Saturday, March 31, 2007

Rudy Giuliani Backpedals

Or clarifies (take your pick), trying to do damage control because promoting the idea of your wife being involved in policy would be something you might say when you are campaigning in the general election but not the primary. You certainly don't say it trying to woe conservative voters who still have nightmares about the Clinton presidency.

Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani said Friday his wife will not be a member of his Cabinet or attend most high-level meetings as he sought to clarify his previous statements suggesting she would play a significant role in his administration.

Giuliani, in interview comments released Thursday, had said he'd be open to his wife attending Cabinet meetings on issues in which she's interested. "If she wanted to. If they were relevant to something that she was interested in. I mean that would be something that I'd be very, very comfortable with," Giuliani told Barbara Walters on ABC News' "20/20."

Late Friday, the campaign issued a statement in which the former New York City mayor suggested that would not be the case.

"Obviously, she will not be a Cabinet member or attend most Cabinet meetings _ if any. But she will pursue a campaign to educate Americans on preventing illness and promoting overall health."

Judith Nathan Giuliani was a nurse.

In the statement, the former mayor sought to play down his own remarks and suggested any discussion of a policy role for his wife was merely prompted by Walters' questioning.

"Judith and I got a good laugh after we heard that she would be a member of the Cabinet, especially after she made it clear in the interview with Barbara Walters that she is not particularly interested in politics or policy,"

Related post:
I Just Experienced Deja Vu

This is why you need the doctrine of total depravity

What if your neighbor lacks wisdom and there is evil in your heart (Matthew 15:19; Luke 6:45), then what do you do?

Doesn't she realize that people act on their convictions

Letters to the editor section of the paper give people a platform for their ideas but in some cases they probably should have kept their opinion to themselves. Rosemary Mellon might have wanted to think though her position a little more carefully before she sent her letter:

If Bush got his act together, he could go down in history as a leader instead of one of the worst presidents we have ever had. His legacy of the Iraq war could be overshadowed by bringing stability and non-aggression to Palestine and Israel - not loving each other but respecting each other to live in peace and security.


The United States cuts off all ties with Hamas because Hamas says the "Jews do not have a right to exist." This reminds me of the song we sang as children: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me." Every democratic state knows Israel has a right to exist. Perhaps through diplomacy, engagement and aid, this can be erased from the lips of Hamas. If not, so what? Everyone knows differently.

I remember a quote from another Roosevelt: "Walk softly, but carry a big stick."


If she had taken the time to read it through a little more carefully, she might have realized that she contradicted herself. Doesn't she realize that since the Palestinians don't want Israel to exist, they are trying to make that happen? How do you make peace with a nation that is bent on your destruction???

BTW, how much aid does she think it'll take before the Palestinians acknowledge Israel because we've given them millions and they haven't budged from their position. Last time I checked, it takes both sides to agree to peace for it to happen.

Friday, March 30, 2007

OK, where are all you liberals coming from?

We have had an increase in the number of clearly liberal commenters. Where are you people coming from?

Look, here's the deal, we obviously don't see things the same way. I look at the war on terror as a necessary evil. We have to fight because war has been declared on us, we have no choice. This is how I view it and my view will not change. All your snotty comments won't change my mind and I know they won't change Susan's mind. We both support the war and will continue to do so for as long as it takes. So, there is no room for debate or persuasion. I'm under no illusion that I will be able to persuade you of my position and I have no desire to embrace yours (and btw, I'm aware of your position already and I'm not interested).

So, my question is, why bother? Why bother leaving comments? Why disparage my choice in presidential candidates? Why ridicule me? All I'm doing is stating an opinion, why does it bother you so much that you feel the need to comment, to respond? Why waste your time?

You might want to ask yourself that question. Why are you here?

Rosie on Iran and 911

Oh. My. Heck! This woman has absolutely no sense whatsoever and yeah, you could say, "What else is new." But each stupid comment that comes out of her mouth shocks me even more. She actually says, "It's very hard in America when anyone from the Mid East has been so demonized that no matter what it's impossible for some people to believe that the Iranians could do anything ethical."

Are you insane, woman? You're talking about a country that just kidnapped sailors in Iraq's water and then paraded them on TV in violation of the Geneva convention.

And it's impossible for the towers to fall without explosives? Doesn't she realize how hot the fire got? There was a plane filled with fuel, the hijackers deliberately selected flights that they knew were going west so that they would be filled with fuel. Doesn't she understand that steel melts (at an extremely high temperature?)

And the war on terror is propaganda? These women have lost their mind.

Please, someone needs to get Elizabeth out of there before they turn that poor girl into someone who trusts our enemies more than our government. They are targeting her and trying to convince her of their warped view and she appears to be weakening.

Popular Mechanics responds to Rosie's rant (via).

Haven't these people ever heard of restraining orders?

I'm just asking because this is ridiculous.

Bush should sign the emergency spending bill?

Dean Barnett thinks Bush should sign it and dare them to impeach him when he calls it unconstitutional:

But what about this: What if the president surprises everyone and signs the bill into law but says the usurpation of the president’s Commander in Chief duties are unconstitutional and he has no intention of following the orders of 535 congressional General wannabes. Basically, he does what Ronald Reagan should have done in Iran/Contra which was say, “The Boland Amendment was unconstitutional and you’re damn right I disregarded it. Impeach me if you wish.”

If Bush takes such a course, then the Congress can do one or two things: It can bring the law to the Supreme Court for a ruling on its constitutionality, a case that it will surely lose. Or it can just skip that step and go right to impeachment.

If that happens, they will successfully impeach the president in the House but never get him convicted in the Senate. Regardless, the prolonged orgasmic reaction from the fever swamp will gratify them nonetheless.

As for the president, he gets to show that he stood up for a matter of serious principle at a moment in history when the opposition party has gone certifiably insane. Seriously – if Congress wants to end the war and has the votes, it can and should do so by using its Constitutional power of the purse. But does anyone think it’s in the national interest to signal our future strategy to our enemies?
I like the idea but I think it would be even better if he signs it into law and then doesn't tell them he isn't going to compile. Congress doesn't care about the separation of powers, or the constitution, maybe he shouldn't either (I'm basically kidding -- settle down, conspiracy kooks).

BTW, I missed this before:

"I wish the president would take a deep breath and respect our constitutional role," she said.

She went on to accuse the president of getting the military into a situation where the funds were urgently needed. At his speech this morning, Bush had warned that the blame will be laid squarely at the feet of Democrats if troops don't get this money in time.

"We are going to give him everything he asked for, and more," [ I assume she means all the farm subsidies, pork, etc] she said, before concluding, "take a deep breath, Mr. President."

I'm amazed that anyone could say something that outrageous in front of the media. Why in the world would Bush respect what Congress did when it is unconstitutional??? These people are amazing and they get away with it because the MSM are on their side and the people are ignorant how our government opperates.


Thursday, March 29, 2007

I Just Experienced Deja Vu

The sound you just heard was the sound of the Rudy supporters' jaws hitting their keyboard over this. He must be thinking about grooming his wife to be the next Senator from NY when he leaves office:

In an interview with Barbara Walters, former New York City Mayor and presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani said that if elected president, he would have no problem allowing his wife Judith Giuliani to sit in on cabinet meetings, "If she wanted to. If they were relevant to something that she was interested in. I mean that would be something that I'd be very, very comfortable with," he said.

He also tells Walters that he welcomes his wife's involvement in policy decisions during the campaign "to the extent she wants to be…I couldn't have a better adviser." When asked if she will sit in on policy meetings, Judith said: "if [Rudy] asks me to, yes. And certainly in the areas of health care."

Maybe they're joking, what do you think, Rudy supporters? (Though, she is a registered nurse)

Audio of the debate between McGrath and Dawkins

Here's a link to the audio of last Friday's debate between Alister McGrath and atheist Richard Dawkins.

Here's a link (via) to McGrath's response to Dawkins' book The God Delusion.

Who's Your Favorite Chickenhawk?

I voted for Abraham Lincoln because you've got to love a chickenhawk who commanded an unpopular civil war without any military experience. By today's standards, it's the height of chutzpah.


Are Thompson supporters being emotional?

I've noticed a tendency of some on the left to engage in "I know you are but what am I" type of rhetoric and this article is no exception:

When Newt Gingrich wanted to dismiss Barack Obama, he did it in a phrase. Obama would make a great president, said the former House speaker, "if the country wants therapy." Like the claim that John Kerry "looks French" from the 2004 election, this quip works on many levels for GOP voters. It refuses to treat Obama seriously and paints his supporters as frail, emotional, and needy. It also reasserts a broader claim about the difference between the two parties: Republicans are adults focused on serious issues; Democrats engage in sentimental swooning that will get us all killed at night in our beds.

Given the self-image of conservatives, it's a little surprising, then, that so many are excited about Fred Thompson, a candidate whose chief qualification seems to be that he makes them feel good. The former Tennessee senator has less experience than all the other top GOP contenders and yet he is being talked about as the savior for a party that is unhappy with its current crop of candidates and its chances in 2008. Thompson has not entered the race, but in television appearances two weeks ago, he hinted that he might.
Sorry but emotionalism is a decidedly liberal trait. I have never been so analytical in my approach to a candidate than I have been with Thompson. Since there are so many candidates to choose from, you are forced to be analytical because you have to determine who would make the best candidate. And when you do that you have to analysis what the country and the conservative party need now after all these years of Bush, Clinton, Bush.

I did that and determined that we need a strong, articulate leader who is not afraid to stand up to Congress and tell them to stop the pork, stop the spending, it's not your money. We need a strong leader who will say to the world, we are not afraid to protect our interest by engaging in battle wherever it may occur. Who will say to the people of America, we are at war, get used to it. We need a strong leader to say to Mexico, pay your people more and improve the conditions there so that they won't need to come here to have better life. And to say to the Mexican people, if you want to come here, do it legally or you'll be deported. It's clear that Thompson has the ability to do this. He's conservative, he's clearly articulate and he isn't afraid to express his opinion.

It's really not that complicated. After two terms of an inarticulate president who doesn't appear to be able rally his party or the country around his cause, we need someone who is able to do it. I think that out of the current crop of candidates, Thompson would be the candidate who comes closest to that job description.

BTW, this is funny given the current crop of Democrat candidates:
Authenticity and star power conjure visions of Ronald Reagan. But Reagan had genuine experience running something—namely the state of California. Thompson's résumé is thin—an undistinguished eight years in the Senate, an acting career, and a youthful turn as co-counsel in the Watergate hearings. Supporters try to pump up his résumé by boasting that he shepherded John Roberts through his confirmation hearings—but that was the legal equivalent of walking Michael Jordan onto the court.
If there is any year we could win a presidential campaign with a Senator with eight years of experience, this would be the year.

In other Thompson news:

The Washington Post writes what appears to be the standard "Fred Thompson may run" article. It contains: worries that he isn't conservative enough, the other candidates are ahead of him in putting together their funding and campaign organizations, mention of Wamp and Frist encouraging him to run, that he is on "Law and Order," that the base is unhappy with the current crop of candidates and assurances from Wamp and Lamar Alexander that he is seriously considering a race.

Over at CBS, they're saddened that if Thompson runs there won't be anymore Law and Order reruns (I thought it was on NBC):
And in sad news for those of us who are home at 2:00 PM on a Tuesday, Fred Thompson's possible run for the White House might mean that we'll be deprived of Law & Order reruns, thanks to equal time laws.
We've been given a name: Fredheads.

And they can laugh about the fact that we have gone back to Hollywood for our candidate but the last one kicked their tushie twice and brought down the Berlin wall. Not too shabby.

Pelosi, you're the one who is holding up funds...

And everyone knows it. What you want to do is unconstitutional, why in the world would anyone expect Bush to sign away his rights? That just nuts. What you are counting on is the stupidity of the public but I think it's pretty clear that you guys are going on vacation while you hold up funding for the troops. Some support!

In his most combative comments yet, President Bush mocked Democratic lawmakers yesterday for including a deadline for troop withdrawals and "pork" projects in an Iraq spending bill, declaring that "the American people will know who to hold responsible" if funding for the war stalls.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) shot back that Bush's vow to veto the spending bill carries its own cost. In a joint letter, they warned him against following "a political strategy that would needlessly delay funding for our troops."

"Calm down with the threats. There is a new Congress in town," Pelosi said at a Capitol Hill news conference. "We respect your constitutional role. We want you to respect ours."
Yeah, there is. One that refuses to do their job, one that is more spendthrift than the last Congress and one that hasn't kept a single promise that was made on the campaign trial. It's almost three months since you assumed office, where's all the legislation that you promised? And I thought you were going to be the hardest working Congress ever.

And then there's this:
Although Democratic leaders said they still hope to negotiate a final war spending bill that the president could sign, they now view a presidential veto as unavoidable. To prepare, they are studying the events of 1995 and 1996, when President Bill Clinton vetoed appropriations bills and then successfully blamed Congress for shutting down the government.
You can study it all you want but you will be blamed.

The White House is studying it too:
Inside the White House, Bush strategists hope that the Democrats will overplay their hand, as the Republicans themselves did a decade ago. "This is in some ways a replay of the government shutdown," agreed one White House official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss strategy. "The Republicans overreached at that point. I think that the Democrats will overreach [now]. We'll see."
Will overreach? Will? They've already done it! This is the thing that makes me nuts about this White House, why not hit them where it matters and make sure the American people understand that Congress has overreached their authority. Hit it every chance you get that they are not commander in chief and that the president decides when the war is over.

Read the rest of the article here.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Dobson does not speak for all Evangelicals

One of the reasons I started this blog was I was tired of Dobson and Robertson being the voice of Evangelicals. I wanted a place to vent when they pontificate from on high, a place to say, "They don't speak for me or anyone else I know." I'm here for such a time as this:

Focus on the Family founder James Dobson appeared to throw cold water on a possible presidential bid by former Sen. Fred Thompson while praising former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is also weighing a presidential run, in a phone interview Tuesday.

"Everyone knows he's conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for," Dobson said of Thompson. "[But] I don't think he's a Christian; at least that's my impression," Dobson added, saying that such an impression would make it difficult for Thompson to connect with the Republican Party's conservative Christian base and win the GOP nomination.

Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Thompson, took issue with Dobson's characterization of the former Tennessee senator. "Thompson is indeed a Christian," he said. "He was baptized into the Church of Christ."

In a follow-up phone conversation, Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger stood by Dobson's claim. He said that, while Dobson didn't believe Thompson to be a member of a non-Christian faith, Dobson nevertheless "has never known Thompson to be a committed Christian—someone who talks openly about his faith."

"We use that word—Christian—to refer to people who are evangelical Christians," Schneeberger added. "Dr. Dobson wasn't expressing a personal opinion about his reaction to a Thompson candidacy; he was trying to 'read the tea leaves' about such a possibility."


Dobson has no right to judge whether Thompson is a Christian, he doesn't have the ability to tell who's in and who isn't, no one does. Dobson is trying to take the place of the Holy Spirit:
Romans 8:16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God
It doesn't say, "Go ask Dobson, he's knows who's a child of God."

And we all know that you can say you're a Christian and act like you aren't the minute you're elected.

Besides, Dobson's focus is all wrong, it really doesn't matter if Newt or Thompson are Christians because we are electing a president not a pastor.

Republicans, stop going to this guy and getting his approval! Freeze him out of the process! He doesn't speak for us and he can't assure our vote. He needs to be humbled.

Thompson buzz all over the Internet

Some interesting gossip:

Looks like Fred Thompson really isn't teasing about possibly running for president.

The actor and former Republican senator from Tennessee was spotted having lunch today at the see-and-be-seen Mayflower hotel restaurant with GOP Party guru Ed Gillespie, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee who has advised and groomed many a successful GOP candidate over the years.

Sources say Thompson, currently of "Law and Order" fame," and Gillespie were locked in a serious conversation, even though they were repeatedly interrupted by conventioneer types - aka, real people - wanting to chat with the actor/politician. No one we spoke with heard the "P" word come out of Thompson's mouth but it appeared the lunch was "intense," according to one source.

Thompson wouldn't be able to hire Gillespie, of Quinn Gillespie and Associates, since Gillespie is chairing the Republican Party of Virginia and, therefore, must remain neutral in the presidential primary. But Gillespie is a friend. The two bonded during the Senate confirmation hearing of now Chief Justice John Roberts - Thompson was Roberts' White House-appointed sherpa; Gillespie was the White House's front man on the confirmation process.

Here's a NY Time article rehashing everything that's been on the web the last couple of weeks :-)

a blog entry at the Washington Post that tries to make the case why Thompson shouldn't run and misstates his pro-life position:
And when he ran for the Senate in 1994, Thompson was routinely described as a supporter of abortion rights. A 1994 story in the Memphis Commercial Appeal described Thompson and his Democratic opponent as "basically pro-choice on abortion," and an Associated Press piece from that same year called Thompson a "pro-choice defender in a party with an anti-abortion tilt."
Sorry, you can try but you can't fool us, there is a record of his vote. He has a pro-life voting record when he was in the Senate. Why not state that in the article? It's pretty obvious.

And he even tries to hit Thompson on his marriage:
Thompson's personal life could also raise questions about his social conservative bona fides. He has been married twice, a fact that could well be neutralized by the fact that Giuliani is on his third marriage while McCain has also been married twice. Among the GOP frontrunners, only Romney has been married just once.
Years passed before Thompson married again. He didn't leave his wife for his current wife (unlike certain other candidates I could name but won't because this really is a non-issue).

Mona Charen makes the case why Thompson should run.

And Wamp was on Hewitt's show yesterday, he didn't say anything new but it was good to see that Hewitt is finally getting it that there is still time for another candidate to enter the race. Maybe now he will stop saying that it's too late and our only choices are the top three:
HH: Joined now from the great state of Tennessee, Congressman Zach Wamp. Congressman, good to have you on.

ZW: Hey, same to you. Thank you, sir.

HH: Now I asked you to come on, because we’ve got to get to the bottom of this Fred Thompson boom here, and you’re his number one backer up there on the Hill. Tell us what’s going on in the former Senator’s thinking right now.


HH: Now Congressman Wamp, you’ve got obviously a lot of enthusiasm among conservative grass roots out there. But does that become money, because this is a very expensive proposition.

ZW: Well, it is, and you know, in the history of our state, Tennessee’s had a couple of national finance chairmen for the party. Lamar Alexander ran for president and raised $25 million dollars. I believe the apparatus will be in place if Fred Thompson decides for sure to run. I think there’s a very strong chance that that happens. He will be able to raise the money. And frankly, right now, most importantly, he’s in 11 million homes every week with Law And Order right now. He’s doing the Paul Harvey show, which is really a better gig than these other candidates have trying to get their message across right now in terms of talking to the American people at their level. I was in Granger County, Tennessee, yesterday. The Democrat county mayor said to me did you hear Fred Thompson on the Paul Harvey show this morning? And I said no, and he told me almost verbatim everything he said. Well, that’s a pretty good reach when you’re out there in grass roots America, just talking, doing the Paul Harvey show on common sense solutions to our country’s problems. I think he’s getting a whole lot of mileage out of the work that he’s doing right now without raising or spending any political money. And frankly, the people are kind of tired of all the campaign spending, so I think he’ll be able to be strong. He’s got some time, but the interest is there, the need is there, there’s a whole lot of enthusiasm, so Hugh, I think this thing’s really got legs.


HH: Okay, well, we’ve got to get his number from you, because we’ve got to get him on the phone and start talking policies and positions with him. So appreciate your giving us the update, Congressman Wamp, and we’ll continue to check in with you, and hopefully with Fred Thompson as that boomlet continues to build.

Reid is playing chicken with the safety of our troops

This is so arrogant and unconstitutional, do these people really think they are going to get away with playing chicken with the funds necessary to keep this war going? Do they really want this show down at the expense of the safety of our troops? No president can accept the terms they are offering. They become commander in chief. Do they really think that the American people will stand back and watch as they risk the lives of the men and women they authorized to fight this war?

They don't have the votes to cut funding because they know that would be unpopular but how popular do they think this position is? They authorized this war plan by voting unanimously for the author of the plan, they should step back and let it work.

Bush better veto this bill and keep vetoing until the Congress gives him a clean bill.

Congressional Democrats are showing no signs of backing down on their rebuke of the
Iraq war, insisting President Bush will have to accept some sort of legislative timetable in exchange for the billions of dollars needed to fund the war.

"We would hope that the president understands how serious we are," said Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., after the Senate voted to uphold a proposal in a war spending bill calling for the troop withdrawal.
I would urge those in red states to call their Democrat Senator and demand that they make sure the troops get the funding necessary to complete the task that Congress sent them to do. Tell them you don't appreciate them playing political games at the expense of our troops.

The last time we had a game of chicken over the budget the loser (Newt) lost his job in the next election cycle and cost his party a number of seats. Does Reid really want to take that risk?

Cliffsnotes version of the Institutes

Don't have time to read Calvin's Institutes but know that you should read it? (BTW, you really should read it.) How about the Cliffsnotes version?

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Pointed Sowell

This is a great article that I think sums up the Democrats strategy to sabotage victory in Iraq to secure a favorable 2008 election.

If the war in Iraq is such an unnecessary and futile expenditure of blood and treasure as Pelosi et al. have been saying, why not put an end to it?

But to do that would mean taking responsibility for the consequences — and those consequences would be disastrous and lasting. They would probably still be lasting when the 2008 elections come around.

The Democrats cannot risk that. They have taken over Congress by a very clever and very disciplined strategy of constantly criticizing the Republicans, without taking the risk of presenting an alternative for whose results they can be held responsible.
The problem is that the Democrats are being held accountable, by there own base. They cannot have it both ways, criticize but offer no alternative. It is just a scapegoat for not taking any responsibility. Those who voted for them, those who are anti-war, will hold them accountable and they cannot hide from them.

It certainly has painted them into a corner.

Have you seen the new Boar's Head Tavern

They've remodeled their blog and it looks really sharp! It has a contemporary bar look to it, very emergent Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket Very much like you might want to share the gospel over a beer.

Senate voted for defeat today

I am the worst at predicting, so never go by what I think will happen. I get it wrong just about every time! I actually thought that the Senate would not have enough votes to pass this cut and run, pork laden spending bill. But I was seriously wrong. I didn't count on Hagel (though I was thinking Smith might vote for it) and I thought Nelson would listen to his inner conservative (or at least his inner moderate) but I guess not.

So, the Democrats (that includes some Democrats up for re-election in red states) and Hagel have gone on record as letting the enemy know the date we will be pulling our troops, they have voted to micromanage the war in an unconstitutional manner and to put our military at risk by not getting the funds they need on time. They have signaled to the Iraqi people that Congress could care less what the situation looks like in a year, the troops come home no matter what and they can fend for yourselves the way the Democrats made the Vietnamese fend for themselves.

But fortunately Bush has said he will veto this dog:

Defying a veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Senate narrowly signaled support Tuesday for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by next March.

Republican attempts to scuttle the non-binding timeline failed on a vote of 50-48, largely along party lines. The roll call marked the Senate's most forceful challenge to date of the administration's handling of a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops.


But Republicans — and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent Democrat — argued otherwise.


The effect of the timeline would be to "snatch defeat from the jaws of progress in Iraq," agreed Lieberman, who won a new term last fall in a three-way race after losing the Democratic nomination to an anti-war insurgent.


Bush had previously said he would veto any bill containing the timeline, and the White House freshened the threat a few hours before the vote on Tuesday. "This and other provisions would place freedom and democracy in Iraq at grave risk, embolden our enemies and undercut the administration's plan to develop the Iraqi economy," it said in a statement.

Similar legislation drew only 48 votes in the Senate earlier this month, but Democratic leaders made a change that persuaded Nebraska's Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson (news, bio, voting record) to swing behind the measure.

Additionally, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a vocal critic of the war, sided with the Democrats, assuring them of the majority they needed to turn back a challenge led by Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss.

You can now vote for Fred Thompson...

In the Pajamas Media Straw Poll! So vote for him (please use our convenient voting booth in the sidebar).

BTW, he's kicking everyone's tushie in the GOP Strawpoll.

We are having a very bad week

First Cathy Seipp dies of cancer then the news that Elizabeth Edwards' cancer has returned and now Tony Snow's cancer has returned and spread. Cancer is such a vicious killer, we need to find a way to eradicate it, the toll has been too steep. I bet each of us can name at least one person we know who has it or has died from it. I can name four, two who have died from it.

Join me in praying that the Lord will give wisdom to those involved in medical research to find a way to cure this disease.

There is a difference, you know...

Between Blabbing and Babbling, though I've been known to confuse the two.

Tags: ,

This is what procrastination looks like

cartoon from

Cartoon by Dave Walker. Find more cartoons you can freely re-use on your blog at We Blog Cartoons.

Tags: ,

Senate Republicans will allow President to veto spending bill

This is a very confusing article! Here's the headline:

Republicans Soften Stance on Pullout Language
Then the opening summary:
Unwilling to do the White House's heavy lifting on Iraq, Senate Republicans are prepared to step aside to allow language requiring troop withdrawals to reach President Bush, forcing him to face down Democratic adversaries with his veto pen.
Then the article implies that the Senate will allow the spending bill to go forward so that the president can veto it. I'm assuming to speed up the process but it's not clear from the article:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) announced the shift in strategy yesterday, as the chamber took up a $122 billion war spending package that includes a target date of March 31, 2008, for ending most U.S. combat operations in Iraq. The provision, along with a similar House effort, represents the Democrats' boldest challenge on the war, setting the stage for a dramatic showdown with Bush over an otherwise popular bill to keep vital military funds flowing.

Republicans will still attempt to remove the deadline in a Senate vote expected as soon as today, and GOP leaders were reasonably confident they would muster a majority. But the margin is expected to be thin, requiring the presence of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who had skipped several previous Iraq votes to attend presidential campaign events. McCain canceled a series of fundraisers and meetings in Florida to return to Washington, telling a conservative radio program that he wanted to "beat back this recipe for defeat that the Democrats are trying to foist off on the American people."

No matter the outcome of the Senate vote, McConnell is looking ahead, assuming House Democrats will insist that withdrawal conditions be included when a final bill is sent to Bush. If so, McConnell said, Republicans would forgo the parliamentary tactics they used to block antiwar legislation that had forced Democrats to amass an insurmountable 60 votes to prevail.

"We need to get the bill on down to the president and get the veto out of the way," McConnell said.


Sen. Thad Cochran (Miss.), the senior Republican on the Appropriations Committee and sponsor of the amendment to strike the withdrawal provision, said he hopes the GOP strategy will induce the White House and Democrats to begin final negotiations sooner. He also acknowledged the political peril Republicans face every time they are required to vote in defense of an increasingly unpopular war.

"We're part of the problem if this doesn't work," Cochran said. Ultimately, Iraq is Bush's battle, he said, and both parties are taking a risk by interfering. "Let him and the commanders in the field figure out a way to win," Cochran said.
But here's the end of the article:
What Republicans do not want is a presidential veto, Wamp said. That political showdown could harm the standing of both parties while dealing a real blow to the war effort.

"This is a time when we need to find a way to come together through this conference committee and find a way where the country can unite again," Wamp said. "We need to respect each other's opinions, and we need to avoid a presidential veto.

Very confusing! I would think that the Republicans haven't gone soft on support on the war when they know that 75% of the base is behind it. But then there's this:
But one House lawmaker with close ties to GOP leaders said the outcome would have been considerably different if Republicans thought that they were simply defending the administration.

"We have toed the line enough for the president, and we have gotten no thanks or gratitude. By and large, Republicans are sick of defending an ungrateful president," the Republican House member said.
What a whiny brat! Do these guys really want Bush to be the one to own the war? Suck it up and act like a leader. Think about the troops not your bruised ego. Think about what's right for the country not whether the president said, "please" or "thank you." What are you, two?

BTW, Mark Pryor has an idea, why not keep the deadline secret?
In one of the more unusual proposals to emerge in the Senate debate on Iraq withdrawal, Sen. Mark Pryor wants to keep any plans for bringing troops home a secret.

The Arkansas Democrat is a key holdout on his party's proposal to approve $122 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while setting a goal of March 31, 2008, for winding up military operations in Iraq. Unlike the plan's Republican opponents, Pryor wants a withdrawal deadline of some kind. He just doesn't want anyone outside the White House, Congress and the Iraqi government to know what it is.
Yeah, that would work. How long do you think this leaky congress would be able to keep the secret? I bet it doesn't get past the vote.

Monday, March 26, 2007

Fred Thompson is taking Giuliani's support

Thompson came in third in the latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll even though he hasn't even campaigned or declared. And, apparently, he's taking away Giuliani's support:

On the Republican side, former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson shook up the field with his announcement that he would consider getting into the presidential race. Thompson is familiar as the actor who plays District Attorney Arthur Branch on NBC's Law and Order.

Chosen by 12% of Republican and Republican-leaning voters, Thompson is third in the Republican field. He trails former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, at 31%, and Arizona Sen. John McCain, at 22%. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich is at 8%.

Thompson's support seems to come largely from voters who had supported Giuliani. In the USA TODAY poll taken March 2-4, Giuliani's standing had been 13 percentage points higher, at 44%. McCain's support had been 2 points lower then.

Backing for former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, widely considered a leading contender, has dropped. He was chosen by 3%, the same as Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback. Romney's support in early March had been 8%.


Maybe it's the voters who are looking for a tough prosecutor.

And here is an article about the congressional support for a Thompson run (via).

BTW, I was listening to Hewitt's Friday show on my palm TX this morning and once again he asked his guests (in this case Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracke) if they thought it was too late for Fred Thompson to enter the race (I think he's desperately trying to find someone who agrees with him that it's too late) and both of them said no!

Mea Culpa

I lost my temper in responding to comments on the posts related to the anti-war protesters and for that I'm sorry. I'm also sorry that there were those on the left who were offended by being lumped together with those who defecated on the flag and who burned a GI in effigy. I do see why you would take offense and I'm sorry if that is the case. I know that the left love to hang the actions of the extreme on conservatives, so I can understand that you don't want to be associated with their actions. Please remember this in the future when someone does something that reflects badly on the right.


Fred Thompson came in first in a presidential straw poll

At the Gwinnett County Republican Convention:

But the most interesting news came from the Presidential straw poll, which had been tacked on to the end of the officer ballot, almost as an afterthought. The delegates were given a choice of a dozen or so candidates. None of the Presidential campaigns were represented at the convention.

The national frontrunner, Rudy Giuliani, placed third, right behind Georgia’s own Newt Gingrich, who finished second. But the winner was former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee, who received more votes than all the other candidates combined.

Fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh place went to Romney, McCain, Huckabee and Brownback, in that order.

I think we are seeing the erosion of support for the leading candidates and the beginning of a ground swell for the closest we are going to get to an electable, conservative candidate. At least I hope that's the case.

BTW, he ties Clinton but gets beat by Obama in the current Rasmussen poll:
According to the first Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey involving Thompson, the actor-turned-politician-turned-actor is neck-and-neck with Clinton, leading her by a margin of 44 percent to 43 percent.


In the poll, Obama leads Thompson 49 percent to 37 percent.
Since Clinton's negatives are so high, I'm not surprised by this result.

Sunday, March 25, 2007

Wages of Sin is Death

My husband and I lost a dear friend to cancer this week.

He was only 54 years old and leaves behind a wife and two teenage daughters. We went to his funeral yesterday. It was very moving.

As Christians, we understand that the wages of sin is death. We know that Jesus Christ conquored death so that we can have eternal life; there is no hope without Christ.

I also rejoice in Ed's homecoming. I also mourn with his family. Please join me in praying for his family. My heart aches for his girls because I know what it is like to lose a parent. I was the same age when my mother passed away from cancer.

When you are looking death in the face as I did when I visited Ed last week it gave me a whole fresh perspective on the effects of sin.

Seeing death happen shocks you; it is hideous. It brought home to me the ugliness of sin and it's inevitable outcome, death. It comes to us all, the Christian and the non-Christian.

Praise God that He has done something about sin and death through Jesus Christ, he is our only hope.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet

Here's an interesting article about the current trend of men taking their wives name when they get married. At first I thought the guy must be a wimp to do something like that but then I started thinking about it and realized it's just a cultural norm for women to take their husband's name; it's just a tradition. And one that we could reverse anytime we want.

There are actually instances when it would be preferable for the husband to take his wife's name. If the wife is known professionally by her name, it makes sense for her to retain her it and for her husband take it as his own. And that would be preferable to the husband and the children having one name and the wife having a different name. I think having a shared name gives a family identity. We are the Smiths and this is what it means to be a Smith. You loose that family unity when everyone has a different name. Plus I'm sure it gets very confusing trying to keep on the names straight at the dentist, doctor, school, etc.

There really is no reason why the husband can't take the wife's name except for the ribbing that he would get from friends and co-workers and the pain it might cause his father. And of course the man card:

Sam Van Hallgren, 32, co-host of the movie-review podcast Filmspotting, had to explain himself not just to his listeners but even to his co-host, Adam Kempenaar. Kempenaar was caught by surprise the first time Van Hallgren introduced himself at the top of their show with his new name. Van Hallgren was formerly Sam Hallgren until he wed Carrie Van Deest in August and they both took on the new, combined names.

Van Hallgren received a scathing note from a longtime listener with a subject line that read, "Sam, turn in your man card." The listener asked what "sissy juice" the host was drinking.

The Van Hallgrens, who live in Milwaukee, say they did it for their future children. The idea of merging names, which Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa also did when the former Antonio Villar wed the former Corina Raigosa in 1987, started out for Sam and Carrie as a joke. Then, while talking with a friend who was surprised Carrie would take Sam's name, Sam first uttered the merged version and they both liked it.

I kind of like the idea of the merged names, though a couple generations of merging names could result in some really unwieldy results: Smithjonesbakerhampton-Josephbarneysmithjones. I would never do this because the combination of our names does not have a ring to it (to say the least). I was actually happy to take my husband's name because it was better than mine (sorry, dad).

My husband said he would take my name if there wasn't such a social sigma attached to it. If you didn't seem like a wimp for doing it and wouldn't get so much grief from your co-workers and the loss of respect from your subordinates.

But I like gullchasedship's take on this and think that it's about right:
Yet there's a part of me that believes that a man who is willing to change his last name is showing respect for his wife and her past as well as a great deal of humility. It's definitely an example of leaving and cleaving.
Though, he was worried about the man card too. Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

BTW, read the rest of the article and make sure you read the side column that has the naming conventions from other countries.


Anger is the new black

George Will has written an interesting column that sums up the problem with the anti-war movement:

The blogosphere often is, as one blogger joyfully says, "an electronic primal scream." And everywhere there is the histrionic fury of ordinary people venting in everyday conversations.

Many people who loathe George W. Bush have adopted what Peter Wood describes as "ecstatic anger as a mode of political action." Anger often is, Wood says, "a spectacle to be witnessed by an appreciative audience, not an attempt to win over the uncommitted."

Wood, an anthropologist and author of "A Bee in the Mouth: Anger in America Now," says the new anger "often has the look-at-me character of performance art." His book is a convincing, hence depressing, explanation of "anger chic" – of why anger has become an all-purpose emotional stance. It has achieved prestige and become "a credential for group membership." As a result, "Americans have been flattening their emotional range into an angry monotone."

Wood notes that there is a "vagueness and elasticity of the grievances" that supposedly justify today's almost exuberant anger. And anger is more pervasive than merely political grievances would explain. Today's anger is a coping device for everyday life. It also is the defining attribute of an increasingly common personality type – the person who "unless he is angry, feels he is nothing at all."

That type, infatuated with anger, uses it to express identity. Anger as an expression of selfhood is its own vindication. Wood argues, however, that as anger becomes a gas polluting the social atmosphere, it becomes not a sign of personal uniqueness but of a herd impulse.


The politics of disdain – e.g., Howard Dean's judgment that Republicans are "brain dead" and "a lot of them never made an honest living in their lives" – derails politics by defining opponents as beyond the reach of reason. The anger directed at Bush today, like that directed at Clinton during his presidency, luxuriates in its own vehemence.

Today, many people preen about their anger as a badge of authenticity: I snarl therefore I am. Such people make one's blood boil.

Mwalimu Daudi made the following comment about this article :
"the author makes the point better than I ever could about the rise of 'anger as virtue' - a phenomenon that we see is driving the anti-war movement."
I think there is something to that. Instead of learning to control their anger like adults, those in the anti-war movement are venting their anger in progressively dysfunctional ways. Just as a 2 year old will ratchet up the tantrum to greater and greater fury when you ignore her, so to the anti-war movement is ratcheting up their tantrum to greater levels of fury because Bush is ignoring their cries of "Bring home the troops."

I would have to think that eventually all this anger has got to burn itself out after awhile. Maybe that's why there aren't as many protesters as the years progress. People can't sustain a constant level of anger without feeling fatigued.

This is how sick the anti-war movement has become

They burn a soldier in effigy while chanting "Bye, Bye, GI! In Iraq you're going to die." Video here. Yes, it's obvious they support the troops.

And a guy defecates on the flag in front of women and children to the approval of the crowd:

This splinter group of protesters showed its support for “peace” by burning a U.S. soldier in effigy. It exhibited its supposedly pacifist nature by knocking a police officer off his bike — an action that brought out the police riot squad.

Perhaps the most disturbing scene of the afternoon, however, involved the man who pulled down his pants in front of women and children and defecated on a burning U.S. flag. This disgusting act actually elicited cheers from some members of the crowd, but we hope that the emotion it produces in the community is one of revulsion.

Notice how they are trying to distance the acts of this "splinter group" from the rest of the protest. Sorry, they are anti-war protesters just like the rest. I've seen the flag burning in other protests, I've seen the disrespect paid to the military, this is just one more step down the path that you've been walking. Try as you might to distance yourselves, you own it.


Saturday, March 24, 2007

Our not so daily dose of Fred Thompson: His wife

Thompson's wife is urging him to run:

Close friends of Fred Thompson say his wife Jeri is urging him to take the plunge later this year and run for the Republican presidential nomination.

The former senator from Tennessee and current actor on "Law & Order," in private conversation, makes it clear that he is seriously interested in launching a candidacy that has attracted extraordinary attention over the last two weeks. However, he does not plan to announce his candidacy in the immediate future.

The major rap against Thompson is that he was not a hard worker during his eight years in the Senate. His friends respond that this is an easily correctable error and that the same complaint was made about Ronald Reagan before he ran for president.

Thank you, Mrs. Thompson! It's not easy to be on the campaign trail with small children, she is to be commended for sacrificing for her husband (so should Elizabeth Edwards, btw).

Good thing he keeps hinting that he'll run so that we don't turn our attention to other candidates who might lure us away.

Oh, BTW, I'm so glad that Michael Barone told Hugh Hewitt that it wasn't too late for Thompson to enter the race:

HH: In your estimate, is it too late for a Fred Thompson to come in, given the organizational and money requirements of running a presidential campaign?

MB: No, I don’t think it’s too late. I mean, if you look at national polls of Republicans, the percentage of those not going for Giuliani, McCain, Romney and Gingrich has lowered from 32% in November down to 23% in March. But that’s still a quarter of the potential electorate sitting out there presently unmoored to any of those candidates. Gingrich, of course, may not run. That would put another 11% up for grabs. That says to me that you know, there are people around there looking, none of these candidates in the view of many sort of base conservatives is perfectly positioned on issues for that bloc of the electorate that you know, was really sort of the dominant bloc in many respects in the Republican races between 1980 and 2000. So there’s room there.

And who's to say that the support for those candidates is firm? Maybe it's pretty soft and will move to Thompson if he enters the race.

Maybe now Hewitt will stop saying that McCain, Giuliani and Romney are our only choices and it's too late for another candidate to enter over the race.

Obama's press secretary lived with "Hillary 1984" ad creator

The creator of the anti-Clinton ad lived with Obama's press secretary:

The press secretary for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., recently lived with the creator of the scathingly satirical YouTube video ad that attacked Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., a revelation that seems to undermine the senator's claim that he and his campaign had only "very attenuated" ties with the ad's creator.

Ben LaBolt, the recently named press of Obama's Senate office in Washington, D.C., roomed with Philip de Vellis, the creator of the "1984" ad, in Ohio last year while the two worked together on the successful Senate campaign of then Rep. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio.

The relationship does not serve as evidence that anyone on the Obama campaign knew de Villis had made the ad. The Obama campaign and its employees have said they have no knowledge of and had nothing to do with the creation of the ad, and de Villis has written as much on a blog.

But it does seem to belie statements by Obama and the campaign that implied a much more distant relationship between Obama's campaign and de Villis.


Wednesday evening the Obama campaign issued a statement saying, "The Obama campaign and its employees had no knowledge and had nothing to do with the creation of the ad."


And when asked by ABC News if he knew de Villis — since they had both worked on the Brown for Senate campaign in 2006 — LaBolt said, "I knew everyone who worked on the Brown campaign" but implied that he didn't know de Villis well at all.

But Friday afternoon the liberal blog posted a photograph showing LaBolt and de Vellis relaxing with a mutual friend in Ohio last year.

This controversy is so silly, it's just a stupid ad. I think that Clinton is handling this in the right way:
Clinton herself has not publicly expressed any outrage at the controversy, saying instead, "I was a little bit tickled that it took attention away from my singing on Youtube," referring to a video of her off-key rendition of the national anthem. "So for that it was something of a positive development."

So, what do the Democrats do next?

Pelosi has shoved her party off the cliff (in some cases using pork to lure them off) and now the question is: what will Reid do? Does he double down? Or does he pass something that approaches what the president wants? Or does he offer a timetable knowing that it won't pass but will placate the base? (My predication at the end of the article :-)

The troops will feel the effect by April 15th, while the Congress is on vacation. How will that look to the American people? The Congress is at rest while they allow the troops to go without, I don't think that will go over big in conservative districts and red states. How do those Blue Dogs keep their districts? How does Pelosi keep her speakership?

The problem Pelosi is having is that being anti-war is an opposition position, it isn't a leadership position. You can't be opposed to the war and be the one obligated to ensure that the troops have the funds necessary to fight the war. Unless the Congress votes to stop funding the war, they are obligated to fund it. A true leader has to put her feelings aside and do what's right for the country and provide the funds necessary to continue the war until victory or until the commander in chief concedes defeat. The Congress can do nothing else. If the American people really want to stop this war, they will have to defeat those supporting the war at the ballot box. That is their only recourse. What Congress is doing is playing political games, creating a bill they know that won't ever be put into law. No president would allow the Congress to micromanage his military. They just wasted precious time that the military doesn't have for a political game where they can pretend that they did something bold and all they did was show how much they want to beat this president and not hand him a victory. Very childish.

What all this boiled down to is that Pelosi wanted a victory and she paid 24 billion dollars to get it. No one can say that this bill was the will of Congress because there was much arm twisting to get it:

Pelosi and other Democratic leaders employed a wide range of techniques to corral recalcitrant lawmakers, drawing from a stockpile of legislative maneuvers they had not used in a dozen years, not since they last controlled the House.

Democratic leaders took no chances, either, for the vote. In addition to calling a full Democratic Caucus meeting beforehand, Pelosi stationed loyal lawmakers at the doors to the House chamber to stop Democrats from leaving before they had voted for the bill.

Rep. Kendrick B. Meek (D-Fla.) was overheard telling Democrats who tried to leave that "You know they want us here until we have this thing locked down."
Now, Reid, does your ego need an empty victory? Do you need to defeat Bush so bad that you will risk the lives of the troops?

I'm beginning to suspect that what will happen is the Senate will pass something that approaches clean and the bill that makes it out of the conference will be the Senate bill and then the Democrats will count on the Republicans passing it, so that they don't dirty their hands. There may be a tiny bit of evidence for this:
“The veto threats are just that, just threats,” Clyburn said during a taping of C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers” which airs Sunday. “He doesn’t know what will come out of the deliberations that will take place between House and Senate. …I suggest he keep his powder dry and see what comes out of this product.
But knowing that BDS clouds judgment, I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

Friday, March 23, 2007

GodTube: YouTube for Christians

Did you know that there is now a YouTube for Christians? I didn't know, I just found out about it tonight over at Chris Campbells newish blog.

I hope that Christians will continue to post their videos to YouTube but as a mom, I like it that there's a place that my daughters can visit and I don't have to worry about them finding filth.

I found some interesting videos. I know you'll probably find this strange but I kind of like rap.

You've probably seen this one before but I laugh every time I see it:

And one of my favorites, P.O.D.

And here's an interesting video, I can't figure out why the guy's tied up. If this wasn't a Christian video, I would assume he had ticked off one of the band members and they tied him up and made him listen to their music in a demonstration of female empowerment and dominance.

Scary Mary Poppins

The magic of editing:


Scott Ott for President

OK, this is going to be a dilemma, which candidate who's not in the race should I support? Thompson, who actually has some experience or the brilliant Scott Ott? I'm going to have to think about this for awhile. I'll let you know. Check out his video here (I may stick to Thompson since it won't cost me anything).

Liberals Cave

Pelosi finally whipped the liberals into shape and now they are ready to vote for her "deprive the troops of funds for pork" bill (and yes that's in essence what happens when you get to the bottom line):

Liberal opposition to a $124 billion war spending bill broke last night, when leaders of the antiwar Out of Iraq Caucus pledged to Democratic leaders that they will not block the measure, which sets timelines for bringing U.S. troops home.

The acquiescence of the liberals probably means that the House will pass a binding measure today that, for the first time, would establish tough readiness standards for the deployment of combat forces and an Aug. 31, 2008, deadline for their removal from Iraq.

A Senate committee also passed a spending bill yesterday setting a goal of bringing troops home within a year. The developments mark congressional Democrats' first real progress in putting legislative pressure on President Bush to withdraw U.S. forces.

Even more than the conservative Democrats leery of appearing to micromanage the war, House liberals have been the main obstacle to leadership efforts to put a timeline on the withdrawal of U.S. forces. They have complained that the proposal would not bring troops home fast enough. Their opposition has riven the antiwar movement, split the Democratic base and been the main stumbling block to the legislation, which had originally been scheduled for a vote yesterday.

As debate began on the bill yesterday, members of the antiwar caucus and party leaders held a backroom meeting in which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) made a final plea to the group, asking it to deliver at least four votes when the roll is called. The members promised 10.

"I find myself in the excruciating position of being asked to choose between voting for funding for the war or establishing timelines to end it," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.). "I have struggled with this decision, but I finally decided that, while I cannot betray my conscience, I cannot stand in the way of passing a measure that puts a concrete end date on this unnecessary war."


Shortly after, Out of Iraq Caucus leaders decided to break the pact that members had made to stick together against the bill. "We have released people who have been pained by all this," said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.). "We told them we don't want them to be in a position of undermining Nancy's speakership."

To many in the movement against the Iraq war, the liberal opposition to the bill was as maddening as it was mystifying.

"You really have two options here: One is that you can vote for a change of course here and say we're going to find a way out of Iraq, or, two, you can vote against it and hand George Bush a victory," said Jon Soltz, a veteran of the Iraq war and co-founder of, a group that opposes the war. "It doesn't make sense to me. George Bush got us into the war. They have challenged him on everything. Why would they give him this victory now?" he asked, referring to the liberals.
And while they try to micromanage the war and not hand Bush a "victory," or undermine Pelosi's leadership the troops readiness will be impacted:
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned yesterday that if Congress does not pass the supplemental war funding bill by April 15, the Army may have to slow the training of units slated to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan, or halt the repair of equipment. If the funding is delayed until May, he said, the tours of Army units in Iraq and Afghanistan might have to be extended "because other units are not ready to take their place."
And it's even going to take longer than May because once they pass this bill, it will have to be voted on in the Senate and then the two bills need to be reconciled and then vetoed by Bush. Then the whole process starts again. Not good. He probably won't get a good bill until the summer at the rate they're going. The only consolation he has is that when they vote on this bill and it passes, they have just bought themselves any problems that we have over there because of the time delay. The defeat just became theirs. They own it now (as Rush says).


And I can't make up my mind which account of the pork sounds more reasonable: ScrappleFace or WaPo (via). But this sounds about right:

The bill, which faces a certain presidential veto, represents “yet another symbolic triumph” for Congressional Democrats, said Rep. Pelosi, who urged her reluctant party members to put aside their differences and to support the measure as the only way to ensure Democrat party funding for their reelection campaigns.

Poor Pelosi!

No, really. I mean it. I'm beginning to really feel sorry for this woman that she has to put up with these Code Pink chicks. They are camping out at her house, they bother her at her office in San Fransisco and they tried to take over her office in DC. Now, you can say that she brought this on herself and yes, she did but I still feel sorry for her.

The group’s members had planned to hold a symbolic “Pin the war on the Donkey” demonstration at Pelosi’s office to show their frustration with the Democratic leadership’s inaction on ending the war in Iraq.

However, Capitol Police prevented the taping of a drawn donkey to the wall.

Code Pink members were crying outside Pelosi’s office. When asked why, Rae Abileah, 24, said she was crying out of “outrage that this is all we can get from the Democrats,” referring to the Iraq supplemental funding bill, scheduled for a vote Friday.

“We’re just heartbroken that Nancy Pelosi has decided to keep funding George Bush’s war, and now the war belongs to the Democrats as well as the Republicans,” said Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin. “We thought we were going to get a change when they came into power.”

I've seen pictures of these Code Pink chicks and they are quite old. Why would they behave in such a childish way? Yeah, they want to end the war but isn't there a way that's not so 2 year old?


Thursday, March 22, 2007

Islam and the European Courts

Two cases, two different verdicts, one in France the other in Germany. One allows sharia law to influence the court, the other upholding the laws of the land. Which country do you think caved? Surprising it wasn't France, the judge upheld free speech laws in France:

A French court has ruled in favour of weekly Charlie Hebdo, rejecting accusations by Islamic groups who said it incited hatred against Muslims.

The cartoons were covered by freedom of expression laws and were not an attack on Islam, but fundamentalists, it said.

The case was seen as an important test for freedom of expression in France.

Applause broke out in the courtroom at the announcement of the verdict, which ruled that the three cartoons published in February 2006 were not insulting to the Muslim community, the AFP news agency reports.

Editor Philippe Val had rejected the allegations, saying the cartoons were not an attack on Muslims, but on terrorists.


Depictions of the human form are generally taboo in Islam.


The cartoons, including one of the Prophet Muhammad with a headdress in the form of a bomb, triggered riots in some Muslim countries.
If Muslims don't want to see depictions of Muhammad, maybe they should move to Saudi Arabia because France just said they aren't going to be restricted by sharia law.

But a German judge appears to allow sharia to color her ruling:
The woman, a German citizen of Moroccan descent, had asked for an immediate divorce, saying her husband beat her.

But the female judge ruled that, under the law of the Koran, the woman had not been subject to unacceptable behaviour, the court in Frankfurt said.

The judge had now been removed from the divorce proceedings, it said.

She had argued that the couple's Moroccan cultural background meant it was "not unusual" for the husband to physically punish his wife.

The woman's domestic abuse therefore did not make her case one of exceptional hardship, she claimed.

When challenged about her ruling, the judge cited a passage from the Koran.
Fortunately, Germans reject this ruling:
German lawmakers said that Sharia, or traditional Islamic law, had no place in Germany.

"The legal and moral concepts of Sharia have nothing to do with German jurisprudence," said Wolfgang Bosbach, a lawmaker with the Christian Democrats.

"One thing must be clear: in Germany only German law applies," he added.
Courts really need to resist the urge to accommodate the culture of Islam, if they don't, sharia gets a foot into the door of the legal system or more appropriately, sharia gets it's nose into the tent.

Good going House Republicans!

It's good to see that you have a little fight in you. Pull out that knife every once in a while and stick it in the Democrats' back. You certainly have the element of surprise!

GOP Forces House Democrats To Pull DC Voting Bill

House Democrats pulled a bill to grant voting rights to Washington, D.C., after Republicans offered a motion that would repeal the gun ban for the District.

The move is a clear signal that Democrats have lost control of the House floor on the voting rights issue after minority Republicans presented the Democratic majority with a politically unpalatable motion that their conservative members would be forced to support for fear of angering the gun rights community.

Fifty-two Democrats voted with Republicans on a similar measure to repeal the gun ban in 2004. That would be more than enough support for Republicans to add a repeal to the voting rights bill - something a majority of Democrats would vehemently oppose.

Republicans have taken great pride in offering motions to recommit during their time in the minority, an often over-looked legislative procedure that has allowed them to amend various bills on the House floor.

I'm breaking my silence on this manufactured scandal to say this....

I've been boycotting this story because I believe it's a manufactured scandal and I don't want to be a party to it but I couldn't pass this one up:

An incompetent attorney general, who says he wasn't fully aware that nearly 10 percent of the U.S. attorneys who work for him throughout the country were being fired and permitted the 110,000-person Justice Department that he leads to give inaccurate information at best, or simply lie about it at worst, to the Congress and the American people, has the full confidence of the president who's lost the confidence of most people.

And this is what passes for a big-time, dramatic, historic constitutional crisis in 21st century America? You've got to be kidding. This is the most partisan, politically driven administration in history, and we're all supposed to be surprised by its conduct and motivation in the firing of these U.S. attorneys? Please.

Now the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law has voted to approve subpoenas that would force chief policy adviser Karl Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers and other top presidential aides to testify publicly and under oath about their involvement in the firings.

Guess what? That little ol' subcommittee can't do much of anything to force executive branch employees to testify without the help of the very man and department at the center of this altogether silly and over-baked controversy. That's right; Attorney General Alberto Gonzales or one of his U.S. attorneys would have to enforce any subpoenas refused by any of the president's aides.
This is the state of our nation, pretty funny, huh? You might want to remember this in November 2008: this is what the government looks like when Democrats are in charge of Congress.

Edwards' wife has cancer but he will continue with the campaign

His wife has inoperable but treatable cancer but he is going to continue his campaign:

"The campaign goes on. The campaign goes on strongly," Edwards told reporters, his wife by his side.


Mrs. Edwards, 57, was first diagnosed with cancer in the final weeks of the 2004 campaign. The day after Democratic presidential nominee
John Kerry and Edwards, his running mate, conceded the election to George W. Bush, Edwards announced that his wife had invasive ductal cancer, the most common type of breast cancer, and would undergo treatment.

Mrs. Edwards underwent several months of radiation and chemotherapy for the lump in her breast. Her husband's campaign has said she had recovered from the illness.
My brother-in-law has inoperable cancer and is still living years after his diagnosis so she may still have some time (though, it's stage four which is pretty advanced). But it will take it's toll and I have to think that they may be changing their mind as she goes through treatment. We should keep her in our prays because it's not easy to going through treatment and to have do campaign appearances on top of it seems impossible to me. Though, I agree with them, it's probably better not to sit around feeling sorry for yourself but to get out there and remain active as long as you can.

When I heard of the press conference and that her cancer had returned, I thought about what I would do if I were her. I would tell me husband that I want him to continue to pursue the presidency. He obviously wants to be president and this may be his last opportunity to run. I wouldn't want to be the reason that he didn't obtain something that he has been working years to obtain. To run and lose is one thing but to be able to run again and then have to drop out would seem cruel to me. I would find it very hard not to push for him to continue until it was evident that he had not way of winning.

Nigeria: Christian Teacher Killed by Muslim Students

I had heard that a teacher had been killed by students in Nigeria but the news account I'd heard failed to say that she was Christian. The world has because a place of horror when a teach is killed in cold blood by her students. I can't think how a civilized society would live in these conditions and have to conclude that we are in or entering the dark age when kids kill and kids are used in attacks. I thought I couldn't be stunned by this anymore, that I knew the depths of the depravity but there is something about this attack that hits me afresh just what we are up against. Generational hatred and fighting for years to come and further devolving into barbaric behavior.

Enraged Muslim secondary school pupils have mobbed and lynched a female Christian school teacher in the North-Eastern region of Nigeria, accusing her of desecrating the Koran , reported the BBC News on Wednesday, 21 March 2007, 19:44 GMT.

The Christian school teacher was invigilating an examination at the secondary school in Gombe state when she was attacked and murdered in cold blood by the Muslim pupils. And to prevent the outbreak of a religious riot, the authorities have shut all the schools in the locality.
We will probably see more of this as Islam is taken over more and more by the radical element. This type of radical Islam is ultimately lawless and will become increasingly out of control (even more so than today, believe it or not). When a fatwa is called, anyone can bring down the enemy, so in that environment, is it any wonder that kids will take the "law" into their own hands and execute someone that they believe broke the "law?"

Join me in praying that the Lord will protect those who live in Muslim areas and that he will open the eyes of those too blinded by their hatred to see the truth of His word. Pray that they will discover how barbaric they have become.

Related post:

Nigera: children are kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam