Nurse raped for refusing to perform abortions

This is what happens when a Godless bureaucratic thugocracy generously subsidizes "aggressive population control measures."

MATTRAI, Pakistan, February 27, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A young woman was raped by three men in retribution for refusing to perform illegal abortions in a rural community in the western Punjab last Wednesday.

Rubina Kousar, 26, worked as a nurse in the Mattrai health center. She refused to carry out abortions on two women, reported the Telegraph, despite six months of constant pressure from the women’s families.

“In the past our staff have been subjected to this type of victimization for refusing to carry out illegal abortions, but they have not raised their voices for fear of retribution,” said Riaz Hussein, of the Punjab Healthworkers’ Association.

Abortion is illegal in Pakistan after the fourth month of pregnancy, unless the woman’s life is in danger. Under the tribal system operating in isolated districts of the country, village leaders sometimes order gang rapes as a punishment against women for various social “transgressions”.

"The family came and harassed me but I never imagined they would do this," Miss Kousar said, weeping. "They have threatened my family with dire consequences if we do not settle this. But this is not the past when we can get pushed around. God will give me the courage to fight them."

The UN has targeted Pakistan with aggressive population control measures over the past five years. In November 2000, the UNFPA threatened to withdraw US$250 million in health programs if the country refused to accept an additional $35 million in funding for birth control and abortion. Pakistan succumbed to pressure and agreed to make population control a “national priority” in the country.

It's pathetic that the USA is the principle "contributor" to this despicable organization. Why do we continue to fund it? Why do we even pretend it can be reformed? What will it take for the majority of Americans to say, "enough!"

Free Speech in Church? Think again!

According to an article in the The Washington Times, the IRS plans to start cracking down on churches that participate in politics.

This IRS regulation has largely gone unenforced, especially among left leaning churches. The mere mention of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton invoke images of leftwing campaigning in churches. Former Veep Al Gore even adopted the preaching style of a crazed preacher-man so as to win over a part of his constituency. Certainly that was politicking in churches and no one seemed to care.

Why should the IRS begin to enforce this unconstitutional regulation now? How and why can big government tell you what you can and cannot say in church or whether or not you should campaign for whomever your church wishes to campaign for.

It's the price churches ultimately pay when they decide to become tax exempt. At some point your church may have to ask which is more important, free speech or tax exemption.

Fred Thompson to fill in for Paul Harvey

Actor and former Senator, Fred Thompson has signed a deal with ABC Radio to substitute for radio legend Paul Harvey whenever Mr. Harvey goes on vacation.

In addition to filling in for Mr. Harvey, Thompson will also host ABC News Radio specials and programs.

Mr. Harvey, who is now 87 years old, has not announced any plans for retirement nor has he indicated who might be his successor if he decides to step aside.

Paul Harvey, Jr., who authors "The Rest of the Story," has filled in for his dad on occasion which led me to believe he would be taking over for his dad. He sounds a lot like Paul Sr., and I think the millions of Paul Harvey listeners would readily accept Paul Jr. in the absence of his dad.

It's going to be a sad day in America when Paul Harvey makes his last noonday broadcast. He's been an American institution my entire life and I'm pushing 54. I literally grew up listening to him.

Sen. Thompson will do a fine job filling in for Paul Harvey, but no one will ever be able to replace him.

Essential Reads for Sunday

In no particular order, here are some important "reads" to get you thinking as we begin a new week:

Kathleen Parker writes, Just because you're Islamophobic...doesn't mean you're wrong.

Mark Steyn admonishes, Needing to wake up, West just closes its eyes.

Jeff Jacoby details the demise of Harvard's president in, Anatomy of Summers's fall.

George Will warns, Less Freedom, Less Speech.

'Sex and Corruption' at the U.N....who would have known?

U.S. ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, said today that the United Nations "is hobbled by bad management, by sex and corruption."

"We find an organization that is deeply troubled by bad management, by sex and corruption and by a growing lack of confidence in its ability to carry out missions that are given to them," Bolton told an audience at a Columbia Law School symposium held by the Federalist Society, a conservative law organization.

Bolton, a longtime critic of the U.N., has been leading U.S. efforts to reform the United Nations after the oil-for-food scandal and sex scandals involving U.N. peacekeepers.

The oil-for-food program, established in 1996 with Iraq's economy crippled by sanctions, allowed Saddam Hussein to sell oil in exchange for humanitarian goods meant for his people.

An inquiry by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker found that Saddam sold oil to foreign countries in hopes of getting their support for lifting U.N. sanctions, and enriched himself by $1.8 billion through a kickback scheme. Companies and politicians essentially paid him for the right to do business, circumventing the U.N. program.

According to the article, U.N. Sec-Gen Kofi Annan is expected to announce his plan for an expansive managerial overhaul this coming Thursday. I wonder if we can expect his resignation.
I'm glad we finally have a no nonsense ambassador in John Bolton, and that he boldly came out today and said what he did, but this is old news. And why we continue to throw good money after bad to the coffers at Turtle Bay never ceases to amaze me.

The most recent issue of Imprimis, the national speech digest of Hillsdale College is featuring one of the most outstanding pieces on the U.N. I've ever read. It's a captivating and witty speech by the inimitable Mark Steyn, entitled, America and the United Nations. Truly a must read! Here's a morsel:

In fact, however, the UN is a shamefully squalid organization whose corruption is almost impossible to exaggerate. If you think--as the media and the left do in this country--that Iraq is a God-awful mess (which it's not), then try being the Balkans or Sudan or even Cyprus or anywhere where the problem's been left to the United Nations. If you don't want to bulk up your pension by skimming the Oil-for-Food program, no need to worry. Whatever your bag, the UN can find somewhere that suits--in West Africa, it's Sex-for-Food, with aid workers demanding sexual services from locals as young as four; in Cambodia, it's drug dealing; in Kenya, it's the refugee extortion racket; in the Balkans, sex slaves. On a UN peace mission, everyone gets his piece.

Didier Bourguet, a UN staffer in Congo and the Central African Republic, enjoyed the pleasures of 12-year-old girls, and as a result is now on trial in France. His lawyer has said he was part of a UN pedophile network operating from Africa to southeast Asia. But has anyone read anything about that? The merest glimpse of a U.S. servicewoman leading an Abu Ghraib inmate around with girlie knickers on his head was enough to prompt calls for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation, and for Ted Kennedy to charge that Saddam's torture chambers were now open 'under new management.' But systemic UN child sex in at least 50 percent of their missions? The transnational morality set can barely stifle their yawns. If you're going to sexually assault prepubescent girls, make sure you're wearing a blue helmet.

And at least the Pentagon put a stop to Abu Ghraib. As a British UN official in the Congo told my newspaper in London: 'The crux of the problem is that if the UN gets bolshie'--that's Britspeak for complaining aggressively--'with these governments then they stop providing the UN with troops and staff.' That's the system in a nutshell: when a British bigwig is with British forces, he'll enforce British standards; when a British official is holed up with an impeccably 'multilateral' force of Uruguayans, Tunisians, etc., he's more circumspect. When in Rome, do as the Visigoths do. In Congo, the UN had to forbid all contact between its predatory forces and the natives. The rest of the world should be so lucky.

The child sex racket is only the most extreme example of what's wrong with the UN approach to the world. Developed peoples value resilience: when disaster strikes, you bounce back. A hurricane flattens Florida, you patch things up and reopen. As the New Colonial Class, the UN doesn't look at it like that: when disaster strikes, it just proves that you and your countrymen are children who need to be taken under the transnational wing. The folks who have been under the UN wing the longest--indeed, the only ones with their own permanent UN agency and semi-centenarian 'refugee camps'--are the most comprehensively wrecked people on the face of the earth: the Palestinians. UN territories like Kosovo are the global equivalent of inner-city housing projects with the blue helmets as local enforcers for the absentee slum landlord. By contrast, a couple of years after imperialist warmonger Bush showed up, Afghanistan and Iraq have elections, presidents and prime ministers.

I implore you to read the whole piece if you like Mark Steyn and hate the U.N.

Hopefully you'll be sufficiently disgusted to write your elected officials to demand we stop funding this colossally abysmal money pit. It's beyond reformation. It needs to cease, desist and go away.

"They may be terrorists, but they're not corrupt"

President Carter, who never met a terrorist he didn't like, gives solace to Hamas in this Cox & Forkum editorial. The title refers to Carter's foolish quote regarding the recent Hamas election.

Information Overload

New and more information is emerging on an hourly basis on the "Port" situation. Although it's frustrating to hear so many different opinions and conflicting "facts," it's even more frustrating when extreme leftists come down on what seems to be the "right" side of all this. The information overload doesn't serve any of us very well in the short term, but it's good to have as much debate as possible. We don't need to be in a hurry to come to a conclusion in this matter. We have some time to weigh all sides of the issue.

The good thing about all this is the apparent passion out there. Maybe we're not so apathetic after all. The fact that politicos came out against this so quickly is testimony that their constituents wasted no time in contacting them in vast numbers. I contacted my Representative, Sam Johnson very early on to let him know that I was very much against this "sale."

I'm still against it. But lots of info is coming in and I may moderate down the line.

I hear the people of the UAE are perplexed at our consternation over their acquisition of our ports. My question to them is, would they be willing to have an American or Israeli firm manage their ports. And shouldn't we expect them to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation before we sign any deals with them?

It's not that we don't already do business with them and vice-versa, but there are questions to be asked and agreements to be made before we rush into anything rash.

This is kinda fun...my, how time flies!

Go over to Red State Rant and play the "how old were you when" game. Well, it's not really a game, but it's kind of interesting to remember how old you were when big events of the past happened. How old were you when the Iran hostage crisis began? How old were you when Apple introduced Macintosh? How old were you when the Berlin Wall came down? Are we having fun yet? Just go there and do it!

Ya Gotta Love this Guy

You've probably read his humorously acerbic columns and maybe even listened to his Clash Radio program or read his books (the latest of which is The Bulldog Attitude). Apparently, Giles has way too much time on his hands because his latest venture is his newly opened Doug Giles Fine Art Gallery! What a guy!

Be sure to check it out.

Congratulations, Doug, on your latest venture. You do great work!

Washington, Geo.: A mere footnote in today's America?

My friend, David Gold, brought this article from The American Thinker to my attention. You need to read the whole piece, but here's a portion:

With the army teetering on the edge of revolt and the future of the United States as a republic in the balance, Washington stood before the assembled officers and began to speak. He started by saying he sympathized with their plight, that he had written countless letters to Congress reminding them of their responsibilities to the soldiers, and begged the officers not to take any action that would “lessen the dignity and sully the glory you have hitherto maintained.”At that point, Washington reached into his pocket and withdrew a letter from a Congressman outlining what the government would do to address the soldiers’ grievances. But something was wrong. Washington started reading the letter but stopped abruptly. Then, with a sense of the moment and flair for the dramatic not equaled until Ronald Reagan became President, Washington slowly reached into his coat pocket and withdrew a pair of spectacles. There were gasps in the room as most of the officers had never seen their beloved General display such a sign of physical weakness in public. As he put the glasses on, Washington said “Gentlemen, you’ll permit me to put on my spectacles, as I have grown not only old but almost blind in the service of my country.”

Witnesses say that the officers almost to a man began to weep. This powerful reminder of the nearly eight years of service together and their shared sacrifices and hardships won the day. The revolt died then and there.

It could be argued that this was the greatest day of the greatest American who ever lived. And the fact that we no longer officially celebrate Washington’s Birthday on February 22 as a national holiday is a travesty that makes this and other deeds of George Washington seem like mere footnotes on the pages of history.

In fact, the third Monday in February is still designated as Washington’s Birthday, not “President’s Day” as it has come to be known. As Matthew Spaulding of the Heritage Foundation points out, several times, legislators have introduced legislation to direct all federal government entities to refer to the holiday as George Washington’s Birthday, but to no avail. President Bush could issue an executive order to that effect but has failed to do so.

This doesn’t address the issue of celebrating February 22 – no matter what day of the week it falls on – as a national holiday. The argument that no other American is so honored just doesn’t hold water. The fact is, there wouldn’t be any other Americans to honor if it weren’t for the character, the purposefulness, and the determination of George Washington.

It's almost midnite in Dallas on this February 22nd and I only heard George Washington referenced 2 or 3 times on the radio today. Pity! We're losing track of the greats that lived, fought, sacrificed and died so that we could be the freest, most blessed country that has ever existed. It's a shame that George Washington has been relegated to a mere footnote of American history on his own birthday. He deserves to be honored on a day set aside just for him.

It's George Washington's Birthday!

Today is George Washington's birthday, which was once a nationally honored holiday. He was born on February 22,1732 and this would be his 274th birthday.

Unfortunately, this historical day will go virtually unnoticed because the celebration of the birthday of the Father of our Country became nondescript at the adoption of President's Day, a designated day to honor Lincoln and Washington's birthday combined. It hasn't worked. Now it is merely the third Monday in February which makes for a long weekend for banks and federal workers...a day for shopping at President's Day sales.

It was necessary to combine the birthdays of our two most celebrated presidents to be able to make space in our national calendar of holidays for Martin Luther King Day. Those who are critical of that decision are likely to be called racists, but that's another subject for another time.

To honor this day of the birth of our most venerated president, it would be good to read at least one, if not a few of his most celebrated speeches. Probably his most famous is his Farewell Address. It's lengthy, but an important historical document, well worth reading.

Another important read is George Washington's Rules of Civility. There are 110 of them and they illustrate what a principled gentleman George Washington really was. These "rules" are tools every parent can use for themselves and their kids. A must read!

Washington's First Inaugural Address and his Proclamation for National Thanksgiving are definitely worth reading.

Check out the History Channel's "this day in history" for a short bio.

Today may no longer be a nationally recognized holiday, but it's still the birthday of one of the greatest, if not the greatest president of the United States. He deserves more than just a passing thought.

What Does the President know that we don't?

Well, plenty, but regarding the United Arab Emirates and the "big port deal" maybe we can't really afford to be inhospitable to them right now.

One of the problems of living in a "global community" is that you have to entangle yourself with unsavory characters. Not that all the people of the UAE are unsavory, but some of them have been known to consort with and enable terrorists. That's problematic! Very problematic!

But we don't know what's on the horizon...or do we. Isn't it very possible, if not probable, that we could be at war with Iran in the very near future? And if so, wouldn't it be better for us to have a working relationship with the UAE, who, afterall are moderate and very westernized? They certainly aren't the whacked out Islamo-facists who are rioting over ridiculous cartoons and lopping the heads off of innocents.

Look at the map. The UAE is located at the bottom of the Persian Gulf adjacent to Saudi Arabia and Oman, just across the Gulf from Iran. A strategic military location to be sure. Can we afford to not have them as allies in a war with Iran? This is a serious consideration and we can't afford to be distracted by partisan politics. We have to look a little further down the line.

What is the President to do? Does he succumb to the demands of Congress and the political tsunami which has already developed? Already the dems are cashing in on this and if they're smart they'll adopt the border problem as well and claim they are the ones who really have the security of the country at heart. Up to now they haven't had any winning issues. This could be a bonanza for them; at least for now. The President has been able to outwit the dems on every issue, but now it seems they have an issue with which Americans can identify.

Should the President steadfastly veto any bill which prohibits UAE management of major ports or should he give in to Congress. Our opinions out here in the blogosphere helped to ignite the firestorm, but in the vast scheme of things, we simply don't know what is really going on. This is the next news cycle. Only this time the President is taking it roundly from both sides, and maybe, rightly so. But, we are at war and we're going to be at war for a long time. Not everyone is privy to what all is going on or what all is going to go on in the near future. All we can do is hope and pray that the President makes the right decisions based on good intelligence coupled with wisdom and discernment.

God help us when we have a president who has none of the above!

Still, all things being equal, I think Americans should run our ports.

There are "Toons" and their are "Nuclear Toons"

Cox & Forkum continue to poke fun at people with absolutely no sense of proportion.

Kiss of Death for the Port Deal

Just what the Bush administration didn't need...Jimmy Carter's endorsement of the Dubai Ports Deal:

The Bush administration's plan to turn over control of six major U.S. ports to a Dubai company suffered another blow on Monday, when former President Jimmy Carter endorsed the deal.

"The overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it's exists," Carter told CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

"My belief is that the president and his secretary of state, the Defense Department and others have adequately cleared the Dubai government or organization to manage their ports," Carter added. "I don't think there's any particular threat to our security."

What further evidence do we need that this Port deal is riddled with serious security risks. Former President Carter may have just saved the country untold millions of dollars in background searches and maybe even from future terror attacts. This kind of deal busting we can live with.

Turning over the keys to our kingdom

Another great "toon" by Cox & Forkum

Boortz on Dubai Ports World

Talker, Neal Boortz, doesn't seem to think this sale will be approved. Let's hope not!

Now, Dubai Ports World may be a fine company, without any ties to terrorists. But do we want to be the ones to find out? Hardly. What's even more outrageous is that the administration is defending the sale. (starts about halfway down) Robert Menendez, Democratic Senator from New Jersey, hit the nail on the head: "No matter what steps the administration claims it has secretly taken, it is an unacceptable risk to turn control of our ports over to a foreign government, particularly one with a troubling history. We cannot depend on promises a foreign government has given the administration in secret to secure our ports."

Exactly. Which is why this decision will be reversed. Just watch.

I hope Boortz is right, because it is inconceivable that the administration could be that uninformed or naive. But when you couple this potential problem with the existing border problem, you have to wonder what the hell is going on?

Jerome Corsi: Dubai Ports World has Iran ties

Author Jerome Corsi has a piece today at WorldNetDaily which ties DPW to Iran and al-Qaida:

Dubai has been far from faultless in the War on Terrorism. The 9-11 Commission Report documents how al-Qaida and the 9-11 terrorists who flew the airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon used Dubai as a banking facility and a country of transit. Dubai continues to work actively with the radical religious clerics ruling Iran, serving both as a vacation home and a capital haven to many of the wealthy mullahs and their families, including former Prime Minister Hashemi-Rafsanjani, who is the first mullah to be considered a billionaire while the Iranian per capita GDP continues to be calculated at around $1,800.

By the end of 2006, Dubai calculates that some $300 billion will have been moved from Iran to Dubai by over 400,000 Iranians. Iranians who travel to Dubai for business are estimated to constitute 25 percent of Dubai's population. The Dubai Chamber of Commerce shows that more than 6,500 Iranian-owned companies are now registered in the UAE under Iranian nationality. Some 10,000 Iranian students live and study in Dubai. Some 20 percent of the investments in Dubai shopping centers are now registered under Iranian names. In one week, at the end of June 2005, Iranians bought 31 percent of the luxurious villas of Al Hamra tourism-residential complex, located in Ras Al Khaimah, north of Dubai. The UAE is a popular tourist location for those Iranians lucky enough to have the funds to travel, with many visiting several times a year, spending considerable sums on shopping, hotels and the beach.

With Iran defiantly pursuing a nuclear program believed to be building weapons, and with Dubai having established financial connections with al-Qaida operatives, is President Bush having another "Harriet Miers moment" in allowing Dubai Ports World to gain operations control over American ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia?

Be sure to read the entire piece. Concerned Americans can't sit back and allow this to happen. If ever there was a time to contact your Representatives, it's now!

"Bush fails to prevent East Coast Blizzard"....Women and Minorities hardest hit

An email buddy sent me this latebreaking "report" from the MSM.

Bush Fails To Prevent East Coast Blizzard: Women and Minorities Hardest Hit
by Killer Storm (as reported by MSM reporter)

As President Bush and his staff cowered in the White House,
the snow continued to pile up on the many poor and African
American victims who could not afford to get out of town or
to safety in Florida. Crucial supplies of blankets, hot
cocoa, popcorn, and dark rum, so essential to surviving the
stress of any major snowstorm, lay in stores undelivered.

"Where is the government? I need my sidewalk shoveled so I
can get out to buy my danged lottery tickets!" said one DC
resident from his living room. "Why are we wasting money in
Iraq when we could be spending it here on me?"

Progressive blogs blasted the President for his inaction.
"We find the timing terribly suspicious, just as the
domestic spying hearings kick into high gear, what happens?
A major northeast Blizzard. Why now?" wrote one blogger.

Hearings into the blizzard effect on hearings are almost a
certainty. Howard Dean has suggested he will call for an
investigation once his new medications kick in.

John Kerry took a break from the sporting activities of the
glamorous super rich in some exotic locale (random choice:
ice sailing in Finland) to call for new legislation
outlawing snowstorms.

Said Howard Dean, "The Republican Congress has dropped the
ball once again. I have always been a staunch supporter of
anti snow legislation, except for certain locations in
Vermont where I ski regularly. Snow has no business on our
roads and the President and Congress know that."

Calls for a Bush impeachment over Snow Gate, as some are
calling it, already are mounting as deeply as the snow
itself, and what will be discovered underneath will prove
to have a truly chilling effect on the Republicans, as the
inevitable thaw proceeds.

More breaking news: Al Sharpton wants an investigation as
to why snow is always white.

In a late breaking story today, Cheney confirmed that he
has NYSE stock in Tru-Value Hardware. Do you have any idea
how many snow shovels Tru-Value sold today to the
unsuspecting consumer?

Continuing, John Kerry said in a Saudi Arabian press
conference today, "I demand to know why FEMA has been so
late in reacting to this storm. They knew it was coming,
and yet FEMA failed to have crews in place to fix the
electricity as soon as it went off. It just shows that Bush
and the Republicans just don't care about the people in the
New England. The Senate needs to investigate this
dereliction of duty."

In another report, the great junior senator from NY has
opened the doors of her home to all of the heatless poor of
her neighborhood and is busy baking cookies for them, while
her husband applies body heat to nearly frozen teenaged
girls.

Not sure which of the MSM reporters from which this came. Could have come from Brian Williams, David Gregory or the perky Katie Couric or virtually anyone from NBCSeeBSABCCNN.

Bin Laden won't be taken alive, he says.....So what?

Stories like this always make me wonder what the point is or what it's supposed to be? In other words, should we care that he's going to "off" himself before we get to him? What's the big deal? I take it as rather good news. His demise, either at his own hands or ours, will only save us time and money and further hassle. Are we supposed to feel sorry for him or change our strategy because of his decision to self-destruct? What's the point?

I put this story in the same category as when heinous prisoners or radical activists publicly proclaim a fast to the dire end until their demands are met. Go ahead and fast to the bitter end. It's your call, dude! Why should we care? You're out to destroy us, remember?

Will there be outrage at this....Naw!!!!

Ok, maybe there's outrage here and at DRUDGE over this, but where else are people raising hell? Maybe some Talkers will pick this up tomorrow, but we all know that the lamestream media won't give a lick about this. But why? Aren't they obsessively concerned that President Bush is personally listening in on our private conversations?

Why is no one upset at the growing presence of video cameras at stoplights, malls, businesses, airports and every other place imaginable to record your compliance with the law (is that seat belt buckled...is your toddler in the proper seat....is your inspection sticker up to date....are you...gasp...smoking in an area where it is prohibited? Heaven forbid! No, worse...City Hall forbid!!!

While local, state and federal officials seem to be obsessed with reconnoitering the geese that provide the golden eggs to pay their bloated budgets, they don't seem to worry a wit about the permeable border which is regularly being crossed by armed Mexican "soldiers" or key ports which very well may be purchased by the Arabs who, if you'll recall, drove airplanes into our World Trade Center and Pentagon!!!

Where's the sense of proportion when people (or maybe just the MSM) get totally bent out of shape over things that probably will never happen to them (NSA eavesdropping), while totally overlooking the cameras which are in place right now? Hello...anyone out there?

Losing Issue for Republicans

What is up with the Bush administration defending Arab control of ports?

In the face of national outrage and sharp criticism from Republican and Democrat leaders, President Bush's head of homeland security is defending the plan to turn over operations of six U.S. ports to an Arab company.

It doesn't make sense.

Frank Gaffney doesn't think so either:

This is not the first time this interagency panel -- called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) -- has made an astounding call about the transfer of control of strategically sensitive U.S. assets to questionable purchasers. In fact, as of last summer, CFIUS had, since its creation in 1988, formally rejected only one of 1,530 transactions submitted for its review.

Such a record is hardly surprising given that the committee is chaired by the Treasury Department, whose institutional responsibilities include promoting foreign investment in the United States. Treasury has rarely seen a foreign purchase of American assets that it did not like. And this bias on the part of the chairman of CFIUS has consistently skewed the results of the panel's deliberations in favor of approving deals, even those opposed by other, more national security-minded departments.

Thanks to the secrecy with which CFIUS operates, it is not clear at this writing whether any such objection was heard with respect to the idea of contracting out management of six of our country's most important ports to a UAE company. There would certainly appear to be a number of grounds for rejecting this initiative, however:

1) America 's seaports have long been recognized by homeland security experts as among our most vulnerable targets. Huge quantities of cargo move through them every day, much of it of uncertain character and provenance, nearly all of it inadequately monitored. Matters can only be made worse by port managers who might conspire to bring in dangerous containers, or simply look the other way when they arrive.

2) Entrusting information about key U.S. ports -- including, presumably, government-approved plans for securing them, to say nothing of the responsibility for controlling physical access to these facilities, to a country known to have been penetrated by terrorists is not just irresponsible. It is recklessly so.

3) At the risk of being politically incorrect, the proposed new management will also complicate the job of assuring that the personnel working in these ports pose no threat to their operations -- or to the rest of us. To the extent that we must remain particularly vigilant about young male Arab nationals as potential terrorists, it makes no sense to provide legitimate grounds for such individuals to be in and around some of this country's most important strategic assets.

4) Of particular concern must be the implications for energy security as a very large proportion of the Nation's oil imports come through the Atlantic and Gulf State ports that the UAE company hopes to take over. For example, Philadelphia alone handles some 85% of the oil coming into the East Coast; New Orleans is responsible for one-seventh of all of our imported energy.

Given such considerations, the question occurs: How could even a stacked deck like the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States find it possible to approve the Dubai Ports World's transaction?

Could it have been influenced by the fact that a former senior official of the UAE company, David Sanborn, was recently named the new administrator of the Transportation Department's Maritime Administration? Until recently, Sanborn was DP World's director of operations for Europe and Latin America.

Or is it because the U.S. government views -- and is determined to portray -- the United Arab Emirates as a vital ally in this war for the Free World? A similar determination has long caused Washington to treat Saudi Arabia as a valued friend, even as the Saudis continue playing a double game whereby they work simultaneously to repress terrorism at home and abet it abroad.

Whatever the explanation, the Nation can simply no longer afford to have the disposition of strategic assets -- including those that have a military or homeland security dimension -- determined by a Treasury-dominated panel whose deliberations and decisions are made in secret without congressional oversight.

Congress should see to it that the United Arab Emirates is not entrusted with the operation of any American ports, and that the Treasury Department is stripped of the lead role in evaluating such dubious foreign investments in the United States.

The only thing stranger than the Bush administration's approval of this dubious purchase is the fact that Democrats plan to block the sale. Things just keep getting curiouser and curiouser!

Steyn of the Times

Don't miss today's essential read by the ever witty and down to earth, Mark Steyn. He's got some great "one liners" in this piece:

"The first was the decision of Iran's bakers to rename Danish pastries "Roses of the Prophet Muhammed pastries.'' Has a ring to it, don't you think? If they're looking for a slogan, how about "Iranian pastry: There's nothing flakier. Except our president."

Here's another good one:

"The second cheery sight was the destruction of a McDonald's in Lahore by the usual excitable young lads from the religion of pieces."

And here's the piece de resistance:

"...perhaps it would just be easier to change the term ''free press'' to the ''Roses of the Prophet Muhammed press."

Heh heh! Be sure to read the whole thing.

Scottsdale Snowbirds

Canadian Honkers "slumming it" on a Scottsdale golf course this past November. As of last week they were still there, in no hurry to go home.

A Little Cactus blogging

Some of the cacti are beginning to bloom in Phoenix and here are a few shots I took last week.

The Port Problem

The "Port Problem" is slowly gaining a little steam. Become apprised of the situation at Michelle Malkin's blog. It would be amusing if it weren't so tragic that this is getting no air time while the MSM continues to be apoplectic over Cheney's hunting accident. The leftist media seems to be supplying an infinite amount of distractions while hiding the really important stories. It's enough to make one consider the veracity of conspiracy theories.

I hope Peggy Noonan is wrong!

I put Peggy Noonan's opinion on a pretty high pedestal but I really hope she's way off base in her most current column. You probably ought to read it if you're into presidential politics and the Dick Cheney brouhaha. She posits that behind the scenes and under the covers, the president's men may be seeking to replace Cheney. I really, really hope that's not true. In my opinion, replacing Cheney would be the very worst thing this administration could do. It would be tantamount to laying down for the loud mouthed dweebs and surrendering totally to the leftist media weenies.

Who in their right mind would believe the left would be appeased by this or anything this administration does. They cannot be appeased or placated!

The administration needs to go on the offensive like never before because the left and it's lapdog media is in meltdown mode. You can't placate ranting madmen who've lost their bearings and rationality; you go on the creative offensive to further frustrate them to insure victory.

This isn't Romper Room, boys and girls, we're fighting an ideological war against leftists who wish to destroy life in America as we know it. We may be winning, temporarily, but we will lose if we allow them to dictate the rules.

Some good news from the EPA

The EPA announced yesterday that states will no longer be required to add MTBE or ethanol to gasoline:

California, New York and Connecticut unsuccessfully had asked the EPA for a waiver of the requirement because the states had banned MTBE after finding it polluted the groundwater.
The states were forced to use ethanol, which they contend worsened pollution problems.

The recipes for gasoline formulation across the country are many and varied which is problematic when it comes to distribution especially in times of shortage. It's not often the EPA will make decisions which may save us money and, at the same time, actually be beneficial to the environment. Cautious kudos may be in order.

On the Road Again...

Being on the road is a bifold situation. I'm a road warrior at heart and always enjoy getting out and about. What I hate is being constricted, digitally speaking, and not being able to have instant access to a computer with all the amenities of my own "tech center." Life truly is a trade off. I'll be home soon and able to pontificate a bit more prolifically. In the meantime, try to relish the insane ramblings of former Vice-President Algore and appreciate the fact that he'll never be electable; never ever!

There is much for which to be thankful! The left continues to implode, which is a good thing, but it poses a danger to the conservatives in that it makes it easier for the republicans to swerve ever faster to the left, a la John McCain; appearing to be conservative, by comparison, while, in reality going markedly to the left.

These are dangerous times! Don't be distracted!

Bush administration wants to sell a small portion of federal lands

Hat tip to Free Republic for this bit of news: The Seattle Times reported yesterday that the federal government wants to sell thousands of acres. What should be great news to Americans universally, and especially those out west, will be met with protests from terrified leftist special interest groups and like minded socialists. Why? Because socialism worships at the feet of the federal bureaucracy and any attempt to make it smaller or transfer a miniscule portion to private ownership is anathema.

According to this Times piece, a mere 309,000 acres in 30 states will tentatively go on sale if it is approved by Congress. Proceeds of the sale would be distributed to rural areas to be used for education in lieu of current federal contributions, thereby reducing the federal budget by $800 million or so.

The federal government owns a mind boggling 190 million acres nationwide, yet watch the ferocious fight to keep the drop in the bucket 309,000 acres from becoming private. A huge amount of money could be raised to reduce the deficit if similar land sales would happen every year. Privatizing large amounts of federal lands would also remove the government (our) cost of maintenance. These lands could actually become productive.

The critics will vociferously cry that the land will be plundered and raped by mismanaging ranchers who will populate the land with flatulating cattle or be ransacked by greedy Big Business developers, or worse; Big Oil could be allowed to pillage and pollute virgin land and our national parks will be threatened. Nonsense! They are already protected by the United Nations' World heritage Protection program...heh heh! So that argument won't work. No one is going to sell our national parks.

It would seem like a good idea to me to suggest to our representatives that the federal government has no business holding on to so much property and they need to start making it available to the American people (ie, bonified citizens).

Quote of the Day (Caution: it could spawn rioting!)

By Ann Coulter, taken from a piece in HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE:

Democrats have three major planks, she explained: 'Abortion on demand, gay marriage and banning the Boy Scouts. Someday they’ll find a way to combine them all and figure out how to abort all future Boy Scouts.'

Quote of the Day

From the lovely and brilliant Peggy Noonan:

"We do free speech here."

The quote is from her must read column regarding the funeral of Coretta Scott King.

What I saw as the outrageous antics of a hopelessly disgruntled and hateful leftwing, she saw as free speech. I appreciate her point.

I especially enjoyed these two paragraphs:

There was nothing prissy, nothing sissy about it. A former president, a softly gray-haired and chronically dyspeptic gentleman who seems to have judged the world to be just barely deserving of his presence, pointedly insulted a sitting president who was, in fact, sitting right behind him. The Clintons unveiled their 2008 campaign. A rhyming preacher, one of the old lions, a man of warmth and stature, freely used the occasion to verbally bop the sitting president on the head.

So what? This was the authentic sound of a vibrant democracy doing its thing. It was the exact opposite of the frightened and prissy attitude that if you draw a picture I don't like, I'll have to kill you.

Heh heh!

Her column is a perspective worth reading and a point well taken. Compared to the rest of the world, we exemplify free speech. But are funerals really the time and place to be so vociferously critical of the president? Afterall, how does that honor the deceased?

Still, it's good to contrast the fact that republicans, although offended by the embarrassing performance of various funeral attendees, didn't storm the DNC Headquarters and participate in destructive riots or kill anyone.

"The Virtue of Courage"

Alexandra, over at All Things Beautiful has an outstanding tribute to her father and courage. Forgiveness is in there somewhere, because sometimes even your best friends and supporters don't have the courage to stand with you and that's when forgiveness must come into play. Please read this piece in its entirety, but in order to get the full impact you must read Alexandra's bio. You can learn more about her father here.

Be sure to earmark All Things Beautiful and go there daily. It's a special place.

The Foolish Weakness of the Left

"The United Nations and European Union have reached agreement to issue a joint statement condemning cartoon "insults to Islam" that were first published in a Danish newspaper and have been widely reprinted recently, resulting in a rash of violence throughout the Muslim world."

Pity!

Why can't rational people see that pardoning perps and condemning victims is a lose/lose situation? Rational people can see that. The problem lies with irrational leftists who almost always cater to the perps, wrongdoers and the enemies of this country. Why? Ostensibly, because the left doesn't want to further offend these unstable nutters who may riot, bomb, kidnap, decapitate or drive airplanes into buildings at the drop of a burka. And of course, when the extremists perpetrate their violence, it's never their fault; it's always our fault! Go figure.

This is radical egalitarianism and political correctness taken to the logical conclusion. These ideologies are a failure and all but the elitists realize it. The leftist social engineers will never acquiesce or admit defeat. They only become more insistent that their failed policies be instituted ever more enthusiastically and universally.

Yesterday, Economics Professor Walter E. Williams wrote a brilliant piece titled, Bogus rights. If you missed it, you ought to check it out. We are daily being bombarded by people demanding non-existing rights. Equally as bad are those who demand that our existing rights be diminished or be taken away completely.

It seems the national and international crime du jour is that of offending someone or some group. What is the crime in offending someone? Where is it written that we have a right to not be offended?

Everyone is offended by something. A huge danger exists when we are tempted to outlaw "offensive" speech. But, we're already there. You've heard of "hate-speech" and "hate-crimes" right? Who determines the hate and who will determine the "offensive" speech? The U.N.? Congress? The ACLU? NAMBLA? International Courts? Who or what will be the determining factor in all this "feel good" falderal? Let's hope it won't be those who most often side with our enemies.

When can we expect to see this?

Cox & Forkum's version of "must-see TV".

Hamas threatens America

According to Joel C. Rosenberg, Hamas leader Khaled Mash'al spoke at a Damascus mosque on February 3rd, and threatened the national security of America, Israel and the European Union.

"America will be defeated in Iraq," Mash'al declared, in a translation provided by MEMRI.org. "Wherever the [Islamic] nation is targeted, its enemies will be defeated, Allah willing. The nation of Muhammad is gaining victory in Palestine. The nation of Muhammad is gaining victory in Iraq, and it will be victorious in all Arab and Muslim lands. 'Their multitudes will be defeated and turn their backs [and flee].' These fools will be defeated, the wheel of time will turn, and times of victory and glory will be upon our nation, and the West will be full of remorse, when it is too late."

"We say to this West, which does not act reasonably, and does not learn its lessons: By Allah, you will be defeated," he vowed. "Israel will be defeated, and so will whoever supported or supports it....I say to the [European countries]: Hurry up and apologize to our nation, because if you do not, you will regret it."

Mash'al went on to say, "Before Israel dies, it must be humiliated and degraded. America will be of no avail to them. Their generals will be of no avail to them. The last of their generals has been forgotten. Allah has made him disappear. He's over. Gone is that Sharon behind whose back they would hide and find shelter, and with whom they would feel relatively secure. Today they have frail leaders, who don't even know where our Lord placed them. Allah willing, we will make them lose their eyesight, we will make them lose their brains."

Nice guy! This is someone you'ld really like to get to know. Well, that's apparently what Russian President Vladimir Putin must be thinking:

"Maintaining our contacts with Hamas, we are ready in the near future to invite the Hamas authorities to Moscow to hold talks," Mr. Putin told reporters during a visit to the Spanish capital. "We haven't considered Hamas a terrorist organization. Today we must recognize that Hamas has reached power in Palestine as a result of legitimate elections and we must respect the choice of the Palestinian people."

This cozy little relationship needs to be watched at the very least. Hamas needs to be rendered impotent, not bolstered by one of our "allies."

Be sure to read the entire piece at Rosenberg's blog.

"The Lonely God" --A Review

I just finished reading a very good book written by one of my friends and mentors, Ronald L. Dart. The name of the book is The Lonely God.

The author would rightfully describe himself as a Christian apologist and would hope that his students aspire to and be qualified to explain and defend the Christian way of life, ergo, become apologists, themselves. His writing style is very much like his upbeat radio program, Born To Win: uplifting, inspiring and compelling. His reasoned approach is fascinating and thought provoking.

The Lonely God delves into many areas of God's realm about which we may not have given much thought, for example, why did he create mankind and why did he allow Adam and Eve to screw up in the Garden of Eden. Does God read our minds and is he continually spying on us? Does he know what we're going to do before we even do it? Can God travel through time? If he answers some little prayers, why doesn't he answer our big prayers and what is our responsibility in the process? Why does really bad stuff happen to innocent people? If he is eternal, then what has he been doing for trillions of years and was he alone all that time? Does God have a plan for mankind and how can we possibly know what it is?

The author doesn't attempt to answer every mystery of the universe or the God who created it nor should we be flummoxed by unanswerable conundrums which may arise with the very thought of eternity. But we can know all we need to know about God by having an understanding of the Bible and by learning what he has in store for mankind.

In 26 chapters of The Lonely God the author deals with very real problems and misconceptions people have with God, truth and dogma. One essential concept to understanding God as he is, is found in the third chapter, titled Open to God. The author begins the chapter by writing:

There is no explanation of God offered by man that can do anything but diminish God. And the further we go in trying to explain God, the further we go down a cul-de-sac. The creation of dogma is a major barrier. If we don't stay open to him, to his revelation of himself, we can never hope to understand. Dogma closes that door.

God is. God is what he is regardless of what we think or say. And God presents us with questions we cannot hope to resolve with dogma. We have to take him as he reveals himself to us over time, or we can never know him at all.

In other words (and these are mine, not the author's), when religions and churches mold God into whatever image they have of him and worship him as such, they may have a distorted or false concept of God because dogma gets in the way of what he really is.

There's an important chapter in the book on Liberty. We all want it, but we don't want to deal with its consequences and all too often we will forsake liberty for safety or security. Freedom comes with an awesome responsibility. The Law of God ( the ten commandments), was called the Law of Liberty by James and Paul. No one will ever coerce you to keep the laws of God; we are free to obey them or disobey them, just as Adam and Eve had the choice to obey or disobey them. Nor do God's laws take away our freedom. Rather, it is the law of man that entangles us and takes away our liberty.

Throughout the book, the author posits ideas which may force you to think outside the box of preconceived ideas. One such idea is dubbed the Great Misunderstanding in chapter 12, in which he tackles the idea that the law wasn't done away in the New Testament. He doesn't shy away from controversy, but he's never in your face about it. Some so-called Biblical controversies boil down to a matter of semantics, and more often than not, dogma gets smack dab in the way of rational conjecture on any given subject.

The Lonely God doesn't attempt to "sell" any particular brand of beliefs or religions. It's a thoughtful look at God, his plan, and how he deals with man by a lifelong student and teacher of the Bible. The book shows opposing sides of God...that he is eminently good, the personification of love, kind and benevolent, merciful and generous, and, above all things, Almighty. Though loving and merciful, he's not a God to be taken lightly. To quote the author, God is "dangerous."

I recommend the book very highly. It's well thought out and well written. It's not opinionated and is never argumentative. The book inspires, but I don't think that's the purpose of the book. More than anything, the book evokes thought about lofty concepts and ideas deserving of our time.

Boortz: This isn't about cartoons

More words of wisdom from Nealz Nuze:

The publication of these cartoons of Mohammed are not the reason for the rioting and violence. They are the excuse. Islamic protesters burned down the Danish consulate in Beirut in response to those cartoons making fun of Islam. Riots are ongoing, cars are being overturned and at least one person is dead in Afghanistan. Pakistan is boycotting prescription drugs from companies based in countries where the cartoons were published.

This is absolutely insane. What we are witnessing is the ultimate conclusion to militant political correctness. Many leftists would excuse this behavior...because these Muslims are "offended." Know this: in the world of liberals, there is no greater crime known to man than offending Muslims. The more violent radical Islamists become the more the politically correct elements make excuses for them.

This religion is rapidly getting out of control. Muslims can murder 200 school children and their parents, shooting kids in the back, in Chechnya and the Muslim world hardly pauses a moment to notice. Let someone draw a cartoon of their so-called "prophet" and they start burning embassies and looking for Europeans to kidnap or murder. The more our Western leaders make excuses for their behavior, the bolder they become. These Muslims torching embassies and rioting around the world are not what we might consider highly educated. They have little or no understanding of Western culture and the concept of freedom of the press is entirely beyond the grasp of most of them. They believe that anything printed in any newspaper constitutes the official opinion of that country's government.

These riots and demonstrations are not about those cartoons, they are about freedom. One protestor was seen carrying a sign that said Freedom go (to) hell. To these Islamic jihadist criminals freedom is an enemy. A religion that says you must either convert, kill or enslave those who don't believe as you is not a religion that would embrace freedom. Whether the politically correct like it or not, this is a religion that is anathema to our way of life and the liberties we hold dear.

There was another sign being carried by these Islamic rioters. It said "Europe. Take some lessons from 9/11." I sure I don't have to explain the threat implicit in that sign. Actually, this is a good thing. I wish the Islamic radicals would wave more of those "Europe. Take some lessons from 9/11" signs. The train bombings in Spain and the subway bombings in London apparently weren't enough. Maybe these riots will convince the Euro-snobs that Islamic fanatics and their myrmidons pose as much a threat to them, perhaps more of a threat, as they do to the people of the United States.

Who knows ... maybe even some Americans will wake up. Democrats, for instance.

Islamic Image Problem

What are a few cartoons when a host of real problems keep Islamism in the Dark Ages. Once again Cox & Forkum pithily illustrate the irony. See their most recent political cartoon here.

Support Free Speech--Buy Danish

The good folks at the History News Network have a comprehensive list of products made in Denmark whose freedom of speech is being threatened by the Islamofacists. Take a look at the list and buy something to show your support.

Read Jeff Jacoby's piece, We are all Danes now.

Everything else you need to know about the Islamofacist rioting can be found in copious detail, pics and all, at Michelle Malkin's site.

Don't miss Mark Steyn's wonderfully politically incorrect piece, 'sensitivity' can have brutal consequences:

One day, years from now, as archaeologists sift through the ruins of an ancient civilization for clues to its downfall, they'll marvel at how easy it all was. You don't need to fly jets into skyscrapers and kill thousands of people. As a matter of fact, that's a bad strategy, because even the wimpiest state will feel obliged to respond. But if you frame the issue in terms of multicultural "sensitivity," the wimp state will bend over backward to give you everything you want -- including, eventually, the keys to those skyscrapers. Thus, Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, hailed the "sensitivity" of Fleet Street in not reprinting the offending cartoons.

Please read the whole piece!

"Just A Woman" --Lores Rizkalla Debuts tonite on KRLA

If you're a regular listener to Sean Hannity or Hugh Hewitt, you've probably heard Lores call in. Beginning tonite she will have her very own Talk Show which can be heard on KRLA from midnight to 2AM (Pacific Time). Lores' Blog will let you know what she's going to be talking about tonight. Check it out.

Congratulations Lores! Looking forward to hearing you on your own show!

Lores' new Talk Show can be heard at News Talk 870 KRLA.

See what some folks are saying about Lores here.

"Good-bye to God"

What happens to a country when they remove the "welcome mat" to God and seek to throw him out of every institution? It's happening right now to secular Europe and many in the United States want to become more like Europe by casting God completely out of the picture. It's not a pretty picture when God is kicked out. He's no dummy. He's not going to hang around if people don't want him to, but why would anyone in their right mind want to run him out?

Today, (Saturday, February 4), Ron Dart's timely broadcast titled, "Good-bye to God" aptly describes what's happening in Europe and the United States because of our desire to secularize every aspect of society. Give him a listen! Go to the "Born to Win" box with the pulsating speakers on my sidebar. One click does it.

Outraged Muslims...Boortz Nails 'em

Talker Neal Boortz compiled a must read list at Nealz Nuze about things that don't outrage the Muslims:

"Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City. No Muslim outrage.
Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.
A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India. Kills six. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage.
Let's go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and busses. Over 700 are injured. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali. No Muslim outrage.
Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons. No Muslim outrage
Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge. No Muslim outrage.
Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Muslims are outraged."

"Aslan is on the move in the Muslim world"

Joel Rosenberg has a powerful piece at his blog about the amazing influence of Christian Evangelism in the Middle East:

"Aslan is on the move in the Muslim world.

Last week I took my wife and kids to see the Egyptian premiere of NARNIA in Cairo. The film was as wonderful as we had hoped. But I must confess that far more interesting to me than watching digital lions and beavers come to life was being in a theater jam-packed with Muslims mesmerized by a thinly-veiled parable of Jesus Christ, penned by one the 20th century's greatest Christian writers. Every seat was taken, and when we left, the theater's lobby could not contain all those hoping to get into the 10 o'clock show.

The same was true in the spring of 2003, when scores of Muslims packed movie theaters throughout the Middle East to see Mel Gibson's THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. They were watching Jesus teach. They were watching Him suffer and die and rise again. They were crying -- sobbing, in many cases -- as they continued to flood the theaters night after night. One Arab evangelical leader tells me the DVD of THE PASSION didn't do so well when it was released in 2004, but that's only because hundreds of thousands of bootleg copies had already been snatched up from street vendors from Beirut to Baghdad long before the official version arrived.

Did you know there are at least ten different evangelical Christian satellite TV networks now beaming their programming into the Middle East? Or that evangelical Christian websites in Arabic and Farsi are springing up by the hundreds and being visited by thousands every day, including Saudi sheikhs and Iranian mullahs? Did you know that more than one million Sudanese have become followers of Christ just since 2001. Not despite of the genocide, but because of it.

"People see what real Islam is like and they want Jesus instead," one Sudanese leader told me. Indeed, the church there is growing so fast new pastors are having to be trained in make-shift seminaries held in caves!"

Be sure to read the entire piece.

A verse in the book of John comes to mind:

John 4:35... Do you not say, It is yet four months, and the harvest comes? Behold, I say to you, Lift up your eyes and look on the fields, for they are white to harvest already.

Amy Ridenour's New Look

Be sure to check out the newly designed National Center Blog. It's a great new (old) look.

Up there now is a piece titled, A Green Texas Oil Man, by Ryan Balis, rightly critiquing the President's depiction of our 'addiction to oil.' Who was he trying to appeal to?

Not only did the president put forth a laundry list of green energy initiatives incapable of solving America's current energy woes, but he employed a rhetoric formerly only heard in leftist circles. According to the President, "we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil."

That statement abandoned conservatives' pleas to remove barriers to expanded domestic oil exploration - such as the drilling in a small portion of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (a position Mr. Bush himself alluded to in his 2002 address). It also squandered the bully pulpit in a fool's errand of leftist appeasement.

Be sure to read the whole piece.

The "oil addiction" isn't intrinsically a problem. The addiction to Middle East oil is the problem and it could be easily rectified if we just started producing more of our own oil interests. There isn't an oil and gas shortage, rather a lack of production which is stymied at every turn by the left and their green agencies.

Liberal Education Part 1

Thanks to cartoonist, MARK DEAN, and Mark Levin Fan for this and the next 'toon. Just scroll down for Part 2.

Liberal Education Part 2

This MARK DEAN 'toon brought to my attention via Mark Levin.

Oprah's Essay contest excludes Homeschoolers

Should we give her the benefit of the doubt by considering she's not aware of the homeschool movement or chide her for excluding homeschooled students' eligibility in her essay contest?

Hmmmmm...I think I'm coming down on the chiding side. Who could be oblivious to a movement that is growing exponentially with glowing results (much to the chagrin of unionized educrats across the fruited plain who run our schools)? Could it be that Oprah might be a little too politically correct to recognize the success of the homeschool phenomenon?

Why not let the homeschoolers compete with the rest of them. What does the education establishment have to lose?

UPDATE: Scott W. Somerville, over at his blog, Somerschool updates this situation. It's good news for homeschoolers...sort of.

Another Armed Incursion on Border!

What is it going to take before we put an end to armed incursions by the Mexican government? There has been yet another armed incursion on U.S./Mexico border:

An American law enforcement officer and news crew in Texas have witnessed another armed incursion into the United States by men dressed in Mexican army attire, the second such incident in just two weeks.

As before, several men dressed in Mexican military garb appeared to violate the international boundary, in Hudspeth County, Texas, some 50 miles east of El Paso, local affiliate KFOX-TV reported today. There, the U.S.-Mexico border is separated only by a shallow stretch of Rio Grande River.

The incursion was witnessed by a KFOX news crew and Hudspeth County deputy, photos of which are posted on the affiliate's website.

The deputy and news crew were on the scene Tuesday night to film a segment about last week's incursion, when the law officer noticed more "soldiers" emerge from a clearing on the U.S. side of the border.

As the deputy and news crew watched, three soldiers emerged into the clearing before one hurried back into the concealment of brush, KFOX reported. But the deputy pointed out other, larger groups of soldiers engaged in a flanking action against him and the news crew, most probably, the deputy believes, in an attempt to figure out what they were doing.

"They are doing the classic thing, flanking around each side of us and actually coming up into the U.S. and trying to figure out what we are doing; they are looking at us very heavily," said the deputy, who was not identified in the report.

At that point KFOX reporter Ben Swann asked, "So I guess it's time to go?" and the deputy answered, "Yeah, it would definitely be time to get out of here."

The deputy chose to vacate the area because he was vastly outnumbered and outgunned, the report said.

Mexican officials have said their military is forbidden from traveling within three miles of the border, though U.S. border residents have repeatedly spotted mobile patrols of Mexican military units traversing roads that run directly parallel to the international boundary. Because of the stated policy, however, Mexico says the armed men crossing into the U.S. are paramilitary forces loyal to drug-smuggling cartels.

So if the Mexican Government denies they are federales, why can't we fire on these outlaws? Why are WE the ones backing down? And why are WE the ones outgunned?

It gets worse!

Law enforcement officers in El Paso are saying the situation is getting personal:

EL PASO, TX. - According to law enforcement officials directly involved in the border incursion two weeks ago, the cross-border confrontations are "getting personal."

The confrontation started ten days ago with drug smugglers trying to bring illegal drugs across the border in SUV's east of El Paso. Mexican authorities have now removed the SUV that got stuck in the Rio Grande and was torched by men in military uniforms on January 23rd.

While there are few signs remaining of last week's standoff, matters are anything but calm in Hudspeth County. According to law enforcement officials, things are escalating on the border in Hudspeth County.

During a ride-along Thursday with the Hudspeth County Sheriff's Department, one deputy, who has been with the department since the 1960's, told ABC-7 that this is the most tense matters have ever been along this area of the border.

In the past few days, Hudspeth County Sheriff's Department deputies and their families have received threats to stay off the Rio Grande. Sheriff Arvin West told ABC-7 Thursday morning, before departing for Houston that the Mexican military is behind all of this.

Sheriff West said, "There is no doubt in my mind -- from the first time going back to a couple of years ago and every time in between --- it's the Mexican military. In a nutshell, everybody's been trying to tell everybody that they were here...they've been here ...[and] they come here quite often, regularly."

Now Sheriff West is having to deal with threats being made against his deputies and their families. One Sheriff's Deputy, who refused to appear on camera out of fear, described the situation today in Hudspeth County as "very dangerous." and now, he said, "it's getting personal."

The deputy added that "he is very leery of a firefight erupting on the border just east of El Paso."

Quote of the Day

From Peggy Noonan regarding the democrat reaction to many parts of the State of the Union speech:

"We don't know where to stand or what to stand for, and in fact we're not good at standing for anything anyway, but at least we know we can't stand Republicans. "