsey Clark.
Clark served in the Justice Department for the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations and was national president of the Federal Bar Association in 1964–65.
Clark is the Loony Left personified. His latest client, Saddam Hussein, is currently benefiting from Clark's legal skills. By serving America's enemies Clark embodies the spirit of the Left... that spirit that scoffs at honor and allegiance... that spirit that treats this country as a suspect... that spirit that sees nothing all that special about the United States.
You're a loon, Ramsey. But you do not engage in subterfuge... so you're an honest loon. You're more honest than Oily-Al Gore who trashes America in the homeland of the 9-11 terrorists. You're more honest than the New York Times who publishes its country's counter-terrorism tools, making them less effective and us less safe. You're more honest than all those who say they support the troops, while encouraging their enemies.
Senator Ted Kennedy expressed outrage that Vice President Dick Cheney waited 24 hours before reporting the hunting accident which injured Austin Lawyer Harry Whittington.
The Massachusetts Senator, speaking from his home on Sunday, suggested that the Vice President was trying to avoid taking responsibility for the shooting. He added, "Cheney will probably sober up on Monday, put on a neck brace, and claim that he was in shock."
Saturday, February 11, 2006
In case you missed it, The Weekly Standard had an article about a Dutch man named De Bruijn and his bisexual wife who were part of a wedding ceremony which brought another bisexual woman into their marriage.
Stanley Kurtz writes in the WS:
More important, the De Bruijn wedding reveals a heretofore hidden dimension of the gay marriage phenomenon. The De Bruijns' triple marriage is a bisexual marriage. And, increasingly, bisexuality is emerging as a reason why legalized gay marriage is likely to result in legalized group marriage. If every sexual orientation has a right to construct its own form of marriage, then more changes are surely due. For what gay marriage is to homosexuality, group marriage is to bisexuality. The De Bruijn trio is the tip-off to the fact that a connection between bisexuality and the drive for multipartner marriage has been developing for some time.
Peter Heck's web site (which I highly recommend you bookmark) was the first site I saw that explored the highly bizarre possibilities that could arise from adjusting the traditional meaning of marriage. What I first thought was simply Mr Heck's hyperbole may instead prove to be prophetic.
The problem with a slippery slope is not the fall, but the momentum that quickly gathers.
Poor old Jimmy. After the nasty little spectacle he made at Mrs King's funeral, the Washinton Times turned up evidence that he practiced domestic surveillance himself.
Former President Jimmy Carter, who publicly rebuked President Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program this week during the funeral of Coretta Scott King and at a campaign event, used similar surveillance against suspected spies.
...in 1977, Mr. Carter and his attorney general, Griffin B. Bell, authorized warrantless electronic surveillance used in the conviction of two men for spying on behalf of Vietnam. The men, Truong Dinh Hung and Ronald Louis Humphrey, challenged their espionage convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which unanimously ruled that the warrantless searches did not violate the men's rights.
Mr Carter, who has suffered with chronic malaise since the 70's should not... I repeat, should not be confronted by the mainstream media with this inconsistency.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Jancan tells a story about a 17 year-old girl in Iran who, while defending herself and her niece from rapists, inadvertently killed one of the attackers. The girl is to be hanged for defending herself.
I have emailed the details to Code Pink and NOW among other woman's groups concerned with woman's rights. But it seems the only rights they're worried about is the right to murder a child in the womb and bringing about the collapse of our society by supporting terrorist rights in this country.
...This is what happens everyday in the muslim world according to islamic law a woman's testimony is only worth half that of a mans. This is sharia and what we'll all be ruled by if the islamic community has their way. Why aren't women everywhere speaking out for this victim of true oppression?
Most scary to me is that this travesty is not the work of some rogue terrorist group, but rather by a court in a supposed civilized country. These evil people need to be watched and exposed.
The liberal women's groups reveal their true nature and sentiments when they fail to support every effort to keep the misogynistic Islamic world in check.
Full story here: http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5184
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Thursday on Good Morning America, Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean attacked the President saying, "All we ask is that we not turn into a country like Iran where the President can do anything he wants."
My impression is that Mr Bush is monitoring overseas phone calls from terrorists because he is determined to keep us from turning into a country like Iran. And as long as we keep a conservative butt-kicking Republican in the White House, as opposed to an appeasing cut-and-run Wussocrat, we will remain safe and free.
Howard Dean is perhaps the finest thing that has ever happened to the Republican Party.
We've heard so much lately about the Republican's Culture of Corruption, but it turns out that the Democrat leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, has been paid off on occasion by none other than lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Over a three year period Harry received $68,000 in donations from Jack and his clients and the payments came in concert with actions by Harry that were helpful and beneficial to... Jack and his clients. Read the story here: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/09/D8FLR3380.html
The Dems just can't catch a break.
What you see here took me about 3 hours to produce, but involved less than 30 minutes actual hands-on work. There is a reason why people have been baking bread for centuries... it's easy, it's practically fool proof, and its smells even better than it tastes.
That said, not many men bake bread... and brings us to the major reason why I never married. Yes, it's my cooking. The women I dated were always intimidated by my cooking... my potato salad, my lima beans in cheese sauce, my various hot dishes and sides. Why, even my green beans made many feel inadequate. I took no pleasure in shaming these women. But I had to be me.
Oh sure, I'm proud of my cooking. But late at night you can't cuddle up to a casserole.
Symmetry is such good entertainment. It seems the homosexual-hating Reverend Fred Phelps from Kansas who demonstrates at funerals... is a Democrat.
He supported the 1988 presidential bid of Al Gore, whose campaign used Phelps’ family office space. Son Fred Phelps Jr., who had hosted a fundraiser for Gore, attended the 1993 Clinton-Gore inaugural. In 1990, 1994, and 1998 Phelps ran for the Democratic nomination for governor of Kansas, getting 15 percent of the primary vote in his last try. In 1992, he ran for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate, getting nearly 31 percent of the primary vote. He also ran for mayor of Topeka in 1997.
He... has been appreciative to Fidel Castro.
So any of you who thought the political demonstrations at the Wellstone and King funerals was an anomaly... think again. Among Democrats funerals are political. It's tradition.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Coretta Scott King was just a sick old woman a week ago, but now that she is dead she has become a weapon in the hands of the Leftists and the Democrats. Reminiscent of Senator Paul Wellstone's funeral, when this relatively unknown dead Minnesota Senator was used to attack Republicans, Mrs. King's funeral proved to be a vehicle to embarrass and chide President Bush who had come to pay his respects to the dead woman and her family.
Former President Jimmy Carter, practically dead, used the funeral of the dead Civil Rights widow to scold the President about the NSA wiretaps and all those dead black people in New Orleans.
Reverend Joseph Lowery, certainly no stiff, but still very effective, blasted the president for the dead killed by "smart bombs" and the fact that no WMD were found.
With so many left-wing leaders growing old, Republicans must despair wondering which dead Democrat will be the next to rise up and attack them.
Whether it's on the Judiciary Committee or at funerals, it's the Democrats who best reflect the manners and polite sophistication of this country's "Jerry Springer" culture.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
A Russian Astronomer from St Petersberg (Russia, not Florida) is predicting a mini Ice Age to occur in the middle of this century. (Does Al know?) Khabibullo Abdusamatov, pronounced Khabibullo Abdusamatov, says that the coldest period will occur 15 to 20 years after a major solar output decline between 2035 and 2045... so there's plenty of time to pick up those cross-country skis.
Dramatic changes in the earth's surface temperatures are an ordinary phenomenon, not an anomaly, he said, and result from variations in the sun's energy output and ultraviolet radiation... well, it's caused by that and your SUV.
By the way, this story is from UPI... (evidently someone didn't get the memo.)
It goes on:
The Northern Hemisphere's most recent cool-down period occurred between 1645 and 1705. The resulting period, known as the Little Ice Age, left canals in the Netherlands frozen solid and forced people in Greenland to abandon their houses to glaciers, the scientist said.
It sounds as if the Canadians may be coming here and we'll be putting them up in our spare rooms. (I'll take Anne Murray... she can sing me a love song... and rock me in her arms... etc.)
I know this is just one man's opinion, but to me it makes more since to me than Al Gore and all the other nuts that hate Capitalism.
Monday, February 06, 2006
While reading The Logic Lifeline I found this by Neil Boortz:
1) Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City. No Muslim outrage.
2) Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No Muslim outrage.
3) Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.
4) Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No Muslim outrage.
5) Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.
6) A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India. Kills six. No Muslim outrage.
7) Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage.
8) Let's go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics. No Muslim outrage.
9) Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel. No Muslim outrage.
10) Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and busses. Over 700 are injured. No Muslim outrage.
11) Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder. No Muslim outrage.
12) Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali. No Muslim outrage.
13) Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons. No Muslim outrage
14) Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world. No Muslim outrage.
15)Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge. No Muslim outrage.
...Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Muslims are outraged.
It sort of leaves you scratching your head until you remember a basic tenet of this religious group. There is an underlying justification for all 15 items mentioned above. We are infidels, we are little more than animals (see anti-Semitic cartoons)... why should there be outrage? A sense of fairness is wasted on anyone outside the Muslim Community. We are beneath their consideration. Do Muslims feel that expressing outrage would be to deny their superiority and be unfaithful to their teachings? I don't know, but sadly, it's a legitimate question.
It's like the worst of racism... only it's religionism.
I personally see no benefit from producing cartoons that insult people. It seems rude. But I also feel that placating and attempting to appease radical Muslims will only embolden them.
Speaking at the Missouri GOP's annual Lincoln Days conference, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said:
"We cannot allow Iran to become a nuclear nation. We need to use diplomatic sanctions. If that doesn't work, economic sanctions, and if that doesn't work, the potential for military use has to be on the table."
When he was asked whether Congress had the political "will" to use military force against Iran if necessary, he said, "The answer is yes, absolutely."
That's good to hear. I don't buy it, but it's good to hear.
Saturday, February 04, 2006
For most Americans my age the Muslim world came into focus in the 1970's when oil-rich nations were thrust into the spotlight because of oil shortages. Before then they were just another group of the world's backward people whose dress and customs made them little more than an interesting story in the National Geographic.
Money and leverage certainly changes things.
Today this throw-back culture threatens what Americans would call the modern civilized world with terrorism, economic blackmail, and an expanding population that may swallow up the "Old World" European cultures in our lifetimes.
Much of the Arab and Persian, Sunni and Shiite complaints about the West revolve around Israel and the Arab population that thrived and grew when Jews began settling in the region in the 1880's, purchasing land from wealthy Muslims of the Ottoman Empire. These "Palestinians", little more than serfs at the time, benefitted agronomically and economically from Jewish immigration, but tragically have since elevated themselves only to the status of political pawns in the region. The Palestinians were offered self-rule and peace along-side Israel in 1936, 1947, 1949, 1967, 1979, 1981, 1993, 2000, and since. But a jealous and covetous hatred for Israel, along with interference from other Muslim states, seems to be stronger motivation than peace and self government. Only the Arabs that have assimilated into Israeli society have thrived.
But the Palestinians are like many of the Muslims in the Middle East in that they suffer from centuries of poor leadership. Modern telecommunications lay out before them the fact that they are powerless and have little compared to much of the world, and so they throw tantrums for the TV cameras. Having nothing, some choose to throw away everything. They will not be placated and they will not be ignored.
Many of the leaders in the region are throwing the same tantrum, and throwing away opportunities for their children and their children's children. With all those billions of oil dollars coming in, where is the richness... where is the greatness to show for it?
I'm no expert on Islam, but it doesn't take a historian or an anthropologist to see the waste and suffering that these oil-rich people have needlessly borne because of their intolerant religion and their self-serving leaders.
When I was young I heard stories about World War II and how the Germans and the Japanese sought to take over the world. At that time the Soviet Union was doing its best to export Communism to poor nations in Asia and Cental America. I remember the euphoria of the 90's when the Cold War ended, but it was short lived.
Now the world faces a new threat which is more insidious and just as ominous as those in its past. Its proponents use a new kind of warfare and display patience in their incremental progress. Europe is awakening to this fact... perhaps too late. These once proud European nations are like a faultering Rome under the onslaught of barbarian hordes... hordes with money to buy modern technology and weaponry.
I believe there will one day be peace between Islam and the West, but that peace will come when one culture is assimilated into the other. We should all hope and pray that our lazy, politically split culture develops the resolve to be the one left standing at the end of the day.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Rising conservative talk show host, Peter Heck, has a great post about the double standard for Supreme Court nominees. About half way through he discusses some of Ruth Bader Ginsberg's views. It gives the reader some idea of what is "mainstream" to the Democrat leadership.
You might want to bookmark www.peterheck.com ... there is something new and worth reading every Monday through Friday.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
I believe Rudy Guliani is at this time the strongest Republican candidate for the presidency in 2008... at least among moderate Republicans and Independents. I don't know that he's running, but I'm sure he would receive more votes than any of the candidates that the Democrats might choose to run... at least more votes among moderate Republicans and Independents.
"But Christopher!" you say, "What about the Conservative Christian Right? Guliani is pro-choice, and the Republicans can't win if the CCR stays home."
True. But the Conservative Christian Right will come out to vote for Rudy if he makes a simple promise. All he has to do is stand up and say, "Its my belief that the current Supreme Court has made it its policy to usurp the constitutional authority of the state and federal legislatures. If elected I promise I will nominate to the Court judges like Rehnquist, Scalia, and Roberts who interpret the constitution, not establish their personal preference as law." If the CCR balked he could start naming names or simply provide a pool of judges he would nominate.
Would he keep his promise or would he go moderate? That might depend upon whether or not he wanted a second term.
I've often said that you don't need to be pro-life to know that Roe is a power grab by the Supreme Court. You don't have to be a conservative to see the advantage of nominating a strict constructionist to the court. Guliani knows that striking down Roe wouldn't outlaw abortion and I have no reason to believe that he doesn't believe that laws should be made only by elected representatives.
Guliani isn't my first choice... or even my fifth choice. But so much rides on this next election that I believe the Republican Party needs to consider who might be the strongest candidate. And if Rudy makes "the promise" ... he's the man.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
I'm sure the mainstream media will try to make the arrest of the mentally troubled Cindy Sheehan the story, but in case you missed it, the president gave a great speech.
He addressed the hate-filled tone of Washington this way:
In a system of two parties, two chambers, and two elected branches, there will always be differences and debate. But even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger.
One of my favorite parts was when he commented on the anti-war (anti-Bush) blather from the Dems in Congress:
Yet there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. Hindsight alone is not wisdom. And second-guessing is not a strategy.
Of the NSA electronic surveillance program he commented:
If there are people inside our country who are talking with al-Qaida, we want to know about it — because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.
And there was this simple statement for those American who still haven't figured it out:
And I will continue to nominate men and women [to the courts] who understand that judges must be servants of the law, and not legislate from the bench.
The antics of the Democrats, Cindy and others, are a kind of window into the character of the Left. It wins them no victories but rather clears the waters. One group, one party... moves ahead with courage, honor, and a serious dedication to our future and its challenges. The other group disrupts, acts out, criticizes, and points its finger. Adults can tell who the adults are. Honest folk can discern leadership from the worst of politics.