The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Friday, June 30, 2006

WND - Operation Rescue buys abortion clinic

WND brings an interesting story regarding anti-abortion group Operation Rescue and an abortion clinic. According to the story Operation Rescue was so successful in discouraging abortions (down 16%) that the Central Women's Services was behind in rent by several months. The building was for sale and Operation Rescue learned both of the sale and the delinquincy. They made an offer to buy the building stipulating in the contract that the current tenant would not be retained. Even though the clinic came up with the back rent, Operation Rescue was able to kick them out. Here are a few paragraphs from the story:

"We have no doubt that if we had not moved quickly to buy that building, this abortion mill would still be in operation today," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.

The clinic had operated under a variety of names since opening in 1983, aborting an estimated 50,000 babies. It drew attention in 1991, when a demonstration there led by Operation Rescue resulted in the arrests of 80 pastors.

Operation Rescue relocated its offices from Southern California to Wichita in 2002 and launched an effort to expose the abortion industry in Kansas. The group says its efforts have resulted in a 16 percent drop in abortions in the state.

Operation Rescue believes the decrease in abortions contributed to Central Women's Services financial difficulties.

The 50,000 number for one single clinic is simply staggering. While I was reading the story I thought that while this may have been a symbolic victory of sorts, it really did not accomplish anything permanent. The clinic will no doubt reopen in another building in another part of town. Then the story began in earnest when Operation Rescue moved into the clinic:

Operation Rescue staff member Cheryl Sullenger had an opportunity to see the abortion clinic in May before it closed, during a yard sale of office supplies and equipment. She described it as dingy, cramped and dirty.

After the abortion business moved out, Sullenger got a closer look.

"There was mold, and general filth," she said. "The carpets outside the abortion rooms were stained with blood, even though it was evident that some effort had been made to clean them. The ceiling nearby was broken. All of the walls were dirty and some were covered with cheap contact paper instead of being properly maintained."

For all the pro-choice groups cries against back-alley abortions, whenever we get a glimpse into some of these clinics we find it is not any more sanitary than a back-alley. The conditions described here paint a dark picture of this grim business. I have read stories of young girls going through this at such places where the dingy sights and foul smells are etched in their memory. The next revelation from the story is simply abominable:

"Under the sink was one of the biggest garbage disposals I have ever seen," said Newman. "The entire area had the stench of death. It was the sink where the suction machine bottles were washed. In fact, dried blood could be seen that had seeped out from the metal band that surrounded the sink top. There was a bucket marked 'biohazard' next to the sink.

Norma McCorvey, the "Roe" of Roe v. Wade who once ran abortion clinics but now is a pro-life activist, confirmed it once was common practice to put aborted baby remains down such disposals.

"Oh, yes!" she told Newman in a phone call. "And you can't pour enough bleach down that drain to get rid of the smell."

The vividness conjured up from those words is simply haunting. From beginning to end the entire process exudes a careless and casual attitude toward the life being snuffed out. A cattle slaughterhouse does not produce worst images.

I am unabashadly pro-life. It is not one of my goals to have an abortion debate on this blog and that is not the purpose of posting this. This story goes beyond the debate and opens a window into those who run these establishments and is a black mark against those who march in the streets to promote such things. I don't think abortion is ever going to be illegal again. Sadly, these mills are here to stay.

SCOTUS ruling a defeat for Dems - not Bush

The Dems and the media are giving high fives to each other over the recent ruling by the Supreme Court. The name of the court case is "Hamdan vs. Rumsefeld". So the Dems and the media see an Al Quaeda terrorist against Don Rumsfeld and celebrate when the terrorist wins. The focus seems to be on the Bush Administration suffering a defeat; rather than what is good for the country. Here are a few quotes assembled from the media (Hat Tip:Rush Limbaugh):

JEFFREY TOOBIN: This is a major defeat for the Bush administration.

JULIET KAYEM: This is another defeat for the Bush administration before the Supreme Court.

JONATHAN TURLEY: The court has delivered another defeat to the president. It's a very, very big defeat for the Bush administration.

The Dems are spinning a loss for the American people as a win. Here is the reaction from Nancy Pelosi:
“Today’s Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph for the rule of law.

“The rights of due process are among our most cherished liberties, and today’s decision is a rebuke of the Bush Administration’s detainee policies and a reminder of our responsibility to protect both the American people and our Constitutional rights. We cannot allow the values on which our country was founded to become a casualty in the war on terrorism."
So basically Pelosi in her statement makes these terrorists and American citizens equals. She also lumps in the "detainee policies" of the administration. This case had nothing to do with the detainee policies. It had to do with tribunals vs. US courts. Yet Pelosi as all liberals do, must blow smoke to cloud the issues. The libs completely overlook that in any other war when prisoners are captured they are detained until cessation of hostilities. Somehow these are to be treated differently and released?

In spite of the celebration, I think the Dems are going to take a political hit on this one. This will be especially true if Congress intervenes to authorize this. That is after all what Justice Stevens wrote in the majority opinion: that Bush had set these up without Congressional approval. A debate of the this issue will clearly show the Dems on the side of the terrorists and the GOP on the side of the American people. The notion of Bush overstepping his bounds to set up these military tribunals is quite a stretch. Bush has strong historical company as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and FDR used military tribunals. There was even an international military tribunal following WWII. Are Kennedy, Pelosi and others really willing to drag these names through the mud simply to stick it to Bush and celebrate enemy combatants having access to the ACLU in their trials? After all, that is what we will see. Once these creeps get access to the US courts, the ACLU will be all over it to help them any way they can.

So we can see right away the need for more originalists on the Supreme Court, and the Dems siding with the terrorists against the American people simply to stick it to Bush. We see future fruit to be reaped if the GOP in congress moves to debate and pass authorization to move ahead with the military tribunals. This will satisfy the Supreme Court (even though they were wrong). What will be especially delicious is if a bunch of Dems see which side they will be seen on if they vote against it and get onboard. That will make all of the blowhard statements today look quite silly. So whether they vote for or against, they will come off looking bad.

The SCOTUS ruling may have been a delay or setback, but it was certainly no defeat for the Bush Administration. It was a setup for defeat for the Dems...again.

Thursday, June 29, 2006

A lot of affection out there

No summer political lull

Usually after Memorial Day there is a political lull. People enjoy their summer and forget about politics for awhile. Magically, after Labor Day politics roars back to life. Not this summer. Of course the overriding reason we would all agree on is the upcoming November elections. They could be the most critical mid-term elections since 1994 when power shifted from the Dems to the GOP. In many ways they are more exciting in the run up. In 1994 nobody thought it would really happen as it did. This year it is viewed not only as possible, but the Dems and the media seem to paint it as a foregone conclusion.

There are a spectrum of idea about what should happen this fall. Some think the Dems should win it. Some think the GOP should keep it. Some wish neither would get it. The strongest feelings seem to come from who shouldn't win it, while at the same time having a weak position on who should. In many ways I fall into that category. The Dems have exhibited over and over again that they cannot be trusted with power. They will use it to weaken and harm America. The last two Democrat presidents have left the military weaker than they found it leaving the following GOP president holding the bag to rebuild it. This is not a presidential election, but it involves power nonetheless. The Dems have shown they have no resolve to address terror head on. Either that or they are putting politics first since it is a GOP leading us to war. Both are just as bad. The Dems also are willing to throw our economy under the bus for the sake of junk science. The Dems want to encourage the free flow of illegal immigrants (aka future Dem voters). The Dems have not learned yet that it is their policies that have lead to $3 per gallon gas by limiting our drilling options and our refining capacity. I doubt if many rank and file Dems are happy about their party being hijaacked by the fringe left, too.

The GOP performance has been less than stellar. They will hardly defend themselves when things get a little hot. They run to the nearest liberal position like a baby takes comfort in sucking their thumb. When they do want to vote on something worthwhile they seem to never want a clear and bold debate on the subject. They put forth a weak argument and hope they can twist enough arms to pass it. This is not statesmanship or leadership. The laughable claim that the GOP is on the extreme right makes you hope you aren't taking a drink when you hear it. The GOP today is to the left of JFK. That is sad.

So while I am quite opposed to the Dems regaining power, I am hardly animated to pull for the GOP. So it is the feelings against that are driving this lively summer political mood. I predicted that this would be a very exciting political year. There are very few dull moments. The nailbiting has begun. The GOP wakes every day hoping for good news and the Dems wake every day fearing good news. I think it very unlikely that the Dems will take more than a few seats in the House and maybe net 1 in the Senate. So for all the broohaha it will likely be more status quo than anything. Just the right set of circumstances, though, could net the GOP a few gains. What fun that would be to see the left meltdown over that one. Me, I can take a political loss this year. The Dems would blow it by '08 anyway. They simply cannot win based on ideas. It must always be by deception and spin.

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Land Dispute in Pakistan Leads to Death of Baby for Christian Famil

From the weekly email newsletter of Voice of the Martyrs here is a sad story of persecution in Pakistan:

The persecution facing Christians in Pakistan frequently comes from a Lack of equal treatment by authorities. Such appears to be the case for the family of Mansha Masih in the village of Gadi Wind in the Kasur District south of Lahore.

Mansha and his family are poor labourers. He lives in a home that has been in the family for forty years. Recently, however, a prominent Muslim businessman named Nazar Mohammad has laid claim to the property. The dispute is currently before the courts but that did not stop Nazar from taking matters into his own hands, apparently with the approval of the authorities.

According to a report received from VOMC sources on June 26, Mansha's wife, Arshad Bibi, was alone at home with their two-year-old daughter and newborn son when Nazar Mohammad and several others, accompanied by some police officers, entered the home. They beat Arshad and began throwing the belongings out of their home and then bulldozed the building. Sadly, the newborn son was on a bed when it was thrown out of the house and died from chest injuries. When the baby was found dead, the police officers fled the scene.

When Mansha attempted to file a complaint on the incident with the local police, the police superintendent threatened him if he said anything. Mansha then took the baby's body to the hospital, but Nazar was already there speaking with the doctor and consequently, the death was ruled to be from starvation. The family is now left without a home and Nazar has begun construction on the land.

For more information on the persecution of Christians in Pakistan, go

Another injustice that is apparantly too small to appear on anyone's radar screen except VOM's and mine.

GOP committee members say - Not so fast AP

Newsbusters is posting on the AP article that gushes that scientists give Gore's movie their seal of approval. The GOP members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works have their press release calling AP to task for skewing the story. The original AP story is titled Scientists OK Gore Movie for Accuracy. Here are a few choice quotes from that:
The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth,"
Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.
The former vice president's movie — replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets — mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.
The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory.

"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right."

Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.

"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said. "After the presentation I said, `Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."


One concern was about the connection between hurricanes and global warming. That is a subject of a heated debate in the science community. Gore cited five recent scientific studies to support his view.

"I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific consensus," said Brian Soden, a University of Miami professor of meteorology and oceanography.

There are many basic points already in the AP story that are quite ripe to debunk the bogus title, but first here is the GOP Committee press release:

The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.

AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.

The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See

The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe’s statement on the broken “Hockey Stick.”

Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.

I show the entire release because I could not find a single sentence I wanted to leave out. So basically the points of the release are:
  • Only 19% of the scientists responded with only 5 quoted
  • There was no full disclosure of the names of the 100. We are told there are skeptics (plural). 2 skeptics would make that statement true, and we have no assurance any responded.
  • One of the quoted members was cherry-picked by Gore to attend a private screening. He also is closely associated with a left leaning organization. This does not mean he is invalidated, but AP chose not to disclose these points.
  • Two key elements of the film (the hockey stick and Mt. Kilimanjaro) have been debunked, yet the 19 scientists give it 5 stars for accuracy.
What is amazing is the low threshold AP has to buy into this. They send out 100 contacts and only 19 return. The first qualification to respond is that you must have seen the movie or read the book. Perhaps only 19 thought it worth going to see? What does that say for the 81? If the scientific community has truly bought into a looming catastrophe due to man-made global warming you would think that more would quite active in helping Gore with his cause. (Let's see: we're doomed but I am too busy with my butterfly collection to bother).

I am also suspicious of the "5 star" terminology. Were they actually asked to rate the accuracy on a scale of 1-5 stars? If not, then AP is taking some liberties here interpreting their responses. The term "5 star" conjures up a picture of excellence to such a degree that it is unassailable. Yet they assail it. If they were asked to rate it in such terms, then I call their neutrality to task. They make statements showing there are some inaccuracies and yet give it 5 stars?

There is one scientist referenced by AP that I found amusing:
While some nonscientists could be depressed by the dire disaster-laden warmer world scenario that Gore laid out, one top researcher thought it was too optimistic. Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in habit — such as changing light bulbs — the world could help slow or stop global warming.
Basically, he says it is so bad he doesn't know if the problem can be fixed. If it is so bad that it can't be fixed, why are we wasting time and resources?

The Hockey Stick reference is of special interest to me. I was just looking at a subscreen of on the Greenhouse topic that basically shows two different graphs created from the same data. One shows the "hockey stick" while the other shows a slight elevation. It is pointed out that the two graphs show the data on different scales. There is a lot of great info on that page. One interesting point is the concept of Greenhouse. The moon has no greenhouse, so when the sun shines on it, it bakes. When it doesn't it freezes. There is no convection of the heat. Basically without the greenhouse effect, we would be dead. Taking the term greenhouse and making it a bad term simply skews public perception. That is what this is all about: public perception. It is not about truth (convenient or otherwise).

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Freedoms of Speech and the Press - a comparison

It seems like to the media, there are some freedoms more equal than others. The first amendment gives freedom of speech to individuals and freedom to the press. Everybody realizes that freedom of speech has some limitations. I can't claim freedom of speech to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. I can't claim freedom of speech to offer a police officer a bribe. Liberals even want to abridge freedom of speech even further by calling for laws against "hate speech", not wanting conservatives asked to make a speech at a university, or calling for the burning of Ann Coulter books.

When it comes to the press, there seems to be no limitation that is considered legitimate. They have no problem with the New York Times and the LA Times revealing national security secrets. Such revelations could cost lives. The media also wants to protect their sources with a higher level of concern over the protection of lives. Andrew McCarthy has an exellent article in the National Review Online entitled They're Just More Important Than You Are that addresses this protection of sources. He says:
Because, Keller haughtily pronounced, American methods of monitoring enemy money transfers are “a matter of public interest.”

Really? The Times prattles on about what it claims is a dearth of checks and balances, but what are the checks and balances on Bill Keller? Can it be that our security hinges on whether the editor of an antiwar, for-profit journal thinks some defense measure might be interesting?

Well, here’s something truly interesting: There are people in the U.S. intelligence community who are revealing the nation’s most precious secrets.

The media aspire to be the public’s watchdog? Ever on the prowl to promote good government? Okay, here we have public officials endangering American lives. Public officials whose violation of a solemn oath to protect national defense information is both a profound offense against honor and a serious crime.

What about the public interest in that? What about the public interest in rooting out those who betray their country in wartime?

Not on your life.
A very powerful denouncement of hypocrisy of the highest order. Yet liberalism seems to think they transcend such petty constraints as consistency. They travel of highways and byways of the shades of gray, nuancing every decision, position and action. If it seems inconsistent, simply get put a squirt of black and a squirt of white on the palette, mix it up and start painting. I would rather live in a world where yes means yes and no means no.

NYT told them to do it in the first place then blew their cover later

The Sweetness and Light Blog has uncovered a simply unbelievable editorial from the NYT. When I saw it I was nearly catatonic for several minutes trying to comprehend what my eyes were seeing. Thirteen days after September 11th there was an editorial in the New York Times demanding that the Bush Administration fight the terrorists by attacking their funds. Go to S&L for the whole NYT editorial, but here are a few clips that show what has amazed me so much:
Organizing the hijacking of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon took significant sums of money. The cost of these plots suggests that putting Osama bin Laden and other international terrorists out of business will require more than diplomatic coalitions and military action. Washington and its allies must also disable the financial networks used by terrorists.

The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known terrorists. Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities. There must also must be closer coordination among America’s law enforcement, national security and financial regulatory agencies.

Some of these businesses move funds through major commercial banks that lack the procedures to monitor such transactions properly...Though some smaller financial transactions are likely to slip through undetected even after new rules are in place, much of the financing needed for major attacks could dry up.
New regulations requiring money service businesses like the hawala banks to register and imposing criminal penalties on those that do not are scheduled to come into force late next year. The effective date should be moved up to this fall, and rules should be strictly enforced the moment they take effect. If America is going to wage a new kind of war against terrorism, it must act on all fronts, including the financial one.
Like me, you are very likely numb from what you just read after thinking about the NYT's betrayal of the country and the administration after they did exactly what the NYT said to do. This shows that liberals have too short of a memory to be entrusted with national security. The NYT has forgotten the sentiment they felt right after 9/11 and have even forgotten what they said at that time. In addition to looking seditious, they now look stupid. I don't subscribe to the New York Times, but if I did this would certainly be the last straw for me. We can likely expect the already ailing circulation numbers to take a big hit; and they should.

Dems frantically demanding relevance

The Dems are downright embarrassing themselves over their new troop withdrawal antics. After discussions of potetial troop withdrawals were leaked the Dems have latched onto the words "troop" and "withdrawal" and are now claiming how similar the plan they proposed last week is to the one being considered. According to AP:

A Pentagon troop withdrawal plan is among options being considered for Iraq, the White House said Monday. President Bush said U.S. troop levels will be determined by military commanders, the new Iraqi government and conditions on the ground.

Bush told reporters he would await a recommendation from Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. "And one of the things General Casey assured me of was that whatever recommendation he makes, it'll be aimed toward achieving victory," Bush said.

"And victory means a free government that is able to sustain itself, defend itself," Bush said. The president said he was briefed by Casey at the White House on Friday.

Such is the danger of leaks that you only see the part that was leaked. It is like walking around a corner only to hear the last part of a conversation which can easily be taken out of context. Leaks also place politicians in such a position that anything said after the leak to clarify is framed in a cloud of doubt. So I am sure the clarification that this plan is one of several being considered will be met with many liberal smirks.

Even if this is the only plan being considered, what the Dems are refusing to see is the approach to planning. At no time during the debate last week did the Dems ever state that we are ready to begin a victorious troop withdrawal plan. Their debate ranged from "cut and run" to "cut and jog". Their points of debate stemmed from negatives being the catalyst for withdrawal. It was from the standpoint of "ready or not we must get out of there".

The plan being discussed is a consideration of how ready the Iraqi troops are going to be to take over their defense in full. It is still a relative timetable since actual implementation would be dependent upon whether the Iraqi troops actually achieve the level of readiness expected by the plan. The Dems have made fools of themselves by refusing to understand the concept of a relative timetable. It is quite simple: When Iraqi troops ready and both the US and Iraqi government agree, withdraw troops. This as opposed to: July 2007 withdraw all troops regardless of readiness; telegraphing the exact time of departure to the enemy so they can lay low until that date and begin slaughtering Shiites. Since the Dems are blinded by the mass accumulation of political hay in the air, they ensure that they are incapable of understanding that simple concept.

So we have some Democrat whining going on. According to AP:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., urged his Senate colleagues "to note how similar General Casey's apparent plan to withdraw U.S. forces is to the plan put forward by Senate Democrats last week." That plan was rejected by majority-party Republicans.

"I wonder how the majority feels today, now that General Casey's plan is in the open?" said Reid. "Do they disagree with General Casey that we need to begin ending the open-ended commitment in Iraq? Do they still believe a plan for reducing our troops levels is defeatist and unpatriotic?"

Am I remembering it wrong or was the plan put out by Senate Democrats last week also soundly rejected by Democrats as well as GOP? Didn't the "Cut and Run" plan only get 3 votes and the "Cut and Jog" plan only 13? I don't have a ready link to that since it was more humorous than significant. In any event it was not the party line vote that Reid is alluding to. Reid also just blows by the statement "now that General Casey's plan is in the open" without any concern whatsoever about the leaking involved in that plan. They seem to be unconcerned about any critical security leaks. Finally, yes a demand for reducing troop levels on a fixed timetable based on negative events without regard for victory is still defeatist and unpatriotic. Reid is like a pouting child in these situations.

So while Dems try to capitalize on this, they show themselves to be grasping for relevance. When viewing these tantrums it is simply impossible that the words leadership or statesmanship come to mind. Words like childish, whiner, and pouting come to my mind. Once again they make the point for us that they cannot be entrusted with leadership.

Monday, June 26, 2006

Still no outrage against the NYT from libs

I am still not seeing any outrage at all against the NYT for their continuous leaking of national security secrets. They are really starting to look extremely foolish for all their fits and hot air concerning the leaking of non-covert Valerie Plame. The hypocrisy is swirling around the country like toxic gas. The evidence is quickly moving toward irrefutable that the MSM did not give a rip at all about Valerie Plame, but were only interested in anything that might stick it to George Bush. This is such a huge blow to their credibility and yet they do not even seem to be aware of it. The next huge blow to their credibility as I have stated before will be if our marines are cleared in the Haditha controversy. (On a side note find an interesting websiteof one of the marines charged in the affair at Hamdaniya, Iraq. The website is

In addition to the treasonous revelation of anti-terrorist tools such as the NSA wiretapping and International Wire Transfer monitoring, the New York Times NOW is revealing information on the negotiations between the US and Iraq on troop withdrawal. This is a very sensitive topic that yet again shows the Grey Lady's lust for Pulitzer Prizes at the likely cost of American lives. I would also say shame on any in a position on the US side that leaked this information to the NYT, but regardless the NYT bears full responsibility for their choice in printing.

Michelle Malkin reminds us of the posters that were created during WWII warning all to be careful of what they say as it might aid the enemy and cost American lives. The same holds true for the NYT and so a photoshop contest was launched to take some of those old posters and change them to today's context. I am including one of those in this post, but make sure you go and see the rest. The links are here and here and here.

Neal Boortz Global Warming Factoids

Neal Boortz has a very good factoid list on Global Warming in his Nealz Nuze section today. Since many are not likely to click on over there, I will post his list here with full credit:

In the meantime ... here are just a few little factoids for you to play around with, factoids that cause me to doubt that whatever global warming we're experiencing can be blamed on the actions of man.

  1. The sun is hotter. Period. This fact cannot be denied. The sun is going through a lengthy period of increased activity that causes it to radiate more heat into space. Is it really that hard to believe that a hotter sun would lead to a hotter earth?
  2. Our polar ice caps are melting? Sure looks like it. But .. the polar ice caps on Mars are melting also. So, are we to believe that this is caused by man on the Earth but by the hotter sun on Mars?
  3. And while we're talking about ice caps melting, it's worth noting that the ice pack in the heart of Antarctica is actually getting thicker!
  4. Scientific data clearly shows that the Earth has undergone warming and cooling cycles for millions of years. Why, all of a sudden, does a warming cycle just have to be caused by the actions of man?
  5. Scientists who work on government grants are more inclined to blame global warming on the actions of man than are scientists who do not depend on continued government (political) funding.
  6. And just how much warmer has our atmosphere become in the last 100 years? One degree. That's it. Just one degree.
  7. Many of the people who are so involved in promoting the man-made global warming theme are people who are also involved in anti-capitalist movements. So, what is their true goal? Do they want to solve the global warming problem, or do they want to cripple the capitalist systems they so hate?
  8. The U.S. Senate snubbed the Kyoto treaty by a vote of 99-0. This was during the Clinton years! What did these 99 senators know about the Kyoto Accords that we don't know?
  9. Speaking of the Kyoto accords, they would severely impact the U.S. economy, but would leave China absolutely alone! China has one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Since a huge number of Kyoto proponents can also be called anti-American, could this cause you to wonder what the true goal of Kyoto is?
  10. And just how many years ago was it that these very same scientists were warming us about the earth getting cooler?

That's just a start. More to come later. They want to discuss global warming? Fine! No holds barred.

I especially like the one about "one degree". The reminder that the US Senate voted 99-0 against ratifying KYOTO is also something libs tend to overlook in their zeal to stick it to Bush. Speaking of KYOTO, the Texas Rainmaker has a revealing post on just how successful the Europeans have been in keeping their KYOTO agreements. He starts out with some nasty quotes demonizing George Bush at the time he rejected KYOTO. Here is one of them:

French Environment Minister Dominique Voynet said: “Mr Bush’s unilateral attitude is a scandal.”

His behaviour was “entirely provocative and irresponsible,” she added.

Texas Rainmaker then goes on to discuss how the Europeans are failing to keep their commitment to KYOTO quoting AFP:

New data has shown that the European Union (EU) remains embarrassingly off track for meeting its pledges under the Kyoto Protocol, the UN climate-change pact it championed after a US walkout.

Instead of falling, EU greenhouse-gas pollution actually rose in the latest year of monitoring, adding to the task of meeting the Kyoto goals, according to figures released by the European Environment Agency (EAA) in Copenhagen.

I guess it is fine to agree to KYOTO and not keep it, but villainous to not even agree to it. If the US had ratified it, the US would have kept it while others did not. In fact, if we had ratified and did not keep it, the media would be railing on us and ignoring Europe's failure. This reminds me of the SALT agreements with the old USSR. Such treaties are designed to weaken the US and KYOTO is no different.

Friday, June 23, 2006

We can all now wait with bated breath for Mineta's book to come out

Transportation secretary Norman Mineta, the only Dem in Bush's cabinet is resigning. Every other Dem/Lib in the administration has come out with a book on leaving. Why not Mineta? My guess is that it will be released in August or September just in time for the election.

John Kerry as short sighted as Mr. Magoo

I have a new nickname for John Kerry - Mr. Magoo. The purpose of this post is not really to discuss old election news. It is to take a current event to point out that people like Kerry should never win the presidency. We have seen him flip-flop many, many times. Apparantly, the time table he is proposing, he voted against in 2003 calling it "cut and run". I think the source of Kerry's flip-flops is that he is very politically short-sighted. He simply cannot see beyond a few months in the political arena. So when a few months passes and he sees more he wants to then change his mind. In a few areas he then sees something new down the road and changes his mind back. Ouch. So while others nickname him Lurch for his personal appearance, I prefer to nickname him Magoo for his short-sightedness.

Ok here is the plan

Saddam must have said to his fellow defendants, "Ok, here is the plan. We will skip enough meals to get the stupid US media to print stories of our proposed hunger strike. After they do, its back to the trough."

It only took one meal for Saddam.

We have a hostile spy among us code named Grey Lady

I am so angry I could spit nails. In the comments section of this blog I have discussed my tendency to label some dialogue and actions from the left as "Anti-American". In some cases I simply cannot wrap my mind around discerning any possible reason for some actions/words other than the perpetrator harboring ill will for this country.

Such is the New York Times illegally and irresponsibly disclosing to the public yet another of our secret tools used to fight terrorism. Our country was using tools to track global money transfers to detect terrorist activity abroad. Somehow yet another traitor in our intelligence community has leaked this information to their spy contact code named "Grey Lady". Grey Lady then leaked the information publicly by printing a story about it.

Newsmax describes how the Bush Administration met with them to persuade them not to publish yet another national security secret (below in communist red):

Treasury Department officials spent 90 minutes Thursday meeting with the newspaper's reporters, stressing the legality of the program and urging the paper to not publish a story on the program, McManus said in a telephone interview.

"They were quite vigorous, they were quite energetic. They made a very strong case," he said.

In its story, The New York Times said it carefully weighed the administration's arguments for withholding the information and gave them "the most serious and respectful consideration."

"We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use it may be, is a matter of public interest," said Bill Keller, the Times' executive editor.

This is such an outrage. This is treason and in war time, treason is punishable by death. Bill Keller is lying through his teeth when he states he gave this serious consideration. Nothing has stopped them before when disclosing other national security secrets. Nothing has stopped them before giving out secret processes used by the NYPD to monitor criminal activity. There is no difference between what they are doing now and if they had gained access to and printed blueprints of the nuclear Trident subs at the height of the Cold War.

We have seen time after time this administration going soft on liberals who commit crimes. They completely bypassed full investigation of the string of pardons Bill Clinton made when leaving office and accompanying financial gifts. They slapped Sandy Berger on the wrist for the stealing and destruction of classified material. They walked very softly around the campaign finance irregularities for Hillary Clinton. They are letting Cynthia McKinney completely off the hook for slugging a police officer. They have let the NYT off the hook for all the other national security leaks. What are they going to do this time?

I have been told I play the hypocrite card. When appropriate, I do. We had a huge outcry and day after day of news coverage over the leak of Valerie Plame's name. We still do not know if she was even covert. The facts we do know lean heavily that she was not; especially given that nobody was prosecuted for leaking her name and that her husband was quite free with this information. The fallout from this alleged non-crime was nothing short of an avalanche. My question is: what is going to be the fallout from this very serious criminal breach of national security. Every Democrat, every liberal and every media outlet who foamed at the mouth about Valerie Plame and does not address this issue with equal or greater fervency is nothing short of a hypocrite of the worst order.

My guess is that many who might normally denounce this are first thinking about political agenda and fallout. Sorry folks, the country comes first. We need to denounce this now and hard or we can kiss our national security goodbye. If the avalanche does not happen now, it will happen when people die because of this.

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Hostility to religion often looks quite foolish these days

WorldNetDaily is reporting a story that boggles the mind. Most religions encourage the propigation of their beliefs to others. Sometimes this is done ways that are less than acceptable. Often though it is done very tactfully. The Gospel tract is one of those ways that can be very low key and discreet. A simple offer of something to read. Accepting the tract, reading the tract and believing the words on the tract are all optional. Some who are hostile to all or specific religions, though, go berserk even at this simple offering. You know, the Michael Newdow types.

I have seen some very creative tracts. Apparently, somebody has come out with one that resembles a $1 million dollar bill yet has the gospel on the back. WND reports of a man in a wheelchair offering what service he can to God was passing out these $1 million dollar tracts when a secret service agent stops him and threatens him with arrest for distributing counterfeit money. In addition, the secret service confiscated over 8000 of these tracts.

It gets worse. When a Christian groups asks a judge to order the return of the tracts, the judge rules against it. Bascially, this is both a ridiculous and hostile scenario for the following reasons:

  • There is no actual $1million dollar bill in our currency
  • The bills have clear diffences to real currency including the gospel on the back (sheesh, and they complained about "In God we Trust")
  • The legal test is whether a reasonable person would be deceived (let's see it's a 1 million dollar bill and being given away free. Yeah, I can see somebody falling for it)
  • Toys 'R Us has been selling 1 million dollar bills for years.
  • Most businesses won't take bills over a $50 so what is the concern?
This is so blatantly hostile to a religious group that it out to be quite embarrassing to even the most stringent anti-religious person. Why do I post about this? To point out how low some will go to harrass religion. Some often wonder why religious groups are so aggressive to protect their rights. This is case in point at how things would be as the "norm" if not aggressively defended against.

John Kerry flopping around like a fish out of water

It is difficult to determine exactly what John Kerry is trying to accomplish these days when it comes to Iraq. The nature and timing of his statements and actions leave little doubt about his attempt to politicize the withdrawal from Iraq. There are several motives that may be driving him. The most obvious is the upcoming '08 presidential election. He may be posturing to be the strongest anti-Iraq candidate. This is especially true since Hillary Clinton is staking her chances as a supporter of the war (while trying to appear a Bush critic to certain audiences). The obvious problem for Kerry is that the Iraq is trending positive with the transfer of responsibility to the Iraqis growing significantly. Sorry, but say what you want about Hillary, she will benefit from her Iraq support. She will have to throw some people under the bus to capitalize on it, but that has never stopped her. I digress.

The second possible motive is simply a futile quest for relevance. Since losing his bid for president, Kerry has tried one thing after another to keep himself politically alive on the national level. Unfortunately for the most part it has been one embarrassment after another. So he demands a withdrawal, apologizes for his authorization vote (right after Zarqawi is killed), is one of the 3 Senate votes to set a timetable by the end of this year and now he adjusts that timetable to July 2007. Each display does result in national news coverage. I wonder if it is really true that bad press is better than no press?

Then there is a third motive. It is less likely, since Kerry usually only exhibits concern for himself. However, it is the most rational - with more emphasis on "most" than "rational". The Democrats must see the handwriting on the wall for Iraq. As I said before, Iraq is significantly trending positive. As I posted after Zaqawi's death, many raids against Al Quaeda were lead or exclusively run by the Iraqi forces. The training and ramping up of Iraqi troops is clearly in high gear. The thought of patiently waiting until all goals in Iraq are clearly met and only then begin a withdrawal must be quite repulsive to the Democrats. This path would lead to inevitable ticker tape parades as our boys begin to come home. It would lead to quite a number of other ceremonious events with Bush and the Iraqi leaders meeting and showing support for one another. The whole enchilada. So the final push by people like Kerry are to undermine "the enchilada".

First, demands for a timetable conjure up pictures of things going worst than they are. It continues the lie of a quagmire and references to Vietnam. Second, a constant drumbeat in a national forum just might in Kerry's mind cause Bush to pull the trigger prematurely. Even a little bit premature just might mitigate the picture of success. Also, keep in mind that if Bush were to do so the tremendous pressure applied to him will be quickly forgotten by the media. An example of this is Bush '41 and his pledge of "Read my lips, no new taxes". The Democrats applied tremendous pressure to get a reversal of that pledge. They whined about the deficit. They played the MSM like a fiddle (as usual). They made promises to cut the budget with matching cuts to taxes (which they later reniged on). Finally, when Bush '41 was firmly on the figurative "rack" he gave in. The ink was barely dry when the Dems began to capitalize on his broken pledge and break all promises of spending cuts. Bush '43 has exhibited a maddening (to the Dems) firmness of resolve. If only they could break that before '08 it would be the '92 election all over again.

Thirdly, it also is an attempt to set the stage for taking credit when we actually do start to withdrawal. If the actual withdrawal is anywhere near one of the dates that any Dem has demanded, they will beat their chest and cry victory. Of course there have been so many dates that they are sure to hit one. This is the first July 2007 I have seen. Very logical. The progress in Iraq lines up with that. We could have our first ticker tape parade on July 4th. I think Kerry shuddered to think of that and so that is the likely source of naming the month July.

These are my theories of why John Kerry continues to be willing to embarrass himself with these actions and statements. The question is, does he see himself as we see him? Probably not. Most people like that are completely blinded to how they appear. All I know is that every time he opens his mouth I thank God he is not president.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Kudos to Amnesty International

Michelle Malkin has posted that Amnesty International has finally come out with a denouncement of the torture and killing of two of our soldiers. While the release seems a bit strained and boldly emphasizes the "alleged" part; they did denounce it. For that they have my thanks and kudos. Here is a part of the statement:
To: National Desk

Contact: Sharon Singh of Amnesty International USA, 202-544-0200 ext. 289

WASHINGTON, June 21 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Larry Cox, Amnesty International USA's executive director, made the following statement in response to the alleged killing and torture of two U.S. soldiers in Ramadi, Iraq:

"Amnesty International, first and foremost, extends its sincerest condolences to the families of Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker for their tragic loss. We are deeply disturbed by reports that these two soldiers were brutally tortured. These reports, if proven true, may rise to the level of war crimes.

Amnesty International condemns the torture or summary killing of anyone who has been taken prisoner and reiterates that such acts are absolutely prohibited in international humanitarian law. This prohibition applies at all times, even during armed conflict. There is no honor or heroism in torturing or killing individuals. Those who order or commit such atrocities must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law without recourse to the death penalty.

Amnesty International again calls on armed groups in Iraq to immediately cease all executions, torture or ill-treatment of people. Armed groups, like other parties to the conflict in Iraq, are required to comply strictly with international law and remain accountable for their actions."

Amnesty International released a report, Iraq, In Cold Blood: Abuses by Armed Groups, in July 2005. For a copy of the report, contact the AIUSA press office at 202-544-0200 ext. 302.

On a side note, I find their name for the enemy elements in Iraq "armed groups in Iraq" to be interesting. Many have attempted to find a fitting name for them: terrorists, insurgents, etc. Armed groups is a new one on me. Truly I don't know what the best name for them is. Hopefully they will cease to exist and we won't need to worry what to call them.

Saddam on a hunger strike

Saddam and his co-defendants are on a hunger strike in reaction to one of his lawyers being killed. They are demanding an international protection team in place. I say, give them what they want. Have the UN form a team to protect them. That should make him feel secure.


Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Boortz asks if the left will decry human rights violations by insurgents

Niel Boortz asks a good question. Sadly the missing soldiers have been found and it appears they were killed in a barbaric way and tortured before being killed. Boortz asks if the left will decry these obvious human rights violations.

Will they? Will they march in the streets against the terrorist insurgents who have done this? Will the media treat this as they treated Abu Graibh? Will it become an international outrage? Or will they yawn? Will they simply report it with those "I feel your pain looks" and then run to the nearest Democrat with a microphone to get a soundbite about the need to "cut and run"?

Now is the time for the left to step up to the plate and try to be consistent or show their true colors that they are anti-American bigots who are secretly hoping more of this happens. Ok left, the ball is in your court.

Monday, June 19, 2006

Pelosi reveals Dems plan - spend more money and assault business

I have to hand it to AP. Once in awhile they actually report something as it is. I have linked to a report on the announcement by Democrats of their agenda to take back Congress. It basically is a hybrid between their usual extraction of money from the pockets of others in order to buy votes and John Kerry's campaign mantra "I have a plan..."

Here is the core of the plan in Pelosi's own words with some summarized by AP:

"A new direction means expanding access to affordable health care for Americans. We will begin by lowering the cost of prescription drugs by putting seniors ahead of pharmaceutical companies and HMOs," Pelosi said.

"A new direction means broadening opportunity by addressing the soaring costs of higher education. We will begin by making tuition tax-deductible and cutting the interest rates of student loans in half."

Pelosi also pledged to improve security, reduce dependence on foreign oil, maintain Social Security and oppose deficit spending. Under the plan the minimum wage would rise from $5.15 to $7.25 over two years, the interest rate on student loans would be cut to 3.4 percent and Democrats would approve a "pay as you go" budgeting rule.

So they are going to take money out of our pockets to grant others "more affordable health care" and more affodable education. I just instinctively made a protective grab for my wallet for all the good that will do. Then as if Bush did not stick it to us enough with the cost staggering prescription drug plan, the Dems are going to stick it to us more while leaving drug companies with less incentive to come out with the drugs society needs. Other businesses will be assaulted with a 40% increase in the minimum wage. Talk about a vote buying extravaganza.

Dems then have a plan to deal with security, Social Security and foreign oil. Not too many details here. They'll just deal with it. Even though they have rejected all solutions to these problems thus far. I thought they said Social Security was just fine? Of course that was a few years after they were screaming it was falling apart. Are they back to that, or does the word "maintain" show they are still in denial?

I wonder what this "pay as you go" rule refers to? I am sure it has something to do with us "paying" as they "go". The Dems also seem to be tip-toing past the graveyard when it comes to Iraq and the War on Terror. Here is where my previous reference to AP comes in. According to them:

She didn't mention that there's significant disagreement among Democrats on when to begin withdrawing troops.

Pelosi's position on the Iraq timetable -- "at the earliest practicable time, the United States must begin the responsible redeployment of its troops," she said -- is not shared by everyone in the Democratic caucus.

In other words, when it comes to our security and our committment to the Iraqi people, the Dems don't have a clue. They have no ideas here; only criticism. What outstanding leadership! We can trust 'em with our security...Not!

Pull the plug on UN funding until Kofi steps down

I'm sure it has happened, but in my memory I cannot recall Kofi Annan ever saying anything that can be labeled "intelligent". If any readers of this post have any intelligent statements from Kofi, I would be interested in reading them (no, simple criticism of Bush does not count). To me every time I see him talking I think of some muppet on Sesame Street. Then he just mumbles out some kind of statement and it is like some fly buzzing in your ear. There is nothing to grasp onto that ever warrants or justifies the high position that he has been granted. He is truly at best an international embarrassment.

The recent opportunity for Kofi to embarrass himself over is the flap over his deputy Mark Malloch Brown. This flap is described by Reuters:
U.S.-U.N. tensions flared anew last week after U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown accused the George W. Bush administration of keeping its extensive reliance on the United Nations "a secret in Middle America" because working with the world body was "not perceived to be good politics at home."
Brown also included jabs against some talk radio personalities in his comments including Rush Limbaugh. He seemed to be chaffing against the spotlight that talk radio and conservative blogs shine on the UN. Where the rest of the world seems to set the threshold of satisfaction with the UN if they every now and then belch out a criticism of the US and George Bush; the conservative media asks quite a bit more for the UN to justify its existence.

Actually, the notion that the US is reliant on the UN is quite laughable. Bush '41 set a precedent of working through the UN and Clinton practically sold out our sovereignty to the place. Bush '43 leans more toward his father's policy which is more of a "let's be a team player" mentality. In other words, neither Bush nor the US needs the UN (any more than a dog needs a tick) but he bends over backwards to cooperate with this corrupt and backwards institution to show goodwill to the rest of the world. The US bears much of cost of the UN including hosting the place. We cover much of the security of the UN. We must deal with the full brunt of their diplomatic immunity with crimes ranging from simple traffic violations to rape and murder. Worst of all we must put up with their ingratitude and arrogance as they both criticize and work against our interests while enjoying the benefits of our funds and our land.

John Bolton (who continues to impress me with every word out of his mouth) rightly demands that Kofi press his deputy to withdraw his rude comments. This is no simple childish reaction to being insulted. The UN takes full advantage of the US' hospitality and then takes every opportunity to undercut and weaken us. Bolton is absolutely correct to draw a line and say "No more". What other permanent member of the Security Council is ever singled out for such criticism? So when Kofi sticks by his deputy "Fife" Bolton lays down the gauntlet and claims that funding will be withheld. If we cannot get past the UN's inebriation at criticizing the US, then the entire idea of a UN is an exercise in futility and should be scrapped.

So now the UN faces a severe budget crisis. Instead of doing the right thing what does Kofi say:
"For someone to say that 'because you have not reformed to my satisfaction I am going to pull the plug and stop all the activities,' it is going to be a very hard sell for all the member states to swallow and rightly so." Annan added.
What reform? Kofi is dragging out reform at a snail's pace. You would think with his term ending soon that he would want to pick up the pace. Reform takes tough words and tough actions to back them up. Kofi has never said a tough word in his term (unless it is against the US). The fact is that Kofi has been at the helm during throughout this rash of corruption and unrestrained misdeeds. He has either been heavily involved or grossly absent and irresponsible having failed to prevent it. Kofi needs to go. Bolton backed by the administration needs to go beyond demanding Brown to apologize. They need to demand that Kofi step down or no funds. If that does not work, then we can ask the UN to pack their bags and move somewhere else. Maybe if the UN were moved to a country in missle range of Iran and North Korea, we might actually see some effective action on that front as well.

Sunday, June 18, 2006

IF by Rudyard Kipling - My Tribute to Fathers Day

If by Rudyard Kipling

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on";

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!

Friday, June 16, 2006

Who is the Honor Network?

I have stumbled across a website that seems to think something of the Logic Lifeline. It is called the Honor Network. It lists top ranking conservative and liberal blogs around the world. Now I would like to think I have a blog that interests a few people who appreciate what I write or enjoy challenging what I write. By no means, however, do I understand that 1) I made their top ranking list and 2) That I made #8 on their list. There is great company on this list with Michelle Malkin, Captains Quarters, Little Green Footballs and others. I saw this site a few months back and I was something like #13. So I am moving up.

What gives? Do I have some secret admirer who has a vote? I can't find any information on who creates this site or who makes decisions. For all I know it is looking at a cookie on my computer and gets my blog name from there. Well I checked out a computer that never visited my blog and it still shows up.

If anyone can shed light on this site and my ranking I would appreciate it.

Dems panic and do the right thing

As Dems see the November election beginning to pull away from their grasp, they went into panic mode. When a Dem is in panic mode you never know what they are going to do. Sometimes they are in such a state the right thing. The crowning jewel of their November strategy was the GOP culture of corruption. Then we began to see that corruption is not limited to a single party. The Dems have their fair share of it, too.

When Rep. William Jefferson was video-taped (allegedly) taking a $100,000 bribe and $90,000 was found hidden in his freezer we could audibly hear a big "sucking sound" as the Dems' strategy went down the drain. Then all kinds of good economic news keeps coming out: low employment, tax receipts rising causing deficit to go down, the trade deficit is going down, etc. Then Zarqawi is killed and a treasure trove of documents are found. Iraqi forces are joining and even leading raids to kill and capture insurgents. Murtha is really looking bad on this Haditha thing both by rushing to judgement on it and then announcing his desire for majority leader (if the Dems take it). He seems to have a habit of counting chickens before they are hatched. Finally, Rove not going to be charged for any non-crime of leaking the name of a non-covert agent.

They tried to get Jefferson to step down but both he AND the black caucus said no. Politicians of color must transcend petty things like ethics. So Pelosi has been wringing her hands for some time now but the full panic mode set in yesterday. They have voted Jefferson off the House Ways and Means Committee. 58 of 157 (37%) Dem votes thought it a fine idea to keep a man with $90,000 of bribe and untaxed money as the chairman. Then after dragging their feet to do the right thing, with a lack-luster vote to do the right thing Pelosi begins to beat her chest and preach to others according to NewsMax:
The three-hour closed door meeting marked the culmination of a drive by the Democratic leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, to take action. "This isn't about proof in a court of law. This is about an ethical standard," she told reporters.

"I wish the White House would follow our lead on this," she added. Democrats have vowed to make ethics a cornerstone of their campaign for control of the House this fall and have repeatedly accused Republicans of presiding over a "culture of corruption."

Isn't that always the case? How many people do you know who take years to make the right decision (maybe to stop smoking or start exercising). Suddenly they are an evangelist to others to do the same thing. Sorry, but there is a big difference between being caught with the goods and simply being accused of something with no proof.

The funny thing is that the Dems are brazen enough to think that this move will give the "all clear" sign to start back on the GOP culture of corruption. Little do they realize how foolish they will look if they try it. However, don't let me stand in the way of Democrats trying to make fools of themselves. They do it so well and so often.

Thursday, June 15, 2006

Malott and the Gathering Gloom

Please do yourself a favor for a great laugh and go over to Malott's Blog to read a very funny skit he has on his blog and I think he wrote. It is a script about a discussion with senior Democrats in a room planning their strategy in the light of recent events. It is very funny (at least to a conservative).

Here are a couple of lines to wet your appetite:
Ted: Uh... Let's all head on over to the Hawk and Dove Bar. Uh... I'll drive.
Harry: Our best stuff isn't working. The phone-tap accusations are going nowhere. I think the stupid fly-over hicks like having their phones tapped.
There are a couple of subtle references to Joe Biden and his knack for plagurism that are done very well and the ending is a crack up so I won't spoil it. Enjoy.

Political Yen/Yang posts on scientist reaction to Al Gore movie

LA Sunsett over at Political Yen/Yang beat me to post on the article showing that quite a number scientists (in the climate field, not astrophysicists like Hawkings) viewing Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth as bunk. As I am short of time and LA did a fine job, I'll just link to it. I have been posting on the religion of man-made catostrophic global warming lately and this makes a fine addition to the growing information about how much people are being duped on this subject. Please click over to LA's blog and have a read.

Zarqawi death showing libs wrong...again

There are a fraction of people in this country who wake up every day in dread and fear to turn on the news and hear....good news. These people were quite down when they heard that Zarqawi was nailed. They scrambled quickly spin Zarqawi's death as not very meaningful. He was simply an administrator of the organization; 20 more will take his place, etc. These are the same people who attach meaning to Osama Bin Laden not being nailed yet. I happen to place significance on both.

The claim that the Zarqawi strike was meaningless has been relegated to the liberal heap of "wrong again". The house that Zarqawi was staying in was so secluded that it cannot be seen from any residences surrounding it. First, this shows the falseness of the words of a neighbor claiming our soldiers stomped Zarqawi to death after he survived the bomb. Once again, I guess it is ok for some Muslims to lie about infidels. The important part about the seclusion of the house is that Zarqawi felt quite confident he would not be detected there. MyWay is announcing today that in this safe house (no longer safe):
...a "huge treasure" of documents and computer records was seized after the raid on terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's hideout, giving the Iraqi government the upper hand in its fight against al-Qaida in Iraq.
In fact since Zarqawi's death according to AP:
American and Iraqi forces have carried out 452 raids since last week's killing of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and 104 insurgents were killed during those actions, the U.S. military said Thursday.
143 of these raids were handled by Iraqi forces alone without US assistance. There were 759 "anti-Iraq elements" captured during the raid. A very interesting term. I don't know if it is new, but the term underscores that these "insurgents" may claim to be doing this for Iraq; they are actually against the Iraqi people. The tendency of liberals to make these heroes or revolutionaries or anything morally equivalent to our soldiers is ridiculous and a sellout to our troops.

Well, two great things happening in the aftermath of killing a man who forfeited his right to walk the earth. Two meaningful things. Can the media now admit that they bypassed an opportunity to celebrate a significant event in this war? Probably not. They will be going to bed tonight worrying about what good news they will have to report tomorrow.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Catchy Bush Was Right Music Video

Click here to view a catchy music video proclaiming "Bush Was Right". There have been quite a few anti-Bush songs lately, it was fun to see the opposite. Be sure and listen to the whole thing as the end has some clever wording. I don't know who these guys are but they have some talent and the lead singer has a pretty good voice. Maybe they need to go where the Dixie Chicks fizzled before running for the northern border.

Hat tip Mr. Pilot

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Logic Lifeline not the only place claiming Global Warming is a religion

Debra Saunders writes an excellent article titled Global Warming Fever. The underlying point she makes is that the claims made by Al Gore about man causing global warming that will doom the planet is all based on belief. So basically like me, Saunders is claiming that the Global Warming crowd is engaging in a religion. Here are some of the highlights that speak for themself:

Former Veep Al Gore's new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," however, shows how unscientific -- and downright faith-based -- the left has become.
There are a number of well-known scientists who don't believe that global warming is human-induced, or who believe that if it is, it is not catastrophic.
Hurricane expert William Gray of Colorado State University believes the Earth will start to cool within 10 years.
Neil Frank, former director of the National Hurricane Center, told The Washington Post that global warming is "a hoax."
Climate scientist Robert Lindzen of MIT believes that clouds and water vapor will counteract greenhouse gas emissions.
I thought Gore's chart comparing carbon-dioxide increases to temperature spikes was dramatic. But because Gore omits what he does not want to see, I have to listen to former NASA scientist Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, when he tells me: "It is an alarming chart, but there are so many alternative explanations for what he's showing. He's giving it one possible explanation and making it sound like the only explanation." Spencer says it is "more likely" that the higher temperatures increased carbon dioxide levels.
Duh. Warmer climate means more vegetation growth which puts out more carbon dioxide. You can miss the forest for the trees in scenarios like that one.

Besides, whenever the establishment says you have to believe something, you want people who question the establishment. Or as global cooling guru Gray once said, "Consensus science isn't science."
Now there is the crux of the matter. How many Global Warming proponents do you see who welcome other opinions. The more you look at it, the more you see that this subject is being treated as religious dogma. No alternative explanations or theories are welcome. Instead of meeting on Sundays, however, they hold church every day.

Two disappointments in one day for libs

Libs have been rubbing their hands together waiting and waiting for Karl Rove to be given the perp walk in cuffs. Sorry libs, it is not going to happen. The prosecutor's prosecutor has announced that Karl Rove would not be charged in any crime surrounding the Plame leak. The ramifications here are far reaching. The liberal media and blogs have been salivating over Rove's indictment since before Fitzmas turned into Fizzlemas.

Likewise, the media has frothed at the mouth again and again over the leaking of a covert CIA agent's name. They have made Joe Wilson a media darling and hung a microphone in his face to catch every anti-Bush word that comes out of his mouth. In fact, one of the "strongest" columns of support under the "Bush Lied" mantra is the pseudo shroud of credibility the media laid across Joe Wilson's shoulders like a mantle of a prophet. With two high level administration personnel known to have discussed Plame with reporters, the only conclusion that can be made here is that Plame was NOT COVERT. This takes the remaining credibility that Joe Wilson
might have and dashes it to the stones. With Wilson's credibility gone, so is a major stake in the Bush lied tent. Yet, in a way the libs got what they wanted. Once whispers of accusations and the ensuing mountain of talk materializes it is nearly impossible to get all the pieces back in the bag. You can bet the media quickly get this announced and behind them with no thought of the damage they created along the way.

In another disappointment for libs, Alberto has inflicted very little damage remaining a Tropical Storm. Since last year's hurricanes , liberals have been in hyper-mode over both Katrina and the number of hurricanes. Using a single year's data, liberals have leaped into the politics of fear and claimed that global warming is causing the hurricanes. "Oh, if only there can be a high number of hurricanes this year we can scare people into voting for Democrats in November." Never mind the leading expert on hurricanes and the director of the NOAA deny any link between the hurricanes and global warming. That is an inconvenient truth you only hear about on conservative blogs and talk radio.

Even Bill Clinton was convinced Alberto was going to become a hurricane and quickly jumped on the bogus bandwagon. Well, libs. There is still some time in this hurricane season. The question is, what will the libs say if the number of hurricanes is low this year? My guess is that it will be spun into an expected effect of global warming. Kind of like when they stated that cooler temperatures in some years are a natural effect of global warming. They even keep a straight face when they say these things.

Monday, June 12, 2006

Evidence mounting that Haditha charges are a hoax?

It is no secret I am hoping and praying that the terrible charges of a massacre at Haditha by our marines is false. I have pushed to give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. John Murtha in his quest for the #1 spot in the House (correction: under Speaker) if Dems take the majority seems willing to step on our marines to reach his goal.

In the meantime more keeps coming out that is beginning to smell like a hoax. Claurice Feldman writes a piece for the American Thinker called Haditha: Is McGirk the New Mary Mapes. McGirk is the Time reporter who broke the story. He is the same reporter who dined with the Taliban on Thanksgiving Day right after 9/11. In this story he lobbied the Time editors to use the word "massacre" in the story.

Additionally, it is pointed out that McGirk misrepresents a key source for the report. According to Feldman:
A key source for McGirk’s report that US Marines in Haditha had deliberately attacked civilians was Thaer al-Hadithi. whom McGirk inexplicably described as “a budding journalism student”. He is a middle-aged man, and was subsequently described by the AP as an “Iraqi investigator.”
Feldman raises key questions about the camaraman who taped the aftermath of the incident. He claims that he waited to videotape what would occur, but did not tape the incident itself. He watched it from a window having the same opportunity to tape it but did not. There are also questions of the length of time it took to release the tape as well as an odd interview before the release:
The actions of his partner al-Mashhadani are equally puzzling. On December 15, 2005 Mashhadani was interviewed by the Institute for War and Peace which described him as “an election monitor.” In that interview he expressed great satisfaction with the election turnout (which in fact was terribly low in Haditha). Why did he not mention to this apparently sympathetic group one word about the supposed “atrocity” which he claimed had occurred three months earlier?
Feldman then describes inherent issues with the "witnesses" in the incident. There is a doctor who has documented anti-American "animus to the US troops". The other Iraqi witnesses are providing 4 different accounts of the incident. There is also a marine "witness" who was injured and evacuated before he could witness anything. He apparently only spoke of the incident after he was arrested for stealing and crashing a truck when under the influence.

There is a lot more in the article than can be given justice in this post. The fact is that Haditha was a hotbed for the insurgency. The staging of a "massacre" is both possible and supported by sufficient incentive in this area. The more that comes out about this, the more I sense that at a minimum John Murtha and the media jumped the gun too soon. The tendency of the media to think the worst of our soldiers until they are proven innocent is becoming more and more disgusting.

Feldman takes the same conclusion I came to in a previous post. The consequences to the media will be disastrous if our marines are cleared in this matter. This cannot be tolerated by them, so mark my words: if our marines are cleared in this, you can bet the media spin will be that there was a cover up (as they attempt to cover up their incompetence and hatred of our military).

Follow up on the 72 Virgins incentive

While it is not a new story, the recent departure of al-Zarqawi from this earth and my denouncement of the notion he is being rewarded leads me to post further on the subject. The Tapei Times wrote an article last year stating that the 72 virgins is likely a mistranslation. Instead of 72 black eyed virgins, the real translation possibly is 72 white grapes. Either way, I doubt the cowardly acts of taking the lives of innocent men, women and especially children qualify for any reward be it virgins or grapes.

FMSO Docex coming back to the forefront

Somehow the FMSO Docex project was successfully pushed to the back burner for a few months. There is a story on about the project where a huge amount of documents confiscated in Iraq shortly after Baghdad fell. The military found there were simply too many documents for their manpower to translate in our lifetime, so certain members of Congress pushed to have the untranlated documents released to public. The originals were scanned and made available for public translation. Those that have been translated are on the FMSO Docex website.

The interesting thing about this story is the deafening silence from both sides on the subject. While I can see conservatives being somewhat cautious, you might expect the liberals to at least make some statement on the subject. Maybe they have, but I have yet to see anything substantive. Yes, there was some initial coverage (remember the famous "Editor's Note" basically cautioning against trusting them too much). There was some initial discussion on the conservative talk shows and a couple blogs.

The documents I have seen seem to reveal some very damning evidence against Saddam. So much so, that you would expect the right to be trumpeting them and the left to be heartily denouncing them and demanding investigations into potential fraud or what have you. My guess is that the right is waiting for the best moment to make a push. After all, with this volume of documentation it would be nearly impossible to pull off a forgery of this magnitude without getting caught. The orginal Arabic is included, so it would be difficult to have egregious mistranslations without challenge. My take on the liberal silence is that they are whistling past the graveyard, counting on the shortness of people's attention span and trusting in their "Bush lied" massive propoganda campaign the media has helped them with. Time will tell.

Thursday, June 08, 2006

al-Zarqawi gets virgin flames to lick his carcass

Congratulations to our armed forces for taking out Iraq's number 1 Al Queda terrorist. While his family spews the nonsense that he is in heaven, rest assured he finally has his virgins. Unfortunately for him they are virgin flames of hell. I wonder what his first thoughts were when he awoke to his eternal torment. Probably surprise at where he was first, then the realization that Bush finally got him.

So do I relish the thought of this creep in hell? No, I don't wish that on anybody. I make the point on this blog because of the constant drumbeat of the twisted promise of heaven and virgins to people willing to target and snuff out the life of innocent women, children and men. This warped promise never is challenged or denounced. It has lured several young men who feel they have no real future to throw their life away with the suicide vest. It needs to be challenged hard and across the board by the religious leaders in a position to do so. If others dreaming of celestial sexual reward were told enough times by enough people that they will instead awaken to the flames of hell, maybe they will pause long enough to change their mind.

As for Zarqawi's demise, I congratulate the special ops and others involved in the planning and execution of this hit. I heard of the news this morning when my radio alarm went off and I thought I was dreaming. I then heard it for real when I woke up and it was simply a great victorious feeling. It shows the fruits of staying the course and reveals the folly of critics who think getting these types can be done overnight.

While I had a great feeling, I wonder how many liberals had a sinking feeling in their stomach when they heard the news. I don't claim all or most did, but I know some did. What an existence dreading waking up to good news. They are the same ones who get giddy at anything that seems like bad news.

Goodbye Zarqawi. For all others scumbags who have escaped capture or death so far, your day is coming.

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

American Thinker shows similarities to Haditha and Duke Lacross rape case

The American Thinker has an interesting take on Haditha. A.T. presents three problems with the accusations. First, there is a link showing the leading Iraqi doctor on the scene may have objectivity issues having been arrested by US forces in the past. I have no way of verifying that, but it would be an interesting development if true. A.T. goes on to point out the others:
Secondly, the area is rather pro-insurgent, and witnesses may not be credible (remember the early reports of the Jenin “massacre?”). Third, given that the insurgents commit mass murders on a daily basis and understand propaganda, it’s not unreasonable to think they might have committed the atrocity themselves, then staged the area to give the impression it was coalition troops that had been responsible.Meanwhile, defense lawyers for the accused Marines are requesting drone footage, saying it will exonerate them. That doesn’t sound like something they would do if they thought the evidence would show them committing atrocities.
I read a story the other day quoting a girl that survived the incident. She states that she saw the soldiers coming and covered her ears because she knew the IED was going to explode. Innocent civilian? The drone footage also offers some promise here. As I have stated, we don't know what happened. I am supporting the troops until the facts are in.

American Thinker summarizes the similarities between Haditha and Duke:
Does this remind anyone else of the Duke lacrosse team rape case? Unreliable witness, exculpatory footage, a media that has already hung them…At the very least, our troops deserve the benefit of the doubt until tried.
Why is that so hard for Murtha and his sycophants to understand that last part? I don't think it is hard for them. Murtha, the media and the liberals jumped the gun and damned the troops before the facts were in and verified. When they got zapped for it, their pants were already down. They knew they would look bad sticking with their line, but they perceive they will look like the drooling bashers they are if they backed away from it. So they have dug in deeper and cried louder. Are they praying they were right? If those drones or ballistic evidence exonerate our troops, these people can kiss their credibility goodbye. The only thing left of them will be the drool.

So what are your plans for 06/06/06?

An interesting calendar year. Earlier in the year we had 1:02 and 3 seconds AM on April 5th to create the sequence 01-02-03-04-05-06. I did not stay up for that one. Now today we have 06/06/06. Of course 666 is described in the Bible as the number of the "beast" or the antichrist. We are not quite sure what that means, but I doubt he has a birth mark forming those numbers on his head. Most think it is related to a special mark he will require of people to have on their hand or forehead in order to show allegiance or even an act of worship. Those without it will not be allowed to buy or sell food or other goods. Some think that today the antichrist will be born or conceived. It is difficult with prophecy to know the exact way things will actually occur, but that is the basics.

Some have a real fear of today. We have heard of the woman that wanted to induce her baby so it would not be born today. That would be quite a stigma, though no doubt we will seeing a rock band in a couple of decades with the lead singer dressed up in black and ghoulish with a theme relating to his being born today. Y'all come back in 20 years to see if I'm right, ok?

Others are using today's date as an excuse to celebrate and gain a little notoriety. Take Hell, Michigan. I have linked the title to a news story on this town making the most of an already notorious name. They will be having 666 parties with 666 mugs and T-shirts. The entry point to the childrens play area will have flaming "gates of hell" and many items for sale will go for $6.66. Among the wares, they will selling 1 inch square plots of land so you can buy a piece of hell.

For those curious how the town got its name, My Way offers the explanation:

According to the town's semiofficial Web site, there are two leading theories about how Hell got its name.

The first holds that a pair of German travelers stepped out of a stagecoach one sunny afternoon in the 1830s, and one said to the other, "So schoene hell" - roughly translated as, "So bright and beautiful." Their comments were overheard by some locals and the name stuck.

The second holds that George Reeves was asked after Michigan gained statehood what he thought the town he helped settle should be called, and reportedly replied, "I don't care, you can name it Hell if you want to." The name became official on Oct. 13, 1841.

Everybody have a great day.