Monday, April 30, 2007

Dean Barnett's fan mail

Sounds like some of the anonymous comments that we get here at Reformed Chicks. Is it the same person, or is everyone on the left given the same talking points over at the Daily Kos? Maybe you guys might want to vary your response.

Ha Ha, Very Funny

I guess this is what passes for humor on the left.


The invasion of Iraq in the words of the Democrats

This is why they will not be able to successfully rewrite history the way they want to. They blabbed a little too much about the war on TV. Mislead? It seems like they were the ones doing the misleading:

Iranian Dress Code

This is indicative of the religion of peace: saw the breasts off of mannequins (via). Do you think that the religious police want to suppress those things that they find enticing?

They are stopping pedestrians and even cars - warning female drivers not to show any hair - and impounding the vehicles and arresting the women if they argue back.

Middle-aged women, foreign tourists and journalists have all been harassed, not just the young and fashionably dressed.


"Since we came out this morning many people we met have continuously warned us to be careful about our headscarves and to wear them further forward because they are arresting women who are dressed like this," she says.

Boutique owners are furious. Some shops have been sealed - others warned not to sell tight revealing clothing.
And the guys aren't spared either:
And it's not just women who are being targeted this year.

Young men are being cautioned for wearing short sleeved shirts or for their hairstyles.


Morad is scared because his friends have told him they've seen the police seize young men and forcibly cut their hair if it's too long.

Fifteen-year-old Tofiq who'd also gelled his hair to stand on end said he too was afraid but he wasn't going to change.

"I want the whole world to know that they oppress us and all we can do is put up with it," he said.

Some parents have complained that harassing the young over their clothing will only push them to leave the country.

But one MP has said those Iranians who cannot cope with Islamic laws should leave.
Ultimately, this might be a good thing if it pushes people to action.

Sunday, April 29, 2007

Rep. John Murtha, Blackmailer

I strongly believe that history will not look kindly on the actions of the Democrats. Every time you think that they couldn't get any lower, they shock you with their blatant disregard for the safety of this nation. To threaten to blackmail a president with impeachment during a time of war is absolutely unbelievable. Can Bush have him arrested for extortion?

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) said Sunday that Democrats in Congress could consider impeachment as a way to pressure President Bush on his handling of the war in Iraq.

“What I’m saying, there’s four ways to influence a president. And one of them’s impeachment,” Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

Murtha has been one of the most outspoken members of Congress on the administration's handling of the war in Iraq; others who have strongly criticized Bush have stopped short of calling for impeachment.

Murtha also expressed doubt that Congress and the Bush administration would be able to work out a compromise soon in negotiations on the $124 billion war spending bill. Congress' emergency funding measure contains a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq.

“They say we’re willing to compromise, and then we don’t get any compromise,” said Murtha. “We’ve already compromised. And we need to make this president understand, Mr. President, the public has spoken.”

Murtha said the Democratic-controlled Congress will pass another war funding bill with similar benchmarks for progress in Iraq after President Bush vetoes the legislation, as he has vowed to do.

“If he vetoes this bill, he’s cut off the money. But obviously, we’re going to pass another bill,” Murtha said. “It’s going to have some stringent requirements. ... I'd like to look at this again in two months.”

And they better give him a clean bill because they are the ones who will find out just what the American people want.

My moto is...

If someone on the left like Mark Shields likes your candidate, it's time to get a new candidate:

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

When you look like this, do you think it wise to criticize how others look?

Are Jews reclaiming Jesus?

That seems to be what this guy is saying.

After two thousand years in a dark corner it seems that Jesus is making something of a comeback in the Jewish world. Not in a Christian, proselytizing "Jews for Jesus" manner, but as a historical figure, decidedly unchristian, who needs to be reassessed as a player in the Jewish tradition. In recent years the job of reclaiming Jesus has gone on in both low and high culture.


The great Jewish painter Marc Chagall, the subject of my recent biography, was, then, perhaps ahead of his time in his insistence that Jesus be seen as a great "Jewish poet and prophet." Chagall was gripped by images of Jesus from an early age, and could not, in fact, get them out of his mind. He began to paint crucifixion scenes while in his early twenties and continued to do so, sometimes obsessively, as in the years 1941-1942, throughout his long life. For Chagall it was a tragedy that religious schismatism had severed Jesus from the Jewish world. When, during the Holocaust, he searched for an image of martyrdom and suffering that would be commensurate with the suffering of the Jews, his mind moved naturally to a Jewish Jesus on the cross, a figure that, as in his great 1938 painting White Crucifixion he draped in a prayer shawl or tallit, so that viewers could not miss the point.

This Sunday, at the Center for Jewish History in New York, Nextbook is sponsoring a conference entitled "What's He Doing here? Jesus in Jewish Culture." An array of Jewish writers and thinkers: theologians, historians, poets and public intellectuals, including Leon Wieseltier, Stephen Greenblatt, Susannah Heschel, Paula Frederiksen, Jonathan Rosen, Stephen Prothero, Robert Pinsky, and I'm happy to say, myself, will attempt, as the title makes clear, to tease out the twists and turns, the history and the representation, of Jesus in Jewish culture. My man is Chagall, whose relation to Jesus is conflicted and contradictory: sometimes Chagall identified with Jesus as a suffering artist/poet, sometimes he saw him as a symbol of Jewish suffering and sometimes he portrayed him in more conventional "Christian" fashion. Others will take on Jesus and the Rabbis, Messianism, Jesus in the Promised Land. And Stephen Greenblatt, who has already let us know so engagingly what he thinks of Shakespeare, will now tell us what he thinks of Jesus.

Chagall's use of Christ to represent the suffering of the Jews is incredibly insightful, Christ went through the tribulation of the Jews on the cross (Deuteronomy 4:30) and there is no greater symbol of the suffering of the nation of Israel than the cross (I probably will develop this thought more on Life Under the Sun during the summer, so stay tuned).

I think it's great that Jesus is the current focus of Jewish thought and I'm glad that they're giving him a second look. But this type of analysis will mislead them:
and as for Jesus, we shall know him for who he was: Yeshua, a Jew who never imagined himself outside the normative Jewish tradition and who would no doubt be deeply surprised to find himself there.
It ignores the only credible record we have of Jesus' words, it totally misses what Jesus says of himself:
Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus doesn't sound like a typical Second Temple rabbi. He's saying he's above the law and no rabbi at that time would have said that because the law was supreme. Messiah was to come and rule the nation of Israel by the law of God, he wasn't a law unto himself. The law was holy and given to the nation of Israel by God and was very precious in their sight. It's what set them apart from the other nations. It was a sign of their eternal covenant with God.

He also said this:
Matthew 12:1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, "Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath." 3 He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: 4 how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? 6 I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. 7 And if you had known what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath."
A Second Temple rabbi would never call himself the Lord of the Sabbath because it is holy and belongs to God. It was the day that man focused his thoughts and attention on God and not his normal, everyday duties. He was to give the day over to God. Jesus was saying that he was somehow the master of that day and that he could determine what men did on the Sabbath. This was totally outside the norm of Jewish thinking because Jesus was saying that he was above the laws that regulated what could be done on the Sabbath. As far as the Pharisees were concerned, Jesus had delusions of grandeur.

And if he was a typical Jew, why were the Pharisees ready to stone him for blaspheming God? He very clearly committed a grave sin in the eyes of the Pharisees because he made himself equal to God:
John 10:24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." 25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one." 31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?" 33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."
There are many other examples of this in Scripture and reading the Gospel accounts would give anyone pause in thinking of Jesus as a "Jew who never imagined himself outside the normative Jewish tradition." I would also recommend A Rabbi Talks with Jesus. It is an excellent book that provides insight into why the Jews of Jesus' time rejected the claims of Jesus and why Jews of today continue to do so.

Has the Democrat exist strategy worked?

Is al-Qaeda ready to surrender because they know that the Democrats have such a brilliant plan?

Al Qaeda in Iraq today announced it would cease all martyrdom operations, bombings, kidnappings and attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces just a day after the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate sent a bill to President George Bush that sets a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq.

“Under orders from our supreme ruler, Usama bin Laden, we announce our complete surrender and ask for mercy from our triumphant conquerors,” said an unnamed spokesman on a prerecorded audio statement released on al-Jazeera and CNN. “We are defenseless in the face of the Democrats’ aggressive pull-out schedule — Allah be praised.”

Um, no.

Wow! This guy has his finger on the pulse of the Republican base

If you were courting Republican primary voters, would you say this:

Republican John McCain says he intends to appoint a Democrat to a high-profile Cabinet post if he’s elected president.

“There are very highly qualified Democrats on a number of issues,” McCain said. “The more efforts you can make towards bipartisanship, I think in Washington today, the better off you are. But it also better be, one, an important post and, two, a person who has the ear of the president.”

I'm sorry but didn't we hear this bi-partisan bull cookies already with W.? And what did it get him? A very bad Secretary of Transportation and absolutely no good will from the Democrats.

We don't want a uniter, we want a fighter.

Saturday, April 28, 2007

Democrat Debate: Is there a global war on terror?

Guess who didn't raise their hand?


Edwards is really courting the left wing of the Democrat party. But I think that Biden must not have heard the question. Clinton's hand went up first She's pretty smart -- her response to what she would do if we were attacked was also very smart. She's going to be the only viable Democrat candidate when this is over. If I were her, I would be using this clip in commercials in Iowa and SC.

Liberals, this one's for you

I know that those on the right already know this but it appears to have escaped the attention of those on the left and even though I've blogged on this before, I guess I'll just have to blog on it again because I want to make sure that the left knows that we are fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq:

Anbar Province, long the lawless heartland of the tenacious Sunni Arab resistance, is undergoing a surprising transformation. Violence is ebbing in many areas, shops and schools are reopening, police forces are growing and the insurgency appears to be in retreat.

“Many people are challenging the insurgents,” said the governor of Anbar, Maamoon S. Rahid, though he quickly added, “We know we haven’t eliminated the threat 100 percent.”

Many Sunni tribal leaders, once openly hostile to the American presence, have formed a united front with American and Iraqi government forces against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. With the tribal leaders’ encouragement, thousands of local residents have joined the police force. About 10,000 police officers are now in Anbar, up from several thousand a year ago. During the same period, the police force here in Ramadi, the provincial capital, has grown from fewer than 200 to about 4,500, American military officials say.


The turnabout began last September, when a federation of tribes in the Ramadi area came together as the Anbar Salvation Council to oppose the fundamentalist militants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

Among the council’s founders were members of the Abu Ali Jassem tribe, based in a rural area of northern Ramadi. The tribe’s leader, Sheik Tahir Sabbar Badawie, said in a recent interview that members of his tribe had fought in the insurgency that kept the Americans pinned down on their bases in Anbar for most of the last four years.

“If your country was occupied by Iraq, would you fight?” he asked, smiling knowingly. “Enough said.”

But while the anti-American sheiks in Anbar and Al Qaeda both opposed the Americans, their goals were different. The sheiks were part of a relatively moderate front that sought to drive the Americans out of Iraq; some were also fighting to restore Sunni Arab power. But Al Qaeda wanted to go even further and impose a fundamentalist Islamic state in Anbar, a plan that many of the sheiks did not share.

Al Qaeda’s fighters began to use killing, intimidation and financial coercion to divide the tribes and win support for their agenda. They killed about 210 people in the Abu Ali Jassem tribe alone and kidnapped others, demanding ransoms as high as $65,000 per person, Sheik Badawie said.

For all the sheiks’ hostility toward the Americans, they realized that they had a bigger enemy, or at least one that needed to be fought first, as a matter of survival.

The council sought financial and military support from the Iraqi and American governments. In return the sheiks volunteered hundreds of tribesmen for duty as police officers and agreed to allow the construction of joint American-Iraqi police and military outposts throughout their tribal territories.


With the help of the Anbar sheiks, the military equation immediately became simpler for the Americans in Ramadi. The number of enemies they faced suddenly diminished, American and Iraqi officials said. They were able to move more freely through large areas. With the addition of the tribal recruits, the Americans had enough troops to build and operate garrisons in areas they cleared, many of which had never seen any government security presence before.

And the Americans were now fighting alongside people with a deep knowledge of the local population and terrain, and with a sense of duty, vengeance and righteousness.


But there is a new sense of commitment by the police, American and Iraqi officials say, in part because they are patrolling their own neighborhoods. Many were motivated to join after they or their communities were attacked by Al Qaeda, and their successes have made them an even greater target of insurgent car bombs and suicide attacks.

Abd Muhammad Khalaf, 28, a policeman in the Jazeera district on Ramadi’s northern edge, is typical. He joined the police after Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia killed two of his brothers, he said. “I will die when God wills it,” he said. “But before I die, I will support my friends and kill some terrorists.”

There o'brien, I made sure you didn't miss the fact that we are fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq and not only are we fighting al-Qaeda but the Sunni tribal leaders are doing so as well. The NY Times is stating as a fact that al-Qaeda is in Iraq.

Looks like the surge it working and that we are fighting to get al-Qaeda out of Iraq. It looks like we don't have to go to Afghanistan to fight them. Oh wait a minute! I forgot, we're already there.

Reid, does this look like we've lost the war? It's not over by a long shot as the NY Times is quick to point out but it doesn't look like it's lost.

And does this sound like democracy has failed:
“Since I was a little boy, I have seen nothing but warfare — against the Kurds, Iranians, Kuwait, the Americans,” Sheik Badawie, the tribal leader, said. “We are tired of war. We are going to fight through the ballot box.”

Already, tribal leaders are participating in local councils that have been formed recently throughout the Ramadi area under the guidance of the American military.
Too bad you guys on the left have closed your eyes to what's going on over there. Maybe you might be encouraged and will stop using the war as a political weapon (and maybe pigs will fly).

Democrat Debate: John Edwards' Moral Leader Video Clip

Is it any surprise that a lawyer would have trouble thinking of his "moral leader?" Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Sick video on YouTube

If you have a YouTube account, go flag this video as inappropriate. It's called "Jump Jump, 9/11 Will Make You Jump." I think from the title you can guess what the video is about. Very sick.

Democrat Debate: Who are our most important enemies?

We have no enemies? Wow! Democrats, please, please please vote for this guy because he's clueless:

Here's a clue.

BTW, I'd forgotten some of the things that bin Laden said about his motive for 9-11. From bin Laden's "letter to America," in response to the question "What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?"
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all.


(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all.


(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?


iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object.

Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?
Sounds like someone who has set some pretty high conditions, how is this guy our friend? And I didn't even list them all, go read what we would have to give up to this guy if we surrendered to him which appears to be what the Democrats what to do. (They don't want to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq, so where would they fight them? In what nation will they fight al-Qaeda? Do we have to subject Afganistan to the level of violence of Iraq so that we are fighting al-Qaeda in the "right" theater?)

Friday, April 27, 2007

Underground churches in Iran are growing

Some really great news coming out of Iran, the church is growing and the women are hungry for the word of God:

Despite the hard-line Islamist regime in Iran the underground church is growing, Release International has reported.

Evangelists are sharing their faith in towns and villages and planting new churches, according to the international persecution watchdog.

Iranian partners of Release International, which supports the persecuted church, report significant growth in the activities of the house churches - including outreach.

RI is supporting the underground church in Iran through leadership training seminars and by encouraging women's fellowships.

“Newly-trained house church leaders then pass on their training to others and Christian women are growing more confident in their faith in this repressive society,” RI explains.

Observers have said women’s rights are being rolled back by Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Reports have suggested that leaders in the underground church have been active in evangelism in cities, towns and villages. Many have been working successfully to share their faith in remote areas away from the watchful eye of the authorities, RI reports.

One young leader travelled out to a village to visit a family of six who had just become Christians and needed to be taught about the faith.

She found them living in a poor damp house with only a few old pieces of furniture. When they heard she was a Christian they gave her an excited welcome, and explained: “We were asking God to send someone to bring a Bible and teach us.”

They continued: “Jesus has revealed himself to us. And we have realised the character of Jesus is different to the character of so many other prophets we know of. He is superior to all of them. He is exceptional.

“We believe that Jesus is alive today and we are so much in love with him,” they told her.
Join me in praying for the church that it might grow into a steady stream that undermines the foundation of this repressive regime as it did in the Soviet Union.

Hey Guys!

If you guys want to leave links in the comment section, you could use this code, replacing the Reformed Chicks address with the address you want to link to:

<a href="" rel="tag">here</a>

It will make it easier for others to go to the site you are referencing and my comment section will look a lot better :-)

Biden showing uncommon discipline

Very good response, Senator Biden!

Who Here Supports The Kucinich Plan To Impeach Cheney?

*crickets chirping*

Saudis arrest 172 militants

Some really good news out of Saudi Arabia, it's great to see that we aren't the only nation fighting the Islamofascists:

Police arrested 172 Islamic militants, some of whom had trained abroad as pilots so they could fly aircraft in attacks on Saudi Arabia's oil fields, the Interior Ministry said Friday. A spokesman said all that remained in the plot "was to set the zero hour."

The ministry issued a statement saying the detainees were planning to carry out suicide atttacks against "public figures, oil facilities, refineries ... and military zones" — some of which were outside the kingdom

"They had reached an advance stage of readiness and what remained only was to set the zero hour for their attacks," Interior Ministry spokesman Brig. Mansour al-Turki told the Associated Press in a phone call. "They had the personnel, the money, the arms. Almost all the elements for terror attacks were complete except for setting the zero hour for the attacks."


The Saudi state TV channel Al-Ekhbariah broadcast footage of large weapons cache discovered buried in the desert. The arms included bricks of plastic explosives, ammunition cartridges, handguns and rifles wrapped in plastic sheeting.


Al-Ekhbariah showed investigators breaking tiled floors with hammers to uncover pipes that contained weapons. In one scene, an official upends a plastic pipe and bullets and little packets of plastic explosives spill out.

India court orders Gere's arrest

Over this:

Can you believe it?
The order by a court in the northern city of Jaipur came in response to a complaint by a local lawyer.

The judge watched a video recording of Gere kissing Shetty and found him guilty of violating Indian laws against public obscenity, the lawyer, Poonam Chand Bhandari, said.

The court also summoned Shilpa Shetty to appear on May 5, Bhandari said, adding that Gere was also ordered to be arrested.

Gere can be sent to jail for up to three months or fined or both for the crime if he is arrested. He is not in India now but can be held if he visits the country again.

The Hollywood star is a devout Buddhist and a vocal supporter of the Tibetan cause and visits India frequently to meet the Dalai Lama, who lives in exile in northern India.


Groups of men had burned and kicked straw effigies of Gere and Shetty in sporadic protests across the country after newspapers published the picture of the kiss on their front pages and TV channels aired visuals of the event.
Read the rest here.


Related Posts:
Richard Gere burned in effigy over kisses

None of these candidates better run as the Green candidate

Creating quite the carbon footprint, aren't they?

A flock of small jets took flight from Washington Thursday, each carrying a Democratic presidential candidate to South Carolina for the first debate of the political season.

For Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, it was wheels up shortly after they voted in favor of legislation requiring that U.S. troops begin returning home from Iraq in the fall.

No one jet pooled, no one took commercial flights to save money, fuel or emissions.

All but Biden, who flew on a private jet, chartered their flights -- a campaign expense of between $7,500 and $9,000.

Thursday, April 26, 2007

I'm a little bummed that Rosie is leaving "The View"

No, I mean it. I'm going to miss having Rosie on "The View." This should not be a surprise to those of you who have been reading this blog for awhile. Here is what I said when she bashed Christians for being radicals:

I hope Rosie keeps plying it on so that the American people see how deranged the left have become (the American public that watches this kind of show). I think most Americans see this as an unfair comparison. They understand there's a difference between Christians and radical Islamic fascists. We are not the ones that would kill you for being a lesbian.
Now there won't be such an open window on the insanity of the left. Now we can't see how low ABC will go for ratings. Now we can't see how far into the wacky left Rosie would push Barbara Walters. Bummer! I hope they bring on someone as obnoxious, how about Barbara Streisand? Alec Baldwin is being floated as her replacement. He would be a good choice for stupid comments but would they put a guy on "The View?" Isn't the whole point of the show chicks sitting around talking?

BTW, the fruit of Rosie's work can be seen in this video:
I doubt that Walters would be this publicly disdainful if the environment didn't promote it. Heaven forbid that Walters is forced to wait a few minutes to ensure the safety of the president of the United States.

The Democrats just voted for defeat in Iraq

It's a good thing that we have Bush because if we had a weaker president, he might cave and give them what they want: defeat in Iraq. And if you think that's too harsh, what would you call it? They don't want us to win because if we did, they wouldn't win more senate seats.

Senators followed their defiant House counterparts' lead Thursday, passing a war funding bill that sets a deadline for withdrawing combat forces from Iraq by next year.

The bill passed 51-46 and now heads to President Bush, who has vowed to veto it.

GOP Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith of Oregon joined Democrats in supporting the bill. Connecticut independent Joe Lieberman, who caucuses with the Democrats, voted with Republicans opposing it.

Passage sets the stage for a showdown between Bush and congressional Democrats, who do not appear to have the necessary two-thirds support to override the president's threatened veto.

Democrats will need the support of 67 senators to override a veto.

The White House quickly denounced the Senate vote.

"The Senate has now joined the House in passing defeatist legislation that insists on a date for surrender, micromanages our commanders and generals in combat zones from 6,000 miles away, and adds billions of dollars in unrelated spending," White House spokeswoman Dan Perino said after the vote.

Prior to the vote, Lieberman condemned the bill -- which he said laid out "a strategy based on catchphrases and bromides rather than military realities" -- as a guarantee of failure in the war in Iraq.

"In my opinion, Iraq is not yet lost," Lieberman said, countering a remark to the contrary made last week by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "But if we follow the plan in this legislation, it will be lost and so, I fear, will much of our hope for stability in the Mideast."

Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, argued before the vote that continuing the war defies the will of the American people and that the U.S. military "should not police Iraq's civil war indefinitely."
What's amazing about Kennedy's remark is that we are actually fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq (that's who's doing the suicide bombing) and the Democrats are ignoring that fact because they believe that they can win seats in the Senate and the presidency if we lose in Iraq (Reid himself said that).

Carbon Offset Fraud

I'm shocked by this! Shocked I tell you:

Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.

A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.

Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.


Why are protesters allowed to bother our military personnel and elected officials?

Why isn't security tighter in the hallways of the Congress?

In a press conference just before the briefing, Hunter called on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to “resign his position” because Reid had said that the “war is lost” last week. Reid has refused to back down in face of White House criticism for his remark.

Hunter and other Republicans also criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for not attending the briefing, although Pelosi did speak with Petraeus by phone for about 30 minutes on Tuesday.

But just as Hunter made his call for Reid to step down, anti-war protestors who had staked out the hallway of the Rayburn House Office Building, where the Petraeus briefing was taking place, began to shout him down, screaming at Hunter, “What does success look like in Iraq?”

They followed Hunter, who is seeking the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, down the hallway to the Armed Services Committee, all the while berating him.

About a dozen anti-war protestors, including several members of the group “Code Pink,” as well as Cindy Sheehan, who lost a son in Iraq, berated lawmakers and military officials as they went into briefing.

One protestor blocked Negroponte, screaming that the former U.S. ambassador to Iraq was a “war criminal.” Negroponte briefly reversed course and walked away from the committee rooms before being escorted inside by police and his security team.

Other protestors tried to grab lawmakers’ arms while urging them to “Bring the troops home now.” Protestors latched onto Petraeus himself, but his security detail quickly ushered the general into the committee’s offices.

Egypt Threatens Hamas

It is amazing that Egypt is siding with Israel in the latest conflict with Palestine:

Egypt has threatened to cut off its relations with Hamas unless the movement halts its rocket attacks on Israel, Palestinian Authority officials said Wednesday.

The officials said Egyptian Intelligence Chief Gen. Omar Suleiman sent a "tough" message to Hamas leaders, warning them against the continued rocket attacks. The message was delivered to PA Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas by Burhan Hammad, a senior Egyptian intelligence officer based in the Gaza Strip, the officials added.

They said that Suleiman also warned that Egypt would not side with the Palestinians if Israel launched a military operation against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

"We hope that the Hamas leaders will listen carefully to what the Egyptians are telling them," said one official here. "Hamas must return to the period of calm so as not to give Israel an excuse to invade the Gaza Strip."

Another senior PA official accused Hamas of trying to "extort" PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas on the eve of his meeting with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal in Cairo this coming weekend.

"The firing of the rockets and the resignation of Interior Minister Hani Kawassmeh [earlier this week] are part of an attempt by Hamas to extract concessions from President Abbas ahead of his meeting with Mashaal," he told The Jerusalem Post. "The meeting is supposed to focus on the possibility of including Hamas in the PLO. Mashaal wants to be deputy chairman of the PLO. At the meeting, Hamas will agree to a cease-fire with Israel on condition that Mashaal is appointed to a senior position in the PLO. This is extortion."

Tags: ,

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Video of the President Dancing

Associated Press - (APTN)

Apr. 25, 2007. 03:30 PM EST

President Bush joined a group of dancers on stage during the first ever Malaria Awareness Day, to help combat malaria on the continent of Africa. (April 25)

Reid and Schumer are such ???

I'm sitting here thinking about a title for this post that would capture how vile Reid and Schumer are. I can't think of any metaphor that would fit with their current actions, calling them vultures would do a disservice to the vultures because at least a vulture waits for it's prey to die before it feeds on the carcass, it doesn't tear apart the living. Maybe they're hyenas:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday he plans to continue an aggressive push for an early withdrawal from Iraq and does not particularly care that Republicans will try to paint that position as a lack of support for U.S. forces.

Why? Because “We are going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war,” the Nevada Democrat predicted at a news conference.

Sitting next to him was the man charged with making that happen: Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Charles E. Schumer of New York.

“The war in Iraq is a lead weight attached to their ankle,” Schumer warned, predicting that congressional Democrats will pick up additional Republican votes for Democratic initiatives as the 2008 elections approach.

“We will break them, because they are looking extinction in the eye,” Schumer declared, making no attempt to hide his glee.

His glee? That is why I thought of hyenas:
They are known for a chirping, birdlike bark that resembles the sound of hysterical human laughter.
These people don't care about the troops or about the Iraqi people, all they want is power. They could care less about the safety of America. And that is why Giuliani is 100% right about what he says about them:
Rudy Giuliani said if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001.

But if a Republican is elected, he said, especially if it is him, terrorist attacks can be anticipated and stopped.

“If any Republican is elected president —- and I think obviously I would be the best at this —- we will remain on offense and will anticipate what [the terrorists] will do and try to stop them before they do it,” Giuliani said.


“But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have?” Giuliani said. “If we are on defense [with a Democratic president], we will have more losses and it will go on longer.”

“I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense,” Giuliani continued. “We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.”

He added: “The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.”


This war ends when they stop coming here to kill us!” Giuliani said in his speech. “Never, ever again will this country ever be on defense waiting for [terrorists] to attack us if I have anything to say about it. And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put us back on defense!”


This is serious and the Democrats just don't get it, they don't understand the threat we are facing. Al Qaeda wants us to leave Iraq so that they can spread out to other areas and cause havoc there. It's always been a part of the plan that after they had trained their people in Iraq then they would send them to other nations to topple them. From Hugh Hewitt's interview with Lawrence Wright:

HH: Now let’s talk a little bit about what the vision is, not just of bin Laden and Zawahiri, though they are the heads, in many respects, of this vast and disbursed organization. But you chronicle in the New Yorker article from September of ’06 a five stage plan. Is that the dominant planning document? Do the individuals subscribe to that vision?

LW: This…what you’re referring to came from a book by a Jordanian journalist called Fouad Hussein, who wrote a biography of Zarqawi, the late leader of al Qaeda in Iraq. And this Zarqawi legacy that we’re dealing with in Iraq now, he’s the one that instigated the civil war between the Sunnis and the Shia. And it was no doubt from him, but also from Saif al-Adil, the al Qaeda security chief who has taken refuge in Iran, that Fouad Hussein drew from them this plan, the master plan as I call it, of al Qaeda. And it begins with the strikes on America, on 9/11, the first stage called awakening. And the idea was to strike at America, and cause it to, as he says, act chaotically in response. And the first stage ends with the fall of Baghdad. And then, the next stage begins with the training of jihadis who stream into Iraq to fight against the Americans. And then that stage was, according to their plans, to last to 2006. And then they would go back to their own countries and topple the repressive regimes there, and set up a caliphate that would reach across national boundaries. And then by the year 2016, they would create a pan-Islamic army to engage in a final apocalyptic war with the unbelievers that would finally be resolved, be won by the Islamists in the year 2020, you know, with complete victory, as they call it, which would mean the end of all suffering. That’s the master plan for al Qaeda.

HH: When did they articulate that?

LW: It was about four years ago in that Fouad Hussein book.

HH: So after the invasion of Iraq? After the toppling of Saddam?

LW: Yes.

HH: But then…so there’s a little bit of post-hawk…

LW: Oh, it’s very, very self-serving, and very much so, as are many of these al Qaeda documents. They’re meant to be read in the West.

(Go listen to the rest here.)

We either fight them over there are we fight them here. They won't give up just because we leave Iraq. I'd rather it be over there:
US forces have killed an Al-Qaeda kingpin they allege sent 12-year-old Iraqi boys to their deaths as suicide car bombers, they said Wednesday, amid an intense battle with insurgents around Baghdad.

With a large-scale security operation under way in the capital, US and Iraqi forces are fanning out into a violent belt of small towns around the city in a bid to track down insurgent car bomb factories.

The urgency of the mission was underlined on Monday, when two suicide truck bombers and a gang of gunmen assaulted and partially demolished a US outpost northeast of the capital, killing nine soldiers and wounding 20 more.

US command said it had identified a suspect killed northwest of Baghdad on April 20 as Muhammad Abdullah Abbas al-Issawi, also known as Abu Akram and Abu Abd al-Sattar, the Al-Qaeda "security emir" for the east of Anbar province.

"Coalition forces were conducting operations targeting associates of a known senior leader within Al-Qaeda in Iraq," the military statement said.

"During the operation the terrorists engaged ground forces with small arms fire. Coalition forces used appropriate self-defence measures and engaged the armed men, killing two and detaining one," it said.

According to the statement, explosive vests were found at the scene and "intelligence reports also indicate that his VBIED (car bomb) cell used 12- to 13-year-old children as VBIED drivers."

This is the nature of our enemy, using Iraqi children as a weapon against their own people. These are the people that Reid thinks are winning the war. These are the people that Reid and Schumer are empowering to bring their fight to us. And how do Reid and Schumer view the results of us losing the war? As you saw yourself, glee since it means more power for them.

What do you think of this summary of Calvin's theology?

Even if you are doing it for kids, it sort of loses something in the translation :-)

Calvin is so much richer than this, it really does a disservice to his teachings.

Sam Waterston thinks Thompson is getting in the race

More signs that Thompson will be running:

It is uncertain about whether NBC's "Law & Order" will be renewed. But Sam Waterston told CNN that he expects co-star Fred Thompson to run for president. Wolf Blitzer asked Waterston about the possibility of Thompson's throwing his hat into the presidential ring.

"I think that is going to happen," Waterston said Tuesday.

Waterston described the actors' relationship as "friendly, friendly."

Brody met Fred Thompson's wife and liked her and thinks she will be an asset to his campaign:
I met her Saturday night at the White House Correspondents dinner. I was struck by her presence and self assurance. She comes across as not only very nice but as a player in this 2008 presidential race. And she tells me she reads The Brody File! That confirms her intellect.
I wonder if she is smart enough to have deliberately neutralized one of her husband's critics by telling him that she reads his column? blog? (what the heck is it).

VA settles lawsuit with Wiccans over grave markers

The Wiccans can finally have their religious symbol in national cemeteries:

A nearly 10-year quest by Wiccans to have their symbol added to the list of emblems allowed in national cemeteries and on government-issued headstones of fallen soldiers ended Monday with a lawsuit settlement.

The agreement was reached between the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and Wiccans who sued to include the five-pointed star in the list of “emblems of belief” allowed on VA grave markers.

Eleven families nationwide are waiting for grave markers with the pentacle, said Selena Fox, a Wiccan high priestess with Circle Sanctuary in Barneveld and a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The settlement calls for the pentacle, whose five points represent earth, air, fire, water and spirit, to be placed on grave markers within 14 days for those who have pending requests with the VA.

“I am glad this has ended in success in time to get markers for Memorial Day,” Fox said.

The pentacle joins 38 symbols the VA already permits on gravestones. They include commonly recognized symbols for Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Judaism, as well as those for smaller religions such as Sufism Reoriented, Eckiankar and the Japanese faith Seicho-No-Ie.
I think that if you lose your life serving this country, you should have whatever you deemed appropriate on your grave site.

Related Posts:
Bureaucrats Refuse to Allow Wiccan Symbol on Tombstone
It's about time!

Westboro Church did not picket the Virginia Tech memorial services

Because Mike Gallagher traded air time so that they wouldn't. I was going to blog about this over the weekend but didn't get to it and then Monday I wondered if they actually did it because I didn't hear any news about it. If you are interested in what some of the church members had to say, you can go here to get a Christian bloggers take on it.

Think Before You Post

I hope that the teenage My Space users are keeping this in mind when they post:

It's not empowering to have pervs looking at your naked pictures, it's degrading. I really wish that teenagers got that.

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Dennis Kucinich seeks Cheney's impeachment

He's going after Cheney first because he doesn't want Cheney to become president after Bush is impeached. It's a ridiculous waste of time since it isn't going anywhere. They will not get the votes necessary to impeach Cheney:

A veteran United States politician has introduced legislation urging Vice-President Dick Cheney's impeachment for allegedly manipulating intelligence used to justify the US invasion of Iraq.

House of Representatives Democrat Dennis Kucinich introduced a resolution saying that Mr Cheney "has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States".

Mr Kucinich, a contender for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, said Mr Cheney did so "by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq".

His Bill further accused the Vice-President of trumping up "an alleged relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda," and having "openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States".
We live in interesting times when a member of Congress would attempt to impeach the Vice-President during a time of war.

Reid knows more about what's going on in Iraq than Petraeus

Military strategist and Majority Leader Harry Reid has determined that if Petraeus states that things are starting to improve in Iraq, then he won't believe him.


It's amazing to me that Reid, who isn't fighting and doesn't know what's going on over there, thinks he knows more than the guy leading the fight. The guy he voted to approve. What hubris!

Here's a letter from a guy who also knows more about what's going on over there than Reid:
n raw and emotional language from the bloody front lines, Cpl. Tyler Rock, of the 1st Battalion, 6th Marines, skewered Reid for being far removed from the patriotism and progress in Iraq.

"Yeah, and I got a quote for that [expletive] Harry Reid. These families need us here," Rock vented in an e-mail to Pat Dollard, a Hollywood agent-turned-war reporter who posted the comment on his Web site,

"Obviously [Reid] has never been in Iraq. Or at least the area worth seeing . . . the parts where insurgency is rampant and the buildings are blown to pieces," Rock wrote.

Based in Camp Lejeune, N.C., Rock catalogued a series of grim daily traumas in Iraq, like getting covered in ash and sleeping under a dirty rug in an Iraqi family's house, or watching "several terrorists die" on the same strip of pavement.

But he says he is optimistic about the future of a country that he says has "turned to complete s- - -" during a bloody insurgency.

He also spoke admiringly of the risks brave Iraqi citizens take every day.

"If Iraq didn't want us here then why do we have [Iraqi police] volunteering every day to rebuild their cities?" he asked.

"It sucks that Iraqis have more patriotism for a country that has turned to complete s- - - more than the people in America who drink Starbucks every day.

"We could leave this place and say we are sorry to the terrorists. And then we could wait for 3,000 more American civilians to die before we say, 'Hey, that's not nice' again."

"And the sad thing is after we WIN this war. People like [Reid] will say he was there for us the whole time."
Keep at, Reid. Keep dissing the troops in a time of war. That's going to go over well in 2008.

Update: Here's Jonah's take:
I've long thought Reid was mostly an empty suit but not the sort of guy to get furious at. He's no ideologue, just a fixer-type. But when he says that he won't believe General Petraeus no matter what the General says, it's really pretty outrageous, particularly when Reid begins the interview by invoking Petraeus's judgment in his own defense. Apparently, he's pocketed all he needs from the General and so why bother listening any more. I'd rather he just put his hands over his ears and yelled "Nah-nah-nah-woop-woop-woop — I'm not listening — nah-nah-nah!" then listen to his soporific sophistry.
But isn't that just what he's doing? In effect he's acting on the same level as the two year old and not as a statesman should.

Fred Thompson on Abortion

Ah Ha! The smoking gun, as it were. Here is video of Thompson during a debate on abortion.

Just so you know my bona fides on this subject: I'm a Christian who believes that life begins at conception and I've been pro-life since I was a teenager and realized that it was legal for a mother to kill her baby in her womb. This seemed incredibly wrong to me and I still believe that to this day.

But I have to tell you that I hold a very similar position to Fred Thompson. I believe that Roe v. Wade was judicial overreach and bad law. I also believe that eventually it will be overturned and when that happens it will be up to the states to determine what they will do. That is where I want to fight this battle. I don't believe this to be a federal issue, it will be easier for us to get it criminalized in a number of states (at least we will be able to get it restricted significantly in most of them) because we can organize easier at the state level than at the federal level and being organized at the state level, we are better equipped to offer assistance to those in need.

Thompson made his view of the federal government clear when he blogged about his vote on tort reform, why should we be surprised that he would view this issue in the same way? He doesn't believe it falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government, it should be handled by the states. Aren't the states the ones who issue licenses to doctors? Aren't they better equipped to handle the regulation of the doctors in their state? Aren't they already doing that now?

I agree with Bill Hobbs:
The key phrase in Thompson's answer is this one: "I do not believe that the federal government ought to be involved in that process." That sentence is the summary of all he says next, and shows he is opposed to Roe v. Wade, which represented the federalization of what had been a state-level issue.

He then says he is opposed to federal funding for abortion and supports the states' right to regulate abortion - both are federalist and pro-life positions - and he opposes the federal government criminalizing abortion. Again, a federalist answer.

Thompson's entire answer is a very "federalist" - he believes abortion policy should be a matter for states rather than the federal government.

I'm really concerned that there will be some who believe that their position is the only pro-life position and those of use who support the states taking over this issue are pro-choice. That certainly is not the case as far as I'm concerned. You will not make me wear a label that is not mine and I doubt you will get Thompson to do it as well. Fred Thompson voted consistently for life while in the Senate. That's good enough for me. But for those who are concerned think about this: would a federalist actually put a judge on the bench that would uphold Roe v. Wade? Of course not!

This is why I don't buy the polls that Pelosi's popular

When liberals come to this blog bragging about the fact that Pelosi is more popular than Bush, I laugh because I know that a majority of those polled haven't a clue who Pelosi is. I think Jonah Goldberg's column really nails the problem with the polls:

HUGE NUMBERS of Americans don't know jack about their government or politics. According to a Pew Research Center survey released last week, 31% of Americans don't know who the vice president is, fewer than half are aware that Nancy Pelosi is the speaker of the House, a mere 29% can identify "Scooter" Libby as the convicted former chief of staff of the vice president, and only 15% can name Harry Reid when asked who is the Senate majority leader.

Also last week, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that two-thirds of Americans believe that Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales' firing of eight U.S. attorneys was "politically motivated."

So, we are supposed to believe that two-thirds of Americans have studied the details of the U.S. attorney firings and come to an informed conclusion that they were politically motivated — even when Senate Democrats agree that there is no actual evidence that Gonzales did anything improper. Are these the same people who couldn't pick Pelosi out of a lineup? Or the 85% who couldn't name the Senate majority leader? Are we to imagine that the 31% of the electorate who still — after seven years of headlines and demonization — can't identify the vice president of the United States nonetheless have a studied opinion on the firing of New Mexico U.S. Atty. David Iglesias?

Oh, before we proceed, let me make clear: This isn't a column defending Gonzales. This administration should have long ago sent him out of the bunker for a coffee-and-doughnut run and then changed the locks. No, this is a column about how confused and at times idiotic the United States is about polls, public opinion and, well, democracy itself. We all love to tout the glories of democracy and denounce politicians who just follow the polls. Well, guess which politicians follow the polls? The popular ones, that's who. And guess why: Because the popular ones get elected. Bucking public opinion is the quickest way for a politician to expedite his or her transition to the private sector.


Citing polls as proof you're on the right side of an argument is often a symptom of intellectual cowardice. If the crowd says 2+2=7, that's no reason to invoke the authority of the crowd. But pundits and pols know that if they align themselves with the latest Gallup findings, they don't have to defend their position on the merits because "the people" are always right. Such is the seductiveness of populism. It means never being wrong. "The people of Nebraska are for free silver, and I am for free silver," proclaimed William Jennings Bryan. "I will look up the arguments later."
I agree with the last part completely and it's why I could care less what the polls say about the war. We need to fight this war and the American public doesn't understand why but there are very good reasons. Letting the uninformed by our decision makers is very bad policy.

And this is spot on:
The days when politicians would actually defend small-r republicanism are gone. The answer to every problem in our democracy seems to be more democracy, as if any alternative spells more tyranny.
So many of the arguments against Bush's handling of the war is that he's being a tyrant just because he is doing his job. He isn't listening to the American people. He should listen to Congress more. But he's not being a tyrant, he's being our representative, he's doing the job we elected him to do. He already listened to the American people when they elected him in 2004. He now has to lead as he promised he would. It's not tyranny but representative government.

MSNBC will host the first debates

What? The Republicans are going to go on MSNBC? Don't they know that it's a liberal network and that Chris Matthews is a spokesman for the DNC? And don't get me started on Brian Lamb. Maybe we should start a petition to let them know that we aren't happy that they are getting exposure on MSNBC (however small the market share).

Related story:
Liberal bloggers slander Fox but are their claims checked
John Edwards is really kissing up to the netroots

Monday, April 23, 2007

Al Gore did it, Clinton did it, why can't she?

I think southern preacher sounds better coming from a guy.


So, about this toilet paper controversy...

In the spirit of Al Gore's use of carbon offsets, I believe that I should be allowed to use more than one sheet of toilet paper because I don't read newspapers or magazines. I also don't use paper napkins or plates. I'm probably more eco-friendly than Crow because I'm not out driving around in a bus (I drive a compact) and I don't have a huge house.

BTW, does this woman live in a cave? Hasn't she ever heard of cloth napkins:

Crow has also commented on her website about how she thinks paper napkins "represent the height of wastefulness".

She has designed a clothing line with what she calls a "dining sleeve".

The sleeve is detachable and can be replaced with another "dining sleeve" after the diner has used it to wipe his or her mouth.

The shows involved a short set by the singer, a talk by David and segments of Al Gore's environmental film An Inconvenient Truth.

Fred Thompson is brilliant!

He realizes the value of the Internet and what a great tool it is to get out his message and to respond to critics. He's not above the fray like Bush is and he doesn't talk at you like Clinton (the senator, not the ex-president). When his position is criticized as it was by Ramesh Ponnuru, he responds and gives his side of the argument:

On April 20, Ramesh Ponnuru penned an article called “Thompson’s Tort Trouble.” While he referenced my conservative voting, record he took issue with two instances when I voted against “tort reform.” He noted my stand on federalist grounds but thinks I must have a mistaken view of Federalism and that conservatives may want to ask me a few hard questions.

This hardly constitutes the stuff of a major dispute, but I would submit that the problem is not so much my mistaken view of Federalism as much as it is his lack of commitment to the principle. This presents conservatives with an opportunity to have a much needed discussion.
This is exactly what I said yesterday, he is the one being consistent and I love that about him. I want a president guided by principle, not what he thinks the public wants. The president is a leader not a consensus builder (though he does need to do that in some circumstances), he sways the public to his way of thinking, that is what we need today in a president.

You can tell that he gets that the Republicans have lost their way and need someone to lead them back to what made them distinct from the Democrats:
This discussion is not an idle exercise. Republicans have struggled in recent years, because they have strayed from basic principles. Federalism is one of those principles. It is something we all give lip service to and then proceed to ignore when it serves our purposes. During my eight years in the Senate, I tried to adhere to this principle. For me it was a lodestar. Not only was it what our founding fathers created – a federal government with limited, enumerated powers with respect for other levels of government, it also provided a basis for a proper analysis of most issues: “Is this something government should be doing? If so, at what level of government?”

As I understood it, states were supposed to be laboratories that would compete with each other, conducting civic experiments according to the wishes of their citizens. The model for federal welfare reform was the result of that process. States also allow for of diverse viewpoints that exist across the country. There is no reason that Tennesseans and New Yorkers should have to agree on everything (and they don’t).
Go read the whole thing, it's excellent.

Happy Anniversary, Honey! (Everyone else move on to the next post :-)

Anniversary Graphics

This would have been a Boz Scaggs song but there aren't any descent ones on the Internet! I guess you can figure out why I chose Al Jarreau :-) Love you more than you realize.

Sproul on the Justice of God

Sproul doing the justice of God:

Sproul is at his best when he's doing the doctrine of God. If you haven't read The Holiness of God, go order it now and read it. It's really good.

And a commercial for The Reformation Study Bible:


As Instapundit likes to say...

Heh. It's spot on! (Though, the blogs on the left support them so it's really not that courageous of a stand, in fact it's a pretty craven position, giving the base what they want instead of what the country needs: strong support for the war.)

Giuliani has strong support in Israel

I don't think they will garner enough support in Israel for a Giuliani victory in the primaries. There aren't enough Jewish Republicans to push him over the top:

Former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani already had presidential campaign organizations set up in all 50 US states; now he also has one in the State of Israel.

The thousands of eligible absentee voters in Israel could have a significant impact on who will win the Republican and Democratic nominations. Giuliani is running first in a close Republican race.

Giuliani Supporters in Israel is a grass-roots effort to mobilize the support of Israelis with US citizenship that was set up by Mordechai Twersky, a former Bronx, New York, communal leader and candidate for the New York State Assembly and the Knesset who was cited by Giuliani for his communal work.

Although the organization was not officially authorized by Giuliani, his campaign staff has already made contact with Twersky and endorsed his effort.

The Republicans and Democrats Abroad organizations have long been active here ahead of presidential elections but Twersky said this was the first time a campaign has been set up in Israel to help a candidate ahead of party primaries.

How many of those thousands are Republican and what states are they from? I don't see this making a difference.

And then there's this:
"On the Israel issue, it turns out to be a wash. Giuliani and top democratic candidates Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama are all strong supporters of Israel and I am sure the voters will see that as well."
I don't think that this guy is really thinking this through, if he did he would realize that it's in Israel's best interest for us to stay in Iraq and try to stabilize the region. Clinton and Obama want us out whether conditions on the ground have improved or not. How does that help Israel?

Finally! THe Democrats are going to do their job

And will probably (you never know with these guys) get the spending bill to the president by Friday so that he can veto it. They are trying to figure out what to do next:

Democrats are considering their next step after President Bush's inevitable veto of their war spending proposal, including a possible short-term funding bill that would force Congress to revisit the issue this summer.

Another alternative is providing the Pentagon the money it needs for the war but insisting that the Iraqi government live up to certain political promises. Or, the congressional Democrats could send Bush what he wants for now and set their sights on 2008 spending legislation.

The options are being weighed as Bush and Congress head toward a showdown this week on his Iraq policy. House and Senate appropriations committees meet Monday to negotiate a final bill that, if approved by both chambers, could reach the president's desk as early as the end of the week.


Democratic leaders have been reluctant to discuss their next step, focusing instead on their ability to send Bush legislation rebuking his Iraq policy. But other lawmakers say there is no denying that Democrats do not have the two-thirds majority needed to override Bush's veto. And soon enough, everyone will be asking what happens next.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who chairs the House panel that oversees military funding, said he wants a bill that would fund the war for just two or three months. Before that second bill would expire in summer, Democrats would try again to pass legislation calling for an end to combat.


Murtha's proposal would give Democrats time to try to rally support among Republicans growing increasingly frustrated with the war who have so far been reluctant to tie the hands of their GOP president.


Levin, D-Mich., said that should Bush veto the war spending bill, Democrats could pass legislation that would drop the timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal but require the Iraqis meet certain benchmarks. He declined to provide further specifics.


White House spokeswoman Dana Perino dismissed Murtha's suggestion of a short-term funding bill and said Democrats should focus instead on providing troops what they need.

"Since there's only five months left in this supplemental, having this same debate in another month, given their track record on producing legislation, doesn't seem prudent," Perino said.


"We don't want to throw in the towel," said Moran, D-Va. "The problem is (Bush) is willing to play chicken with funding the troops and we aren't. We just aren't going to take a chance (the Pentagon) will run out of funding for the troops."

Bull cookies!! You are already doing it and everyone knows it. The Democrats have already delayed funding so that they could put pressure on Bush to cave, they think he is softer than he is.

And Perino is right, it's not a good idea for them to revisit this next month given how long it takes them to do anything. It isn't going to do them any good anyway because that's not enough time to see if the plan will work. The Republicans aren't going to cave in a month. The base isn't going to stop supporting the war in a month. It would be smarter for them to wait until the 2008 budget, that way if the plan isn't working they have a stronger case. I think that what they fear is that the plan will work because they own defeat. It's there's. If this works and we turn the problem around in Iraq, they will look like idiots (well, even more so than now) who can't be trusted with our defense (I know, but even more people will think that).


Sunday, April 22, 2007

I'm supposed to be translating Greek but what am I doing instead?

You guessed it! Watching YouTube videos. Here's a funny one, an Internet help desk:

I updated the Google reader stuff

Check it out, some really interesting links there! (It's on the sidebar and while you are over there, make sure you vote for your presidential candidate.)

Happy Earth Day!

I discovered it was Earth Day because the Google logo was a melting iceberg, I figured something was up. Evidently, Earth Day has become Global Warming Day, in the past we would celebrate Earth Day by figuring out ways to recycle or use less of Earth's resources but today, let's all think of ways that we can celebrate the day by reducing our carbon footprints. Here are some suggestions how to observe the day:

Why not cut down some trees to celebrate?

Or go appliance shopping. (What do you do with the old one? Don't they just sit around rusting in land fills?)

You could replace your light bulbs with energy-efficient light bulbs.

Or how about a barbecue? Now, I know what you're thinking but following the example of Gore and carbon offsets, it really is eco-friendly because there is one less cow producing greenhouse gas, which should offset the smoke from the grill (and if you are like me and use a smokey joe, you recycle the smoke so that you aren't releasing too much into the environment).

Fell like that's not enough? How about spending the day worrying about the polar bears and the ice caps?

Now, global warming is heating up as an issue. News about melting glaciers and ice caps and endangered polar bears have had a huge impact on our psyche. The UN studies are unsettling, even if some question the data.
Or determining which candidate cares the most about the environment:

Change can be measured in the way the presidential candidates are practically falling all over themselves to come up with new proposals. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) announced a new initiative on Friday to establish a national low-carbon fuel standard based on a California proposal. By 2020, Obama would require that all transportation fuels sold in the U.S. contain 10 percent less carbon.

In a new idea, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign announced it would go "carbon neutral" beginning today, meaning it would offset electricity generated with fossil fuel with purchases of "clean energy" electricity (such as wind).

Republican Sen. John McCain has long been one of the leaders in Congress in pushing for a ceiling on carbon-dioxide emissions and a trading system where clean-energy credits can be bought and sold. Other GOP candidates are jumping on that bandwagon, as Obama and Clinton already have, along with other Democrats.

Can you imagine a separate presidential debate on global warming? Well, if the warnings issued by the United Nations are to be taken seriously, the candidates should be dealing more seriously with the issue.

But doesn't Clinton know that the windmills kill the birds and are an unsightly eyesore to Kennedy and Cronkite? And with the amount of travel that she and her campaign will be doing, that's a lot of windmills!

And who knew that a Republican would be a leader in this fight against global warming?

You could also spend the day contemplating how successful the MSM have been in brainwashing the American public about this issue:

New polling has documented the shift in the public's attitude. A Washington Post, ABC News and Stanford University poll showed that a third of Americans now say that global warming is the world's single largest environmental problem, double the number of a year ago.

The poll showed that seven in 10 Americans want more federal action on global warming. About half of those surveyed said that believe the government should do much more than it is now. Some 52 percent said the issue is "extremely" or "very" important personally, double the percentage recorded a decade ago.

Or you could observe the day by taking tomorrow off from work:
For most of us facing gridlocked roads and packed trains, the Monday morning commute is a more pressing concern than climate change.

But there may be a single solution to both, according to business leaders.

The Institute of Directors is calling for flexible hours and more home working to help tackle global warming.

I'm sure that your boss would think that was a great idea, especially when you tell him that you're doing it to save the planet.

Clinton, Ambassador to the World?

EEP! I'm glad she warned the world that she plans to send her husband out to them. I think this is a good idea, send him out of the country so he doesn't meddle in presidential affairs. I bet he wished he'd thought of it when he was president:

Hillary Rodham Clinton said Saturday that if she is elected president, she would make her husband a roaming ambassador to the world, using his skills to repair the nation's tattered image abroad.

"I can't think of a better cheerleader for America than Bill Clinton, can you?" the Democratic senator from New York asked a crowd jammed into a junior high school gymnasium. "He has said he would do anything I asked him to do. I would put him to work."
I'll leave the jokes about the world hiding their women for others.

She also said this:
Clinton also said she would raise taxes for the wealthy, who she said "aren't paying their fair share." She also praised the economic policies of her husband that brought budget surpluses.

"We need to get back to fiscal responsibility," she said.


If she feels that way, why isn't she doing something about it in Congress? Vote against pork laden spending bills, especially when it's an emergency supplemental for our troops. Why not run on a record instead of platitudes?

And BTW, since when is 80% not a fair share of the taxes?

Yes, Thompson is conservative enough to win the election

Yet another article about Thompson's lack of true conservative credentials, he's not really a Reagan conservative. *Yawn* There were some conservatives who thought Reagan wasn't a true conservative. Thompson is absolutely solid on all the issues and state's rights is a conservative position:

He's a consistent federalist: Believing in states' rights is a central tenet of conservative thinking, but so is opposition to homosexuality and support for sweeping tort reform. Thompson opposes gay marriage but believes states should be allowed to sanction civil unions, as the governor of the early-primary state New Hampshire has just said he'll do. While in the Senate, Thompson, a former trial lawyer, also resisted one of the tenets of the Contract With America that called for limitations on malpractice awards—an issue he thinks should be left to the states.
It's the social conservative who are moving away from the conservative position, he's being consistent. I think that's honorable and is one of the reasons we should support him over the other candidates, he's guided by principles, and they are consistent principles. He's not trying to play to the base.

Speaking of conservative issues, he has one of the best positions on gun control in the race and it's a winning position:
Virginia, like 39 other states, allows citizens with training and legal permits to carry concealed weapons. That means that Virginians regularly sit in movie theaters and eat in restaurants among armed citizens. They walk, joke and rub shoulders everyday with people who responsibly carry firearms -- and are far safer than they would be in San Francisco, Oakland, Detroit, Chicago, New York City, or Washington, D.C., where such permits are difficult or impossible to obtain.

The statistics are clear. Communities that recognize and grant Second Amendment rights to responsible adults have a significantly lower incidence of violent crime than those that do not. More to the point, incarcerated criminals tell criminologists that they consider local gun laws when they decide what sort of crime they will commit, and where they will do so.

Still, there are a lot of people who are just offended by the notion that people can carry guns around. They view everybody, or at least many of us, as potential murderers prevented only by the lack of a convenient weapon. Virginia Tech administrators overrode Virginia state law and threatened to expel or fire anybody who brings a weapon onto campus.

In recent years, however, armed Americans -- not on-duty police officers -- have successfully prevented a number of attempted mass murders. Evidence from Israel, where many teachers have weapons and have stopped serious terror attacks, has been documented. Supporting, though contrary, evidence from Great Britain, where strict gun controls have led to violent crime rates far higher than ours, is also common knowledge.

So Virginians asked their legislators to change the university's "concealed carry" policy to exempt people 21 years of age or older who have passed background checks and taken training classes. The university, however, lobbied against that bill, and a top administrator subsequently praised the legislature for blocking the measure.


The logic behind this attitude baffles me, but I suspect it has to do with a basic difference in worldviews. Some people think that power should exist only at the top, and everybody else should rely on "the authorities" for protection.

Despite such attitudes, average Americans have always made up the front line against crime. Through programs like Neighborhood Watch and Amber Alert, we are stopping and catching criminals daily. Normal people tackled "shoe bomber" Richard Reid as he was trying to blow up an airliner. It was a truck driver who found the D.C. snipers. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that civilians use firearms to prevent at least a half million crimes annually.
And for proof that he's not a poser, go here.

And yet another conservative issue could help push Thompson to the head of the pack: abortion. Again, he has the strongest position in the race and now with the pro-life wing of the Republican part feeling energized by the recent decision in support of the ban on partial birth abortions, support for Rudy will erode. Thompson will benefit from that because he has the best position on abortion. I agree with Dick Morris' take on this:
The recent Supreme Court decision upholding Congressional legislation banning partial birth abortion and the tragic shooting at Virginia Tech will both ignite demands on the left for an aggressive drive to protect Roe v. Wade, and to legislate tougher gun controls. This Democratic offensive puts Rudy Giuliani in the middle and could erode support for his candidacy. On the other hand, it could fire the ranks of true believers and lead them to rally around a Fred Thompson candidacy.
He's urging Thompson to get in early if he wants to beat Rudy:
If Fred Thompson jumps into the race quickly, with both feet, and hits the ground running, he can pre-empt Newt’s potential candidacy and head it off — much like Barack Obama’s swift entry into the race eclipsed any real chance that Al Gore had to challenge Hillary. It is well worth getting into the race early in order to win a bid in the semi-finals and a free pass to the GOP finals against Rudy.

The financial demands for competition on the super, super Tuesday — February 5, 2008 — are daunting. Giuliani, with $12 million on hand, has a big head start. If Thompson waits too much longer, Rudy’s financial edge could become decisive. With virtually the entire nation voting on the same day, the cost of advertising and even of personal campaigning, is huge and Thompson will need every day he can make available to raise money — starting too late may mean never having a chance to win.
But Dean Barnett is urging Thompson to wait until the fall and appear presidential, above the fray:
Now about Thompson – not that anyone from Thompson HQ has asked my advice, but if I were he, I’d stay out until the Fall. Act presidential, be above the fray, keep enjoying copious amounts of favorable free media, and avoid the embarrassments that inevitably occur with 24/7 campaigning. The Thompson strategy should be to capitalize on a surge of interest that will occur when he officially enters the race. If he enters now, he’ll be just another guy by the time Iowa rolls around. Right now, he’s the Great White Hope.
Shouldn't that be the Great Right Hope? This is weird advice coming from the Hugh Hewitt blog since Hewitt was saying in February that it was too late for any other candidates to enter the race.