Weird dog story

As Paul Harvey would say, "Here's a strange...." The Dallas Morning News ran a story in the Sunday edition about scores of dogs who have apparently "committed suicide" over the last 30 years by jumping off a bridge in Scotland:

MILTON, Scotland – Donna Cooper still has no idea why her normally obedient border collie, Ben, leaped to his death this spring off a tall rural bridge in Milton without any warning or apparent rationale. "Ben's feet never touched the wall," she said, referring to the waist-high, 18-inch-thick barrier that has been hurdled – inexplicably and with a near certainty of death – by scores of dogs during the past three decades. "He just went straight over."

Maybe it's the whistle of the wind from distant Loch Lomond, or the fabled "white lady" who is said to haunt an adjacent mansion or the rustle of tree branches next to a nearby waterfall.

Nobody knows for sure, but something strange is causing dogs to jump off the Overtoun Estate bridge, west of Glasgow, at an alarming rate. Most are killed by the 60-foot fall or are so severely injured that veterinarians must put them to sleep. Others have survived, only to come back and try again.

The mystery has prompted investigations by an animal behaviorist and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Even a group of paranormal researchers visited recently. None has found a plausible explanation.

I dunno. Read the rest of the piece.

Air America Scandal Countdown

Still no response from the MSM regarding the Air America scandal. This is a fun story to watch. How long will we have to wait to hear coverage from the MSM who endlessly touted Air America as the long awaited answer to Rush Limbaugh and conservative radio in general?

Brian Maloney, of The Radio Equalizer, according to Power Line, has owned this story from the outset and continues to keep watch. Go there for additional links.

Also note the convenient countdown clock at the righthand column and click on it to go to BoreAmerica.

The Failed Policy of Appeasement Throughout the Ages

Lenny Cacchio

Lenny Cacchio has a good piece on appeasement and how it has failed time and time again:

On a recent tour of the internet I was aghast at the revisionist view of the blundering exploits of a certain Neville Chamberlain of Great Britain. Chamberlain was the Prime Minister prior to Winston Churchill, and he believed that Adolph Hitler could be bought off with pieces of someone else’s real estate. He proudly called the policy of putting a slice of Czechoslovakia under the Nazi jackboot “Appeasement”, and he congratulated himself for bringing home “peace in our time.”

Some well-meaning people actually believe that Chamberlain’s policy failed not because it was based on a flawed theory, but because the evil Winston Churchill sabotaged it. Supposedly, if Chamberlain’s view had prevailed, World War II would have been prevented, millions of lives would have been saved, and I suppose der Fuehrer would have been given the accolades he so richly deserved.

Einstein reputedly said that “only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.” Whether Einstein made that clever comment is a question of debate, but history does bear out the sympathies expressed. Perhaps the real reason for such revisions of history is an attempt to deprecate the war on terror by removing the historical legitimacy to the doctrine appeasement that proponents of current policy cite to justify their position.

Indeed the doctrine of appeasement has a history of failure that long precedes World War II. Pilate attempted to use it and discovered that it only served to tease the appetite for more blood. Apparently Pilate could not understand why the corrupt religious leadership of the day hated Jesus with such extreme virulence. Even though, after questioning Jesus, he admitted to finding no fault in him, he expended his energy trying to pass the judgment to someone else (like Herod), and when that failed he tried other means to wiggle out of rendering a decision. One of those means was a pitiful and dishonorable attempt at appeasement, and like Britain and France taking out a piece of Czechoslovakia’s hide in an attempt to save their own, he learned to his disgust that tearing the skin of innocent man cannot mitigate a mind filled with bloodlust.

Imagine this scene. A judge admits to the prosecutor and the accusers – and everyone else within earshot -- that there is no evidence of guilt. “I have found no fault in this man,” he said. And then, “I will therefore chastise him.” (Luke 23:14, 16) This he did in hopes of satisfying an insatiable hatred. It did not work. It never does. Chamberlain proved it. Pilate proved it. I pray God our generation doesn’t have to prove it again.

Mark Tapscott: The growing role of the citizen journalist

Mark Tapscott

Mark Tapscott has a good piece at Townhall.com which points out the growing importance of the citizen journalist. He asks, "Are you ready for citizen journalism to stop Big Government?"

...That makes citizen journalism one of our most powerful weapons ever against Big Government. Think about the politicians and bureaucrats who will no longer be able to operate out of the public eye. It won’t be long before those dreary congressional hearings, school board meetings and state regulatory commission votes that mostly go ignored now will be recorded and posted on the Internet, easily accessible to everybody. Big Government advocates won’t like this new world.

The Blogosphere and other Internet-based New Media have ended the mainstream media’s monopoly on reporting the news. Broadcast news networks and daily newspapers are rapidly losing their audiences and advertisers. Sooner or later, they will be replaced by a new breed of citizen journalism that gives us the news we want, not just the “news” favored by the Dan Rathers of old.

He goes on to suggest how citizens can even become more effective in exposing bureaucratic abuses and corruption. Check it out. It's a brave new world.

Their Own Worst Enemy

Read Tony Snow's piece in the Washington Examiner. It examines the huge problem republicans are having doing battle with leftist democrats. While being in a clear majority, republicans seem to be losing ideological battles with the minority party almost daily. Additionally, the vast majority of Americans are conservative and would cheerfully support a more aggressive republican party and, in fact, impatiently await strong leadership. Where is the republican leadership and what are they thinking on the right side of the isle?

To give a recent example: When left-wingers began treating membership in the Federalist Society as a crime, no one at 1600 Pennsylvania bothered to defend the organization, the nation's pre-eminent conservative legal organization. Instead, they curled in the fetal position and tried to hide.

This leads to a tantalizing and interesting possibility: Even though Republicans have won the war of ideas, Democrats in the short run could win the big political races: the House, the Senate and even the White House. That's because Hillary Rodham Clinton and her fellow Democrats are willing to fight with every weapon at their disposal, while Republicans still act as if they fear rather than cherish their incredible potential strength.

Is it because they want to "get along" with their opponents and those in the press? The republicans seem to be using the leftist policy of appeasement and accommodation with their political foes. The left, who embrace this policy when it comes to dealing with terrorists, know full well that it doesn't work when dealing with republicans. Whereas, the republicans seem to be tough on terrorists, but tend to appease and accommodate the domestic leftists. Go figure!

Conservative America yearns for effective leadership. It's sickening to see the leftist politicos control so many agendas.

Could It Be?

The civilized world has been anxiously awaiting word from "mainstream" Muslims that they decry international terrorism. Might there be credence in this Fatwa on Terrorism?

Muslim scholars in the United States and Canada plan to release a fatwa, or judicial ruling, in Washington today saying that Islam condemns terrorism, religious extremism and any violence against civilians, including suicide bombings.

They said the fatwa is a response to the bombings this month in London and Egypt, and that they wanted the message to reach both non-Muslims who believe that Islam supports terrorism, as well as Muslims in North America and elsewhere, especially youths who could be susceptible to Islamic extremism.

"Young people might not have had the opportunity to understand the teaching of Islam in depth," said Jamal Badawi, chairman of the Islamic Information Foundation in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and a member of the council issuing the fatwa. "We are trying to be proactive, not wait until something happens."

The fatwa cites the Koran and other Islamic texts, and says that making innocent people targets is forbidden - "haram" - and that those who commit such violence are "criminals" and not "martyrs," as supporters of suicide bombers have often claimed.

We'll have to wait and see. Wouldn't it be comforting to see a 'Million Muslim March'?

A Pleasant Diversion

It's 12:34am and as I sift through the breaking news, as I'm want to do this time of day/nite, the wife of my youth informs me that Sabrina is on. I don't know if I've ever even seen the remake all the way through, but I can't tell you how many times I've listened to the soundtrack. It's GOT to be one of the all time great soundtracks. Go ahead and download it, listen to it, delete it, and then go buy it so you can hear it over and over!

Judge John Coughenour

Judge John Coughenour

Ahmed Ressam, the Millennium bomber, who sought to blow up as much of LAX as possible, was sentenced today by Judge John Coughenour, a Seattle federal district judge. Ressam's sentence was unbelievably short and he'll be out in less than 20 years to bomb again. What an ignorant judge! Oh, he may be brilliant. He may have been summa cum laude (or not), but this ruling was blantantly ignorant. What was he thinking?

Hugh Hewitt has the goods on this errant judge. Be sure to go to Hewitt's site and digest all that is there about Judge John Coughenour of Seattle, Washington. Not only did the leftist judge error in the severity of the sentence, he also felt the need to lecture America in the process.

Michelle Malkin has a full report on "the terrorist's little helper" at her site. Don't miss her coverage.

Once again, the MSM is negligent and any pertinent information will be found only on the internet and talk radio. Does anyone even consult the MSM anymore, other than to see what they are not talking about?

Public Funds for the Poor Diverted To Air America?

Al Franken

This is really rich! Brian Maloney, over at The Radio Equalizer, along with Michelle Malkin, are uncovering a big story that the MSM will, no doubt avoid at all costs.

It seems that public funds meant for poor inner city kids and unfortunate seniors wound up at the floundering Air America network. Hmmmmm!

Isn't this interesting? The "compassionate" left, who complains mightily about the stingy republicans who, they claim, are continually cutting social programs, apparently have enriched themselves on the backs of the poor and underprivileged by taking public funds.

Outrage anyone? Will Katie Couric be covering this tomorrow morning? Will Al Franken be righteously indignant that his fair minded organization has co-opted public funds? We'll have to wait and see, won't we?

In the meantime, be sure to monitor Brian and Michelle. They are both on top of this.

Al Qaeda public relations

Hat tip to Huckleberries Online for this Monte Wolverton "toon." More editorial "toons" here.

How Big Unions spend Union Dues

Great column in The Washington Times by Linda Chavez about the shrinking unions and how they spend your money (if you happen to be one of the 8% in the private sector belonging to a union):

So how did unions spend their members' money last year? The 1.8 million-member Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the largest union in the AFL-CIO and the spearhead for withdrawing, spent $65 million not organizing new members but trying to defeat President Bush and Republicans in Congress. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees spent $48 million in the same, failing effort. The AFL-CIO spent $44 million trying to defeat Mr. Bush, and the Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA) spent another $8 million in like manner.

But this is only the tip of the iceberg. These unions also gave millions to so-called 527 organizations, which can collect and spend unlimited amounts trying to elect or defeat candidates. According to its press releases, the SEIU alone gave $26 million to America Coming Together, an anti-Bush 527, while the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) gave $1 million to the Media Fund to run ads against the president and Republicans.

All this money came from union dues, not from the voluntary contributions unions collect through their Political Action Committees, which spent an additional $52 million in the 2004 election cycle, 86 percent of it going to Democrats.

"Profiling" is key to successful security screening

Yishai Ha'etzni, executive director of the Shalem Center, a Jerusalem research institute that publishes the journal Azure, has an instructive piece in the New York Post Online Edition, which compares Israel's security screening process with ours here in the U.S. We need to learn from Israel.

Profiling is an essential part of successful screening, but it doesn't mean middle eastern males are the sole targets. Israel uses a more sophisticated method which utilizes sociological profiling as well a mechanical screening devices:

...in the late 1960s and '70s, Israel developed a security system that utilized sociological profiles of those seeking to harm Israelis, among other factors.

The American system developed at the same time relied primarily on technology like scanning devices, which checked people and baggage uniformly.

Facing a less benign threat, Israelis found this system insufficient: Explosives and other weapons could slip through too easily. Since it wasn't feasible to perform extensive security searches on every passenger, Israel used sociological profiles in addition to screening devices: Each passenger is questioned briefly and then airport security personnel use their judgment to identify suspect would-be passengers, who are then questioned at greater length and their bags searched more thoroughly. It is targeted and far more effective than random searches, which end up being nearly cosmetic. (emphasis mine)

Screening and random searches would not have averted the tragedy that profiling stopped on April 17, 1986. Anne-Marie Murphy, a pregnant Irish woman, was traveling alone to Israel to meet her fiance's parents. Her bags went through an X-ray machine without problems, and she and her passport appeared otherwise unremarkable.

But in a perfect example of the complexity of profiling, a pregnant woman traveling alone roused the suspicions of security officials. They inspected her bags more closely and discovered a sheet of Semtex explosives under a false bottom. Unbeknownst to Murphy, her fiance, Nizar Hindawi, had intended to kill her and their unborn child along with the other passengers on the plane.

Unfortunately, the rise in terrorist assaults on Israeli public transportation, entertainment venues and public spaces necessitated that the airport security model be implemented in those areas as well-- for one simple reason: it works better than anything else.

In May 2002, a would-be suicide bomber ran away from the entrance to a mall in Netanya after guards at the entrance grew suspicious. Though he killed three people when he blew himself up on a nearby street, he would have murdered far many more people had he been able to enter the mall.

His ethnicity -- along with his demeanor, dress, even his hair -- was merely one of many factors security personnel use in profiles. But it was a factor.

The American system's "blindness" cuts off the most important weapon in the war against terrorism: Human capability, judgment and perception. Now that the United States faces a higher threat, it cannot afford to neglect those tools.

Using sociological data as well as constantly updated intelligence information, trained security personnel know who is most likely to be perpetuating an attack, as well as how to identify suspicious individuals through behavior. (Again, it is important to note that ethnicity is only one factor among many used to identify potential terrorists.) Removing intelligence and statistical probability as tools would render this model far less effective.

Israelis understand -- and other Westerners need to accept -- that no system can ever be 100 percent effective. But this is a system that has stood up remarkably well under a vicious and unrelenting assault of terror.

Is profiling worth the resulting infringement on the democratic values of equality? Yes. After all, protecting human life is also a democratic value, perhaps the supreme one.

Random searches of grandmothers and congressmen may make Americans feel virtuous, but they don't keep Americans safe. The attacks of 9/11 and the attacks on public transport in Madrid and London sadly demonstrate that Americans cannot afford feeling virtuous at the cost of human life.

Today's terror threatens not only individuals' security and lives, but is an assault on open, democratic societies as a whole. Terrorists use our society's openness against us. Free, democratic societies must carefully balance our rights and responsibilities, lest we saw off the branch upon which democratic freedom sits.

Israel's method involves making intelligent judgements and sometimes quick decisions. Political correctness in the U.S. is paralyzing our security screening and "making judgements" is virtually forbidden for our screeners. Hence, our policy of "random searches" has become the status quo. What is it going to take before we get rid of failed politically correct inspired policies and employ common sense for a change?

NASA link for Discovery launch

Shuttle Discovery

If you're going to watch the Discovery launch Tuesday morning at 10:39 EDT (barring unforeseen delays), keep one eye on the TV and the other eye on NASA's website for all the latest data.

"The Donald" Trumps the U.N.

On Friday, Hugh Hewitt played the tape of Donald Trump's testimony before the Senate sub-committee reviewing the potential cost of renovating the U.N. Headquarters in New York. It's terrific! It's compelling on so many different levels. Trump's testimony is quintessential Econ 101 told in real world terms by someone at the top of his game. At the same time it exposes the ineptitude and probable corruption of the U.N. and big government and their lack of incentive to get the biggest bang for the buck.

Trump knows the construction and renovation business and he knows what things cost. Bureaucrats seldom even care what things cost because they don't have to pay for them...Taxpayers do!

Be sure to visit Hewitt's site and download the MP3. It's a hoot and it's the perfect illustration of how capitalism always "trumps" socialism and bureaucracies.

See a short video clip of a portion of the above hearing here.

Welcome, Radio Equalizer readers!

A Brutal War

Ron Dart

Radio personality, friend and teacher extraordinaire, Ron Dart has an excellent piece on the War on terrorism and whether or not we can or will win it. This was written several months ago, but is not dated in any way. It's an excellent essay and here's a bit of it:

The insurrectionists, (William F) Buckley concludes, "can’t be defeated by any means we would consent to use." In other words, we are not brutal enough to pacify Iraq. And that is true.

So far.

It is clear as crystal that most Americans simply do not have the stomach to do what may have to be done to end this. So far. And that is the fearsome thing about all of this. In 1940, if the United States had already developed the atomic Bomb, there was no way we would have consented to its use. But after Pearl Harbor, After the bloody war in Europe and the bloodier war in the Pacific, after Japanese war crimes, which seemed rational to the Japanese and monstrous to the United States, Harry Truman was able to make the decision to use the atomic Bomb without a moment’s hesitation.

And the Chilling thought that came to me as I read Buckley’s words was that our enemies do not have rational thought available to them. They may fully expect the United States to respond massively, and they just don’t care. And so, if they are able to pull it off, we will have massive, brutal loss of life in this country to such a degree, that for us to use a nuclear weapon would, not only be a just act of war, but a blessed relief.

And I am greatly afraid that it will come to that before we are finished. No, it will not be because we invaded Iraq. Remember that we had not invaded Iraq before 9/11 and we got it anyhow. No, it will be because we are who we are and we will refuse to be anything else. It will be because Jihad has been declared against us and we have no choice but to fight. It will be fight, or become slaves to Islam.

Now you may reasonably ask me what the Bible has to do with any of this. How can this shed light on the Bible, or the Bible shed light on this war? The answer is not going to please anyone, but we might as well face up to it. The answer is that you fight a war with whatever brute force is necessary to ensure that you don’t have to do worse later. You brutally pacify a city like Fallujah in Iraq, and you do it the first time you threaten it. You don’t back down or negotiate with criminals and terrorists. You kill them.

It doesn’t sound very Christian does it? Well, so what? Isn’t the United States supposed to be a secular nation? Why should our military be guided by Christian principles? Our foes are fighting a religious war based on perceived Islamic principles? Shouldn’t we be allowed to fight the war by their rules if that is the way they want it? [And don’t tell me these fellows don’t represent true Islam. If that is true, why don’t the billion or so good Moslems rise up against them?]

I will not apologize for sounding harsh. These are harsh times, and these are harsh truths.They should not be sugar coated.

Now by coincidence, the same day I read Bill Buckley’s editorial, I got a letter from a fellow genuinely puzzled by what he perceived as a difference between the God of the Old Testament and the Jesus Christ of the New. It is one of the oldest arguments against Bible, but this fellow came to it on his own.

I replied to the gentleman that the difference was not a difference in the character of God. It was a difference in the role of God in time.

When we encounter the God of the Old Testament, we run into him at a very bad time. For the most part, God had been content to let man alone. He only intervened when things got so bad that he could no longer remain silent and be true to himself. Evil men had perverted justice, carried out violence to such and extent that the blood from one crime ran into the blood from another. God decided it was time to bring their own works back on their own heads.

God never sent a prophet to Israel to tell them what good boys they all were. He sent the prophets to tell them how rotten they were and that they had better repent before it was forever too late.

The prophets, however were salted with references to God at a very different time, far into the future, who would relent, who would forgive and restore them.

We will talk further about this God of the Old Testament, but before I do, I want to introduce you to the Gentle Jesus, meek and mild, the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. But I want to introduce him at a very different time.

Be sure to read the entire piece. It's good!

"Reality and Islam"

Columnist Diana West

Diana West, after receiving criticism for an earlier column, Facing hard facts, defends her comments about the fallacies of multiculturalism in her most recent column, Reality and Islam:

As conservatives, JWR columnist Charles Krauthammer and blogger-cum-radio host Hugh Hewitt still fight the good fight, but, in these multicultural days, that means sorting through "extremism" and finding nothing too terribly Islamic about it. Mr. Hewitt writes that my arguments of last week were wrong, citing "functioning democracies in Turkey and other predominantly Islamic countries" as evidence of Islamo-Western compatibility. He throws in the loyal host ("millions of loyal British and American citizens") for good measure. Problem is, the extent to which Turkey — where, just incidentally, "Mein Kampf" was a top 10 bestseller this spring — has ever functioned as a democracy is directly related to the efforts of a strong man, Ataturk, to constrain Islam's grip on the country's institutions, replacing religion with a doctrine of Turkish racial and civilizational supremacy. And while it tugs on the heartstrings, the loyalty of individual Muslims fails to neutralize or reform the institutions of jihad and dhimmitude that rise from Islamic teachings. That I even raised the issue, Mr. Hewitt writes, "underscores the almost desperate need for Muslim leaders in the West again and again, to denounce, without argument or sidebar mentions of Israel, etc., the use of terrorism as a weapon." Almost desperate is right.

Having determined that "99 percent" of European Muslims are "peace-loving and not engaged in terror," Charles Krauthammer sounds a similar alarm. "They must actively denounce not just ... the terrorist attacks, but their source: the Islamist ideology and its practitioners. Where are the fatwas against Osama bin Laden? Where are the denunciations of the very idea of suicide bombing? Europeans must demand this of all their Muslim leaders."

Why Europeans? Why not the Krauthammer 99 percent, or the Hewitt millions? This is where it gets tricky, where those cultural ties to terrorism's tactics and/or goals seem to be all too binding. It is true that in March, something called the Spanish Muslim Council issued a fatwa against Osama bin Laden, calling him an apostate for his atrocities. Judea Pearl, father of slain journalist Daniel Pearl, mentions this in his Boston Globe piece about a clerically star-studded conference on Islam in Jordan this month. Mr. Pearl notes that the fatwa led many to believe it would be followed by others, "and," he writes, "that using the Islamic instruments of fatwa, apostasy and fasad (corruption), Muslims would be able to disassociate themselves from those who hijacked their religion."

He continues: "Unfortunately, the realization of these expectations will need to wait for a brave new leadership to emerge. The final communique of the Amman conference, issued July 6, states explicitly: 'It is not possible to declare as apostates any group of Muslims who believes in Allah the Mighty and Sublime and His Messenger (may Peace and Blessings be upon him) and the pillars of faith, and respects the pillars of Islam and does not deny any necessary article of religion.'"

Mr. Pearl spells out the chilling ramifications: "In other words, belief in basic tenets of faith provides an immutable protection from charges of apostasy." Even what Mr. Pearl calls "anti-Islamic behavior," including "the advocacy of mass murder in the name of religion, cannot remove that protection," he writes. "Bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the murderers of Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg will remain bona fide members of the Muslim faith, as long as they do not explicitly renounce it."

Which leaves conservative Muslims, liberal Muslims and everybody else between a rock and hard place. Isn't it time to crack things open?

Outrageous Behavior in Sudan

Secretary Rice

They may have apologized, but they should have to pay big time for this:

“It makes me very angry to be sitting there with their president and have this happen,” she said. “They have no right to push and shove.”

“Diplomacy 101 says you don’t rough your guests up,” Rice senior adviser Jim Wilkinson had said earlier as he and reporters traveling with Rice faced off with guards at the ultra-high-security residence of Sudanese President Omar el-Bashir.

El-Bashir’s guards elbowed Americans and tried to rip a tape away from a U.S. reporter. At another point, Rice’s interpreter and some other aides accompanying her were blocked at a gate.

Ambassador Khidir Haroun Ahmed, head of the Sudanese mission in Washington, attempted to smooth over the situation. “Please accept our apologies,” he told reporters and Rice aides. “This is not our policy.”

NBC's Andrea Mitchell Angry After Sudan Incident. And rightly so!

Time to stop making excuses

It's not about Iraq! Victor Davis Hanson rationally points out that the Islamofascist (my word, not his) terror attacks in London, or wherever they may occur, have nothing to do with the fact we are in Iraq. Suggestions that we and the coalition forces should retreat are flawed:

After the July 7 London bombings, some in the United Kingdom wondered whether the bombing was in retaliation for the British having troops in Iraq. Perhaps, they suggested, a withdrawal, emulating the Spanish appeasement after the March 2004 Madrid bombings, would prevent further attacks.

There are two flaws in such thinking.

First, after the Spanish ordered their soldiers home, the emboldened jihadists still plotted further murders — most notably the foiled plot to assassinate members of the Spanish High Court in Madrid.

Second, after the London bombings, the al-Qaida-linked group that took credit for the carnage threatened, "We continue to warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all crusader governments that they will receive the same punishment if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan."

Note the reference to both theaters.

In the West, the new orthodoxy is that the removal of the theocratic Taliban in Afghanistan was the "correct" war that enjoyed widespread European and American support. In contrast, George W. Bush, in a "unilateral" and "preemptive" fashion, unnecessarily attacked the "secular" Saddam Hussein.

The terrorists, unlike us, make no such distinctions. Both actions, they insist, were equal affronts to radical Islam.

A must see companion piece to this is at The Anchoress. Don't miss it!

John Fund: "To Roberts' Opponents, the Constitution Is About Abortion and Only Abortion"

John Fund has a short piece at OpinionJournal about the singlemindedness of John Roberts' opponents:

When President Bush interviewed John Roberts last Friday, he told him that any Supreme Court nominee he named would undergo an examination akin to that of a proctologist. That is certainly proving to be the case.

Yesterday, David Leitch and Shannen Coffen, two former colleagues of Judge Roberts, appeared on a conference call with reporters to discuss their friend's background and character. Most of the questions were civil, but the two were also pelted with inquiries about what church Judge Roberts, a Roman Catholic, had attended and who else was in the congregation.

We can safely guess that abortion will be one area of inquiry reporters will spare no effort in examining Judge Roberts on. Within hours of his being named to the high court, the Boston Globe reported that his wife, lawyer Jane Sullivan Roberts, had been involved in a group called Feminists for Life that had filed legal briefs challenging the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade. This morning, the Los Angeles Times weighed in with a front-page story on Ms. Roberts' involvement with the pro-life organization. Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman with the liberal Center for American Progress, explained to the Times why Judge Roberts' wife will inevitably be a subject of interest to administration opponents: "In the absence of information about this guy, people are looking at her and trying to read the tea leaves."

Serrin Foster, the president of Feminists for Life, noted that Judge Roberts had never been involved with her organization and that his wife last held a position in the group in 1999. Since then she has written an article for its newsletter on adoption, a subject of interest since she and her husband have adopted two young children. Don't be surprised, though, if some enterprising reporter tries to unearth the "story behind" their adoption before this confirmation battle is over.

The Real Suicide Bomb

Cox & Forkum 7-20-05

This political "toon" is based on Mark Steyn's column on multiculturalism :

It has been sobering this past week watching some of my "woollier" colleagues (in Vicki Woods's self-designation) gradually awake to the realisation that the real suicide bomb is "multiculturalism". Its remorseless tick-tock, suddenly louder than the ethnic drumming at an anti-globalisation demo, drove poor old Boris Johnson into rampaging around this page last Thursday like some demented late-night karaoke one-man Fiddler on the Roof, stamping his feet and bellowing, "Tradition! Tradition!" Boris's plea for more Britishness was heartfelt and valiant, but I'm not sure I'd bet on it. The London bombers were, to the naked eye, assimilated - they ate fish 'n' chips, played cricket, sported appalling leisurewear. They'd adopted so many trees we couldn't see they lacked the big overarching forest - the essence of identity, of allegiance. As I've said before, you can't assimilate with a nullity - which is what multiculturalism is.

Be sure to read the entire piece and next time you're at the airport, when you see the old lady in the wheelchair being patted down, or the blond bombshell singled out for closer scrutiny, or the former vice president randomly picked for inspection, just remember it's the fallacious philosophy of multiculturalism and its heinous twin brother, political correctness, that promotes this egalitarian falderal. It's bogus feelgoodism at its worst that only serves to weaken our resolve.

Earlier this week, I posted Diana West's piece, Facing hard facts, which relates to the multicultural misinformation brouhaha. If you missed it, don't miss it again!

The Fun Begins!

Bush nominates Roberts

What a bad night to be away from the internet, but at least I had access to a radio. What would we do without talk radio? Tonite the place to be was with Hugh Hewitt, who did a 6 hour marathon to stay on the cutting edge of this momentous event. Be sure to go there tonite and often; he's got a lot of info and input on everything having to do with the nomination of John G. Roberts. Hewitt's blog will be the "go to" blog over the next few months due to his legal background and familiarity with the Supreme Court.

The text of Judge Roberts' gracious acceptance of his nomination is here.

Senators Leahy and Schumer's post nomination remarks about Judge Roberts' rang extremely hollow, and they came off looking almost desperate. It appears that President Bush has chosen the almost perfect nominee for the Supreme Court; one which will be difficult for the left to defeat. In fact, many are saying this nomination will serve to further split the dems.

Roberts' experience and background seem to be flawless. That the President picked a white male showed some of his Texan hubris in that it was a politically incorrect slap to those who thought a woman and/or minority should have been chosen. What the President did was pick the best, not the best woman or the best minority member, just the best. Way to go Mr. President!

David Limbaugh posts a number of reasons why he's gratified over the John Roberts nomination:

1) He is an originalist;
2) He is a legal scholar;
3) He is extremely well respected by the bar;
4) He is a gifted legal thinker and writer;
5) He is considered to be among the very best appellate court advocates, well liked and respected by current members of the Court;
6) He is reportedly against Roe v. Wade, believing there is no constitutional right to an abortion and has been bold enough to have stated this opinion in writing;
7) With this nomination President Bush has fulfilled his promise (in spades) to appoint judges in the Scalia-Thomas mold;
8) With this nomination President Bush has again shown a commitment to principle and substance over political correctness and politics. He has appointed a white male obviously because he thinks he is most suited for the job. He apparently did not feel compelled to replace O'Connor with a female, which would have been perfectly fine, of course, but should take a back seat to naming the best possible candidate for the position. He also obviously ignored demands that he appoint someone whose judicial philosophy resembles O'Connors, realizing he is under no requirement to do so and that it would be wrong, given his view of the role of the judiciary, for him to have done so.
9) He has recently been confirmed as a federal district judge and the obstructionist party will have difficulty explaining their opposition now, given their relative lack of it a few years ago – though you can be sure they'll come up with the lame excuse that "a Supreme Court appointment is an entirely different animal."
10) He clerked for Justice Scalia and worked in the Reagan White House;
11) He was a partner in a major law firm and has a wealth of experience as a practicing attorney.
12) Democratic Underground is already going bonkers.

Number 12 is my favorite! Heh heh.

John G. Roberts' biography, resume, profile and background (thanks to RealClearPolitics).

Welcome, readers of BBC NEWS.

Quote of the Day

Sen. McCain

Sen. John McCain will undoubtedly win the support of millions today for this insightful quote:

'I work with boobs every day'

Which was his short version response for criticism he's gotten for playing a cameo role in Wedding Crashers.

This Day in History

It's difficult to find a U.S. source on the 36th anniversary of Mary Jo Kopechne's needless drowning in Senator Kennedy's Oldsmobile at Chappaquiddick near Martha's Vineyard. But the Hindustan Times ran a ditty about it:

1968(sic): US Senator Edward Kennedy's car drove off a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island, Massachusetts killing his 28-year-old companion Mary Jo Kopechne. Kennedy fled the scene of the accident and received a suspended sentence of two months and one year's probation. Chappaquiddick now stands for political nemesis-- a shady part of ones past that won't go away.

Kudos to This Day in History for also covering the incident: 1969: Mark this on your calendar and continue asking why Sen. Kennedy has any credibility whatsoever with anybody. We can only be thankful that his shameful behavior that night, kept him out of the White House. If Mary Jo's ignominious death was responsible for this, she may not have died completely in vain.

UPDATE: 3-05-08 The above links are no longer accessible...links are like that! Still, that doesn't take away from the fact that this is the day Mary Jo Kopechne died ignominiously because a very powerful senator from a very powerful family, (not sure why they've remained so powerful for so many years...) Sen. Ted Kennedy, did not seek help to try to save her.

Just remember this date: July 18, 1969, and Google it each year and do what you will with the data that comes up. If nothing else, say a prayer for the Kopechne family.

Fumento Blasts Schwarzenegger

Michael Fumento terminates the Governator's aspirations of being a fiscal conservative in his current piece found at Tech Central Station. Conan's Jolly Green Giant is a warning to Californians that "you ain't seen nothin' yet" when it comes to paying for the war against global warming.

Quote of the Day

From Vox Day:

What are the chances God's will for you is to sit numbly in your cubicle and mindlessly pay your taxes and your mortgage while you wait for the sweet release of death?

If you're an easy going, passive Christian, this piece may be disturbing. If you're an intolerant secularist, it may be very disturbing! Either way, don't just sit there; read his column!

Happy Golden Anniversary, Disneyland!

Walt and Mickey Immortalized in Bronze

Fifty years ago, when I was just three years old, my family got on a Great Northern Train in Spokane, Washington and headed to Detroit to pick up a brand new 1955 Chrysler New Yorker. It marked the first leg of a glorious six week long road trip on which my parents, brother, sister and I toured the USA. The highlight of the trip, for me and my siblings was Disneyland, which had just opened.

I vividly remember the Jungle Boat ride, the Cup and Saucer ride, Sleeping Beauty's Castle and the Dumbo ride. Over the years I've been back many times and we were able to take our own two kids when they were small.

What incredible memories Walt Disney created for so many kids of all ages. Happiest of birthdays, Disneyland!

Good Dog!

You can't keep a Golden out of the water and it must be the fear of every retriever owner living in gator country that something like this is going to happen. But on this occasion the Golden Retriever Takes on 700-Pound Alligator and Lives. Wish there was a photo of this spirited pooch.

Doug Giles: "Dear Moderate Muslims"

AnnCoulter's male counterpart, Doug Giles, in his latest Townhall column, writes what almost everyone in the free world wonders daily; are the "moderate" Muslims friends or foes? Are they quietly with the Islamofascists or quietly against them? Their silence around the world has been deafening. Check out his piece. He's never dull.

Mt. Rushmore gets a scrub

Mount Rushmore

This story is a couple of weeks old, but it's always good to get a glimpse of this great monument which is undergoing a massive cleaning.

The other side of Mt. Rushmore

Backside of Mt. Rushmore

Unless you've proceeded around the mountain on which Rushmore presides, you've probably not seen this. This is an artist rendition of the rarely seen side of Mt. Rushmore.

Weekend Reads

Here are a few pieces worthy of your attention over the weekend. Have a great one...weekend, that is!

Victor Davis Hanson is always a worthy read and this piece titled, Our Wars Over the War, won't disappoint.

I posted this piece earlier today but will list it again here because of its import. Facing hard facts by Diana West is a must read!

This piece didn't get as much play as I'd hoped in the New Media. It's an important interview from Der Spiegel: "For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!"

The always thoughtful Ben Stein has an excellent piece on the pain of loneliness.

Tony Blankley's excellent piece, titled Short memories, politically correct lies speaks of the idiocy of politically correct speak.

Europe's Native-Born Enemy, by Charles Krauthammer, makes the point that Europe born terrorists were in place before we were in Iraq. We may have the same problem over here.

Thomas Friedman's piece, A Poverty of Dignity and a Wealth of Rage, raises the point that "not all Muslims are suicide bombers, but all suicide bombers (of late) are Muslims." Hmm...imagine that.

In Human Events, Robert B. Bluey writes about the Left Planning an All-Out War Over Court. Not that it will come as any big surprise, but it's a good primer of what's to come.

Karl Rove Greets White House Press Corps

Hat tip to Lucianne.com for this pic of the 2nd most hated man in America. heh heh!

Why Blog?

JackLewis.net is doing the "Why Blog" survey. The more participants the better. Check it out!

Multiculturalism Fuels Islamofascism

Diana West's editorial in the The Washington Times rightly exposes the cult of multiculturalism; that feelgood egalitarian philosophy that says every culture is just as good as the next one (Christianity being the only exception). You know we are in trouble when profiling is strictly forbidden when searching out Islamofascists. West, in her editorial piece, believes even that word is misused and says we should just admit that Islam is the problem, but of course, that would be insensitive and unacceptably politically incorrect. Be sure to read her editorial.

"The Democrat Death-Spiral"

There's an outstanding piece in The American Thinker by Thomas Lifson, which explains the modus operandi of the left. The crescendo of their caterwauling says much more about them than it does about the objects of their scorn:

Dems are very, very sensitive, quite understandably, to the notion that they are not pro-American. In fact, they constantly deny a lack of patriotism, even when nobody is questioning them on it. Psychology teaches us that when people fear their own imperfections, they project them upon others, attributing their own dark impulses to those who alarm them most.

To many, in their eagerness to reassure us (and them) that they are indeed patriots, they raise the same sort of question that occurs to the mind of an observer of someone always proclaiming that he is “not a racist.” Why the need to constantly deny it, when nobody else is raising the issue?

The American public may be inattentive from time-to-time, but they are not stupid. Everyone has the experience of people who project their weaknesses on others.

Most rank-and-file Democrats, like most Americans, are indeed patriotic folks. But there is a group among them which would rather see America face reversals, military, diplomatic, and economic, than see George W. Bush and the GOP get credit for successes. When they eagerly predict disaster, desperately search for and loudly proclaim the slightest evidence of failure, and then deny the existence of success when it stares the public straight in the face, one naturally wonders about what they are rooting for.

When they tells us the whole world is against us, despite the evidence of a genuine coaltion working together, and urge us to follow the likes of Jacques Chirac, who self-evidently wish us ill, then they raise uncomfortable questions about themselves.

The Democrat death-spiral continues. The FundieDem cult has taken the initiative, and become the public face of the party, and Party officials, anxious to keep the donations from them rolling in, dares not confront them. By their failure to upbraid their supporters' excesses, they condemn themselves to minority status.

Toyota listed as Farrakhan sponsor

Peter Flaherty, President of the National Legal and Policy Center has written a letter to Toyota formally requesting the Japanese carmaker to "repudiate Farrakhan and end support for Jesse Jackson."

According to the NLPC:

The official convention program lists Toyota as a sponsor of an “Education Luncheon” titled “Incarceration or Education: The Choice is Yours,” at which Farrakhan spoke. A senior member of our staff attended the event and was present during Farrakhan’s speech.

In addition, Toyota is listed as a “Platinum” sponsor of the conference, a designation reportedly costing $100,000.

Farrakhan is a proponent of ethnic hatred and anti-Semitism. It is more than objectionable that Toyota, a foreign company, would subsidize racial animosity in this country.

This is, of course, not the first time Toyota’s participation in Jesse Jackson’s conferences has created controversy.

In 2002, NLPC asked that Toyota end its support of Jesse Jackson’s groups and preclude its executives from speaking at Jesse Jackson’s conferences, a request that received significant media coverage. Until 2005, it appeared Toyota had met those demands, with no detectable support for Jackson, or presence at his events.

In a February 4, 2002 letter to me, Toyota Vice President Irving Miller wrote, “Reverend Jackson is a controversial figure. Toyota does not endorse him or his actions.” Yet Toyota has either renewed support for Jackson, or the company simply continued to bankroll Jackson’s groups under the table. Either way, Toyota has exercised bad faith.

What's the lesson here?

Stupid Sheep

Turkish shepherds look at dead sheep in the town of Gevas, near the city of Van, eastern Turkey, Thursday, July 7, 2005. First one sheep jumped to its death. Then stunned Turkish shepherds, who had left the herd to graze while they had breakfast, watched as nearly 1,500 others followed, each leaping off the same cliff.

Legacy Building and Campaigning

Bill Clinton

In what amounts to a massive legacy remake and (in my opinion) his global campaign to be the next Sec-Gen of the U.N.,Bill Clinton has concocted the Clinton Global Initiative:

Former President Bill Clinton is gearing up to host a private summit in New York aimed at solving what he believes are the top challenges in the world.

The Clinton Global Initiative slated for Sept. 15-17 is attracting some of the biggest names in politics and the private sector, including News Corporation CEO Rupert Murdoch, Time Warner chairman Richard Parsons, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, French President Jacques Chirac, and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"I am thrilled that world leaders from both the public and private sectors have agreed to support me and come together to make a difference," said Clinton. "And what we begin during three days in September will not end with the closing session of our event. My foundation will take the ideas we develop and keep working with our Global Initiative participants and others to achieve tangible results."

The goal is to identify immediate and pragmatic solutions to some of the world's most pressing problems, which Clinton has divided into four themes: how to reduce poverty, using religion as a force for reconciliation and conflict resolution, implementing new business strategies and technologies to combat climate change, and strengthening governance.

Clinton is on the rebound from two heart surgeries and plans to travel to six African nations next week. He served two terms as commander in chief from 1993-2001, but his time in office was plagued by numerous scandals leading to his impeachment by the House of Representatives, though he was not convicted by the Senate.

During an interview with Reuters, Clinton claimed ignorance when asked if his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, would be seeking the White House in 2008.

"The honest answer, which no one believes, is I don't know, and I don't want to know because I want her to focus only on getting re-elected," he said. "I want her service to be ratified by the people of New York and, until that happens, I don't think she can afford to think about anything else."

He said certain rules apply in the Clinton household, noting, "One of them is you never look past the next election because if you do you might not get past the next election."

Ahem!

Tancredo to request Al-Qaida nuke briefing

Rep.Tom Tancredo

WorldNetDaily is reporting that Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo will request a briefing from the Justice Department regarding information it may have on potential nuclear attacks in the U.S. by Al-Qaida, which is rumored to have in its possession portable suitcase nukes, which may already be in the U.S.

Tancredo has been on the forefront of the illegal immigration issue and a thorn in the flesh of the Bush administration because of his activism. If there is such a report on Al-Qaida nukes and they are known to already be here, maybe we should know about it:

Al-Qaida's plans, known as "America's Hiroshima" according to captured terrorists and terrorist documents, calls for the multiple detonation of nuclear weapons, already in the possession of Osama bin Laden's operatives currently inside the U.S. The agents and arms having been smuggled across the U.S.-Mexico border with the help of the MS-13 street gang and other organized crime groups, according to the report originating in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, a premium, online intelligence newsletter published by the founder of WND.

The attack is designed to kill at least 4 million Americans.

Al-Qaida has obtained at least 40 nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union--including suitcase nukes, nuclear mines, artillery shells and even some missile warheads, according to the report. In addition, documents captured in Afghanistan show al-Qaida had plans to assemble its own nuclear weapons with fissile material it purchased on the black market.

In addition to detonating its own nuclear weapons already planted in the U.S., military sources also say there is evidence to suggest al-Qaida is paying former Russian Spetznaz, or special forces operatives, to assist the terrorist group in locating nuclear weapons formerly concealed inside the U.S. by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Bin Laden's group is also paying nuclear scientists from Russia and Pakistan to maintain its existing nuclear arsenal and assemble additional weapons with the materials it has invested hundreds of millions in procuring over a period of 10 years.

The plans for the devastating nuclear attack on the U.S. have been under development for more than a decade. It is designed as a final deadly blow of defeat to the U.S., which is seen by al-Qaida and its allies as "the Great Satan."

Be sure to read the article and keep you eyes and ears open to what Rep. Tancredo has to say. He's cutting edge on issues many politicians are ignoring.

What goes around, comes around.

Hat tip to Huckleberries Online for the IHillary Strikes Back post. Sen. Clinton should be able to take it if she's going to dish it out. Heh heh!

How to Silence Talk Radio

The New York Post Online has an article on the two Washington state talk show hosts who were harassed by a judge claiming a violation in the campaign finance laws:

The campaign-finance-reform lobby has always claimed that it wants to regulate money, not speech.

So why are two talk-radio hosts being harassed by Washington state officials under local campaign-finance laws for their on-air support of an anti-tax ballot initiative?

And why did a judge back the government attack, ruling that on-air speech can be considered a campaign contribution — which leaves it subject to myriad rules and regulations?

Because, contrary to the reformers' claims, money is speech, and speech is money. If you set out to regulate one, you will inevitably regulate the other.

Here's the situation: In April, the state Legislature passed a 9.5-cent-a-gallon gas-tax hike — which would give Washington the nation's highest gasoline tax.

That provoked deep public anger. A grass-roots group, No New Gas Tax, quickly formed to overturn that new tax via an initiative — Initiative 912.

Two talk-radio hosts, Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson of Seattle's KVI-AM (a Fox News affiliate), embraced the signature-gathering drive to put I-912 on the ballot.

And that's where the trouble started.

Wilbur and Carlson's radio rhetoric against the gas tax and in favor of the initiative started to drive fundraising and signature gathering. So gas-tax supporters started looking for a way to kneecap the opposition.

They found a handy crowbar in the state's campaign-finance laws.

An attorney for a law firm affiliated with the chief pro-gas tax group, Keep Washington Rolling, convinced the prosecutor for San Juan County (a small archipelago in the state's Northwest corner, which depends on state transit money to run its ferries) to file suit against No New Gas Tax. The charge was that it had failed to disclose the on-air comments of Wilbur and Carlson as "in-kind" contributions to the anti-tax campaign.

The suit was filed in late June, just days before the July 8 deadline for signatures to be turned in to the Secretary of State.

"All they cared about was shutting those guys up," the head of No New Gas Tax, Brett Bader, told me. "They thought those guys would have to spend the last week silent."

Wilbur and Carlson didn't shut up. But a ruling by Thurston County Superior Court Judge Chris Wickham could silence a lot of people in the future.

Accepting the plaintiffs' arguments at face value, the judge ordered No New Gas Tax to place a dollar amount on the value of the radio station's "contribution."

Bader chose $20,000. ("I basically made it up," he said.)

Judge Wickham squared his ruling with the First Amendment by saying that forcing the disclosure of radio time spent "campaigning" wouldn't restrict such activity, but merely "require it to be disclosed to the general public."

Bob Bauer, a Democratic campaign-finance attorney, says it's not that simple: "The requirement to disclose is still a legal requirement," he told me. "It is typically the first step toward more expansive regulation. It's the Trojan Horse."

In fact, while Washington state law sets no contribution limits on initiative campaigns, it does limit donations to state candidates at $1,350 per contributor.

So, what happens when a talk-radio jock is seen as "campaigning" for a candidate for governor? Or a state legislator? He could quickly find himself making an illegal contribution, far in excess of the limits.

Brian Maloney, over at The Radio Equalizer, has been all over this story, as has Michelle Malkin, here and here. Lovers of free speech need to keep a close watch on this story. Politicos on both sides of the isle would love to bridle talk radio. One can only imagine the rage self important, bloviating politicians must feel when they happen to hear some of the parities Rush plays almost daily on his show.

Take Sen. John McCain, for example, co-author of the McCain-Feingold bill; do you think he has much love for Rush Limbaugh who almost daily lampooned the "straight talk express" when McCain was running for president. To this day, Rush is right on top of every errant move Sen. McCain makes when he sides with the dems, which is often. In fact, Rush routinely calls McCain-Feingold the "incumbent protection act."

It's not just Rush and it's not just Sen. McCain. The airwaves are loaded with conservative talk shows, both national and local, and politicians just don't have a free pass like they did 15 to 20 years ago. It's far tougher for them to fool the masses. Which is why they have their sights set on talk radio and the internet.

Stay alert, boys and girls!

More Iraq-Al Qaeda connections

Today's essential reading begins at Boortz's Today's Nuze. He provides the link to The Weekly Standard which is running a lengthy piece exposing the connections. You need to go there and read it because this is something that won't get much play in the MSM.

Supporting the troops and hoping they lose

Dennis Prager has an excellent piece today which exposes the dishonesty of the left when they claim to support the troops. Which begs the question: How can they support our troops when they want them to lose? If that question sounds vindictive, mean spirited and unfair, all you have to do is listen to them day in and day out as they attempt to undermine President Bush and insist that we either pull out of Iraq or send in more troops (ostensibly because they're not doing an adequate job fighting the war):

In order to understand this, we need to first have a working definition of the term "support the troops." Presumably it means that one supports what the troops are doing and rooting for them to succeed. What else could "support the troops" mean? If you say, for example, that you support the Yankees or the Dodgers, we assume it means you want them to win.

But most of the Left does not want the troops to win in Iraq. The Left's message is this: "You troops may think you are winning; you may think you are doing good and moral things in Iraq; you may believe you are fighting the worst human beings of our age and protecting us against the scourge of Islamic terror. But we on the Left believe none of that. We believe this war is being fought for oil and for Halliburton and other corporations; we believe you are waging a war that is both illegal and immoral; we believe you have invaded a country for no good reason and have killed a hundred thousand Iraqis [the Left's generally mentioned number] for no good reason; but, hey, we sure do support you."

The left has a real problem conveying what they really believe. If and when they honestly state what they really stand for, they rightly fear losing the support of mainstream democrats.

A couple of days ago, Sen. Obama admitted that the dems were trying to determine what their core values were:

"I see a Democratic Party afraid to say they're Democrats, who voted for the war in Iraq and voted for tax cuts for the wealthy," said Glenn Anderson of Orlando. "Why should I remain a Democrat?"

It was a tough question. But Nelson and Obama tried to answer it.

"The Democrats at times have lost their way," conceded Obama. "We are trying to decide what our core values are."

The criterion for judging the party isn't whether it's to the left or right, "but are we true to our core values," he said. Nobody defined core values.

They know what their core values are, but they cannot overtly announce them because it would expose their true socialist beliefs. America isn't altogether ready for socialism so the left has to cloak their agenda ever so deceptively.

Occasionally you'll find a democrat who honestly speaks his or her mind, as USA Today columnist Julianne Malveaux did yesterday on Sean Hannity's radio show. She said that President Bush "is a terrorist" and that America "is a terrorist nation." Check out the story at Newsmax. Middle America doesn't abide that kind of talk but she was only spouting what the left really thinks, which is why the higher profile left is much more subtle.

Things aren't always as they seem

Lenny Cacchio has a good piece featured at Christian Education Ministries which shatters some basic misconceptions:

General Ulysses S Grant owned slaves. Robert E. Lee did not. Republican President Richard Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency and Affirmative Action (as well as OSHA). A larger percentage Republicans than Democrats - in both houses of Congress - voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Even the devil can appear as an angel of light, and it's evident from the Gospels that the disciples failed to see clearly the light of Jesus until some time after his resurrection.

Two of them approached him about sitting on his right hand and his left in the kingdom, showing among other things how little they grasped what the kingdom is all about. To them such a place seemed like a position of power and influence, but Jesus knew otherwise.

'Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?'

'We can,' they answered.

Jesus said to them, 'You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.' (Mark 10:38-40 NIV)

The disciples assumed that the cup of which Jesus spoke was a cup of blessing, one as in the 23rd Psalm that overflows with the good things of life. But Jesus� cup was different indeed, for he asked of his Father that if there were any way that cup could pass from his lips, then so let it be. The cup of which he was to take was his reason for coming to this earth, and he simply had to drink of the vile sins that filled it (Luke 22:42, John 18:11).

To be on his right hand and his left might have been an honor, but at the last there were two men, one on his right hand and his left. Two thieves had that place of honor, and they would have given anything not to have had it. Truly the disciples did not know what they had asked when they requested such a cup.

But, then again, that’s the way life is. Things aren’t always as they seem.

The Noble Lion and lowly rat

Lion and rat

An apt comparison if the once mighty Great Britain continues to stand boldly against the lowlife Islamofacist rats.

Islamofacist rat boys

Islamofacist rat boys

To Appease or Not to Appease...That is the Question

The Brits now have to decide whether or not to appease the Islamofacists by succumbing to their demands. John Derbyshire seems to think they will, indeed, go down the appeasement road, but more subtly than Spain:

And yet, in all probability, Britain will yield to “these people.” This can be said with fair certainty because Britain did yield to the previous concerted series of terrorist attacks on her soil, the one carried out by the so-called Irish Republican Army (not to be confused with the actual army of the actual Irish Republic, which is a quite different thing), from the early 1970s through to the late 1990s. The terrorists who carried out those attacks were in many cases arrested, convicted, and imprisoned; they have now all been released, even those serving life sentences. Those who evaded the police are not now under investigation. The terrorist leaders who organized and directed the attacks have been given well-paid jobs in the British civil service, with secretaries, chauffeur-driven cars, and handsome pensions. The arm of British law enforcement that bore the brunt of the attacks, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, has been disbanded at the terrorists’ request, and its decades of brave and honorable service to the Crown are being flushed down the memory hole as fast as it can be done. Tiocfaidh ár lá, boasted the IRA men — “Our day will come.” It has.**

Yes, Britain will “do a Spain.” I am sure of it. Britain’s Spain will not be as dramatic or obvious as Spain’s Spain, for the reasons I started out by enumerating. The British anyway have far, far more experience of appeasement than the Spaniards. They know how to do it slowly, imperceptibly, so that nobody much notices. You could ask a Turkish Cypriot, or a white Rhodesian, or of course an Ulsterman.

Say it again, Mrs. Thatcher:

I seem to smell the stench of appeasement in the air.
Margaret Thatcher

Prayers go out for our brothers

Our heartfelt thoughts and prayers go out to our friends, brothers and loyal allies during this time of trial for them. The Brits are tough and will get through this ordeal with determined resolve to seek out and bring to justice the cowardly Islamo-facists who claim to have perpetrated these barbarous attacks. And as their brothers we will do whatever we can to help them. They've experienced far more atrocious attacks from better enemies than these and they will fight on with us in the war on terror.

Coverage is everywhere online and on cable, but Sky News has excellent coverage in case you haven't been there.

Free Speech attack on Talk Radio in Seattle

Brian Mahoney over at The Radio Equalizer is staying on top of this. Talk about judicial activism:

Fed up with increasingly disturbing cases of judicial activism?

Get ready for one that will knock your socks off.

Proving that the US Supreme Court's decimation of private property rights in the Kelo v. New London decision could be a mere warm-up act, a Washington state judge has now taken a wrecking ball to the First Amendment.

Talk radio's ability to freely express on-air opinions on the day's top news, especially of a political nature, is now taking it on the chin.

As a result of Thurston County, Washington Judge Christopher Wickham's ruling, two Seattle talk show hosts have been forced to place a monetary value on "campaign contributions" supposedly made, merely by supporting a proposed ballot initiative on the air.

This story deserves close attention. When Judges can effectively shut down talk show hosts because it relates to election issues because of McCain-Feingold, then they can also go after the internet and every other media. What part of Free Speech don't they understand?

Be sure to revisit Brian's site frequently to see what's happening in Seattle's Talk scene.

African Economics Expert: "For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!"

Kenyan economist James Shikwati

Kenyan economist, James Shikwati, in an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE argues that foreign aid to Africa has actually caused great harm to the continent in the last 40 years. Sounding more like Rush Limbaugh, Shikwati said that the countries who have received the most aid are in the worst condition:

SPIEGEL: Mr. Shikwati, the G8 summit at Gleneagles is about to beef up the development aid for Africa...

Shikwati: ... for God's sake, please just stop.

SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty.

Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor.

SPIEGEL: Do you have an explanation for this paradox?

Shikwati: Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa's problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn't even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid.

SPIEGEL: Even in a country like Kenya, people are starving to death each year. Someone has got to help them.

Shikwati: But it has to be the Kenyans themselves who help these people. When there's a drought in a region of Kenya, our corrupt politicians reflexively cry out for more help. This call then reaches the United Nations World Food Program -- which is a massive agency of apparatchiks who are in the absurd situation of, on the one hand, being dedicated to the fight against hunger while, on the other hand, being faced with unemployment were hunger actually eliminated. It's only natural that they willingly accept the plea for more help. And it's not uncommon that they demand a little more money than the respective African government originally requested. They then forward that request to their headquarters, and before long, several thousands tons of corn are shipped to Africa ...

SPIEGEL: ... corn that predominantly comes from highly-subsidized European and American farmers ...

Shikwati: ... and at some point, this corn ends up in the harbor of Mombasa. A portion of the corn often goes directly into the hands of unscrupulous politicians who then pass it on to their own tribe to boost their next election campaign. Another portion of the shipment ends up on the black market where the corn is dumped at extremely low prices. Local farmers may as well put down their hoes right away; no one can compete with the UN's World Food Program. And because the farmers go under in the face of this pressure, Kenya would have no reserves to draw on if there actually were a famine next year. It's a simple but fatal cycle.

SPIEGEL: If the World Food Program didn't do anything, the people would starve.

Shikwati: I don't think so. In such a case, the Kenyans, for a change, would be forced to initiate trade relations with Uganda or Tanzania, and buy their food there. This type of trade is vital for Africa. It would force us to improve our own infrastructure, while making national borders -- drawn by the Europeans by the way -- more permeable. It would also force us to establish laws favoring market economy.

SPIEGEL: Would Africa actually be able to solve these problems on its own?

Shikwati: Of course. Hunger should not be a problem in most of the countries south of the Sahara. In addition, there are vast natural resources: oil, gold, diamonds. Africa is always only portrayed as a continent of suffering, but most figures are vastly exaggerated. In the industrial nations, there's a sense that Africa would go under without development aid. But believe me, Africa existed before you Europeans came along. And we didn't do all that poorly either.

More proof that wealth redistribution policies of the left have failed miserably and have actually done quite the opposite of what they were intended. Do failures cause reevaluations of such programs? Only when intelligent discussion and debate occurs and persuasive leadership prevails. Could organizations such as the UN be persuaded of such a notion? Of course not, because, like the massively corrupt "Oil for Food" program, these massive "aid" giveaways always benefit those in charge of the redistribution. We should just hold on to our wealth and spread the gospel of freedom which, in turn, allows people to produce wealth.

Oversimplification? Maybe, but the principle is right on. Please read the entire interview; it's spot on!

"100 People Who Are Screwing Up America"

Sen. Schumer

Bernard Goldberg was on Hannity's radio show yesterday plugging his new book, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America. Not having heard anything about the book, when I heard the title I seriously thought it was going to be about the Senate. It is an apt title for a book about the country's most elite club.

Which brings me to the point of this post. David Limbaugh rightly describes the zeitgeist of the current senate as narcissistic. You could throw in arrogant as well. The way they are treating the judicial nominations is less about the constitution and more about THEM. Be sure to read Limbaugh's column.

As I blogged here yesterday, we are in a domestic war. Sen. Schumer admits as much today as covered by Drudge.

3 Reasons the Left will smear ANY SCOTUS nominee

Prager nails the dems and explains why they will never be placated by anyone President Bush nominates. Three reasons: (paraphrased)

1. Dems believe conservatives are bad people.

2. They use smear as their weapon of choice to avoid challenging ideas and intellectual argument.

3. The left depends on courts to adopt their policies because they have been largely unsuccessful getting their agenda passed at the polls.

Of course, Prager flawlessly details the 3 points. Be sure to read the entire piece. I would only add this: the left is ruthless in their desire to protect the "right" to abortion. It's their unholy sacrament for which they will do ANYthing to protect. Any means available to them justifies their end and we have not yet seen what all they are capable of.

What we are seeing now is the prelude to a battle; threats, warnings, saber rattling, theorizing, accusations and uneasiness on both sides. It's great theater for news junkies and political observers, but the end result may change the course of our country for good or bad. And each side earnestly believes it stands for good.

We may very well be leading up to one of the titanic domestic battles of all time. It's an ongoing war that won't be over at the end of this battle. The battles will become more intense with each subsequent SCOTUS retirement or death and each battle will supercede the previous one in importance. Americans can't afford to be apathetic in this fight. It's not a time to be weary or weak kneed...There's a war going on and it's domestic.

Steyn: Capitalism Rocks!

Mark Steyn responds to the lalapalooza of feelgoodism that was "Live 8" and unmasks what really should have taken place. Africa is paralyzed with problems and has been aided financially by the U.S. year after year, but has it helped those for whom it was intended. Why don't we send conditional aid...we'll do this, if you do that. How about discouraging Marxist dictators by snubbing them and rewarding the countries who truly wish to help themselves. What would be wrong with that?

Wesley Pruden has an excellent piece in which he offers a possible solution to Africa's hopelessness.

Happy Birthday, America!

229 years ago, our heroic foredads selflessly put everything on the line when they signed the
Declaration of Independence. Remember them today as well as those who made the supreme sacrifice to protect our sovereign freedoms. And to those who offer themselves as living sacrifices in the current fight against international terrorism, we salute you! Our thoughts and prayers go out to our troops and private contractors in harms way and to their families who await their return. God bless and protect you all!

Our freedom and independence is precious and when it is chipped away a bit at a time, it is seldom retrieved. Be vigilant! Be wary! Be on guard against those who wish to destroy the very foundation on which this great country was built !

Happy Independence Day, America!

Vox Day asks, "What independence?"

Vox Day has a poignant view on our indepedence in his piece at WorldNetDaily. It's important that you read the entire piece, but here is his summation:

...this is not a day to celebrate American independence. It is, instead, a day to mourn America's passing and pray for its eventual rebirth.

It's a good piece. Be sure to read it.

Happy "Unilateralist" Day!

Hat tip to quidnunc at Free Republic for posting this prescient, albeit 3 year old piece by Mark Steyn. Other than the Declaration of Independence, this Steyn piece is today's must read, especially in light of the failed Euro Constitution and the ever arrogant Euro elites who depend on us for their defense while they denigrate our "unilateralism" aka, independence. Here are a couple of tidbits from Steyn:

July 4th 2002
To celebrate America’s Independence Day, I celebrated America’s independence – not just from George III but from the rest of what passes for the civilised world. You only have to listen to a couple of minutes of any BBC current affairs show or glance at the front pages of any Continental newspaper (or even, on particularly bad days, read selected Telegraph columnists) to realise that America is the western world’s odd man out, and has been increasingly since September 11th.

Personally, I couldn’t be happier about it. I’m delighted the United States is “out of step” with, say, Belgium. Not because I’m Belgophobic. If the Belgians want to support the International Criminal Court, keep Saddam in office until his nuke arsenal is ready to fly, and continue subsidising Yasser Arafat’s pay-offs to the relicts of suicide bombers, that’s fine, go ahead, you’re an independent nation.

Unfortunately, on the European side, it’s the very concept of independence that’s at issue. The Rest Of The West disputes not America’s positions so much as their right to have positions. To do so is “unilateralist” – which is, when you think about it, just another word for “independent”. When your positions are as independent of the global consensus as those of Mr Bush then you must be – all together now – “arrogant”. Or so we are assured by such famously modest types as John Simpson, the liberator of Kabul, and his anonymous interviewee in these pages last week, the “leading British civil servant” who complained about the President’s “arrogance” while describing him as “a bear of very little brain”.

Be sure to read the entire piece...it's a gem! And thank God if you happen to be an American.

Signing of the Declaration of Independence

Signing of the Declaration of Independence

Hat tip to usconstitution.com for the photo of the famous Trumbull painting and it's history:

The first painting that Trumbull completed for the Rotunda shows the signing of the Declaration of Independence in what is now called Independence Hall, Philadelphia, on July 4, 1776. The painting features the committee that drafted the Declaration of Independence--John Adams, Robert Sherman, Thomas Jefferson (presenting the document), and Benjamin Franklin--standing before John Hancock, the President of the Continental Congress. The painting includes portraits of 42 of the 56 signers and 5 other patriots. The artist sketched the individuals and the room from life.

"The most important of all American documents"

Here's a little background on The Declaration of Independence as well as the document itself. Essential reading leading up to the 4th!

Your Real Source for Hope

An excellent piece from my friend Lenny Cacchio

These are days that require our best. Though for some time there has been no attack on our homeland, dangers to our freedom and security are real, and many sense a general unease over the course of events. We see a growing proliferation of nuclear know-how and capabilities among nations whose intents and purposes are not ours. We see a diminution of our national wealth through increasing trade deficits and the transfer of jobs and productive capacity overseas. Communists and oil sheiks finance our government deficits, and our porous borders invite the importation of criminals and terrorists. The terrorist attacks on our troops and the Iraqi people seem to continue unabated and there is no end in sight.

Recent reports indicate that illegals have been able to obtain commercial drivers licenses, allowing them to transport hazardous materials with all the attendant national security concerns attendant thereto. Gangs from El Salvador are known to have contacts with Al Qaeda with the intent of smuggling in terrorists through the Southern border.

In the meantime, our own Supreme Court seems intent on eroding the rights imbedded in the Constitution, in some cases looking to precedents of foreign courts to justify their decisions, and in others ignoring the clear intent of the founding documents in order to impose entirely new legal theories. The recent decision of Kelo vs. New London clearly contradicts the intent of the Fifth Amendment, which among other things is supposed to protect private property from confiscation by some other private interest that happens to have better financing and better political connections. The road to serfdom is paved one cobblestone at a time.

The question is whether we have the will to do what it would take to protect ourselves in the face of mounting threats to our security and sovereignty. The history of the English-speaking peoples is a resolute march toward freedom and human dignity, and we must not allow ourselves to lose our ages-long legacy won through the toil and tears of those who came before because we doubt our worthiness, or because of political infighting over who is in charge, or because of petty self-indulgence that places personal fulfillment over the eternal truths that guide the forward march of human potential. Our history is one of struggle for ideals greater than ourselves, and our forbearers won for us our freedoms because their spines were not made of cotton candy.

Yet as we see the mounting threats and fret over the our disintegrating protective hedges, we must remember that millions of our fellow citizens see the dangers and know from where our true deliverance must come. If we look only to ourselves for deliverance we must surely fail. The Psalmist tells us, “The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; My God, my strength, in whom I will trust; My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold. I will call upon the Lord, who is worthy to be praised; So shall I be saved from my enemies.” (Psalm 18:2-3 NKJV)

In the days of Elijah, the prophet fretted to God his loneliness in his convictions. Elijah did not realize that God had reserved for himself seven thousand people who had not bowed the knee to Baal (I Kings 19). I dare say there are more than seven thousand today who know the way and try to walk in it. They are the resolute who know from where their true deliverance must come. They are not made of cotton candy.