Sunday, April 30, 2006

Surrendered Crowns

6 [A]nd before the throne there was something like a (A) sea of glass, like crystal; and in the center and (B) around the throne, (C)f our living creatures (D) full of eyes in front and behind.

7 (E) The first creature was like a lion, and the second creature like a calf, and the third creature had a face like that of a man, and the fourth creature was like a flying eagle.

8 And the (F) four living creatures, each one of them having (G) six wings, are (H) full of eyes around and within; and (I) day and night they do not cease to say, "(J) Holy, holy, holy is the (K) LORD GOD, THE ALMIGHTY, (L) who was and who is and who is to come."

9 And when the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who (M) sits on the throne, to (N) Him who lives forever and ever, 10 the (O) twenty-four elders will (P) fall down before Him who (Q) sits on the throne, and will worship (R) Him who lives forever and ever, and will cast their (S) crowns before the throne, saying, 11 "(T) Worthy are You, our LORD and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You (U) created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created."

-Revelation 4:6-11

Illegal & Darned Proud Of It

[by Mary Mostert, Analyst, Banner of Liberty. Reposted with permission]

Activists for illegal aliens have proposed a boycott on May 1st to show, presumably, American citizens their power by staying away from work. Apparently they believe that by staying away from work it will prove that we American citizens cannot possibly function without them.

We are told that there are 10-12 million illegal aliens in this country – not all of whom are in the workforce, but millions are. They think that ''A Day Without an Immigrant'' could paralyze businesses such as farms, hotels, restaurants, hospitals and construction firms that are dependent on immigrants for much of their unskilled workforce – and, in construction, for much of the skilled workforce.

As you might expect, in America, that threat promptly generated ANOTHER idea. Mac Johnson writing for Human Events, has proposed that the rest of us use May 1, the traditional socialist labor union holiday, as a “Conservative Shopping Day.” He points out that, should the boycott take place, we will all be able to identify the businesses who are hiring illegal aliens and avoid spending our money there in the future.

Now, that is a plan I can enthusiastically support. I simply don’t believe that it is fair to put all the blame on the illegal aliens, who are, admittedly, breaking the law, when, if it were not for Americans breaking American law also by HIRING illegal aliens, most of them would not come or would go home when they found they cannot get a job. I particularly believe it is unfair to treat children, who did not make the decision to sneak into the USA, the villains after they turn the magic age of 18 by making them take the punishment for what their parents did.

My first reaction to hearing about illegal aliens marching in protest in cities across America was that they were making it really easy for law enforcement and the immigration department to locate them. That didn’t seem to me to be a very smart thing for time to do, but the marches came and went and apparently no one bothered to ask to see their papers at the end of the marches.

This seems to be related to a totally incorrect notion that the police have to KNOW you have done something illegal before asking you for you identification. Since it is not the police who have the authority to judge who is guilty and who is innocent, under the U.S. Constitution, all the police actually need to find is a probable cause to arrest someone. It is up to the courts to sort out their actual guilt or innocence – and we are all innocent under US law until we are PROVEN guilty in a court of law.

For example, if the police come across a situation where a man is lying on the ground with a bullet in his head and nearby there is a man holding a gun, they do not have to PROVE that the man holding the gun actually did the shooting. After all, he may have just picked up the gun after someone ELSE shot the victim. And, the police would not have to PROVE that people marching for the “right” of illegal aliens to break US laws were actually illegal aliens. But, obviously, many of them were and it would be logical police work for them to ask to see their proof of citizenship or valid visa.

The fact that that didn’t happen indicates to me that there really isn’t a sincere desire on the part of most Americans to actually DO anything about illegal aliens.

That is why I like Mac Johnson’s “Conservative Shopping Day.” intrigues me. Johnson noted that “The aim of the boycott is to demonstrate the purchasing power of the 11 million immigration criminals demanding amnesty…. If the boycott and strike are successful, this means that May 1 will be A DAY WITHOUT ILLEGAL ALIENS! Lines will be shorter. Clerks will all speak English. Businesses that have been honest enough to hire legal residents will be poised to finally enjoy a competitive advantage! It will be morning again in America. Every actual American should make a point to get out and support those businesses and counteract the criminal boycott movement.”

Inasmuch as it does not appear that the US Government and the local law enforcement agencies have either the inclination or the legal framework needed to identify those millions of illegal aliens and their employers, what more could we ask for than they decide to identify themselves on nationwide television? If they are needed, we could quickly find out they are needed. If they are not needed for our economy to survive, then we could round them up and escort them back to the border while arresting their employers.

So, it is my hope that on Monday the illegal aliens WILL stay away from work and school and that those who would like to support businesses who do not break the law by hiring illegal aliens WILL go out and buy stuff – whether they need it or not. We might be able to quickly come to decision as a nation, WITHOUT the congress passing any law, as to whether or not we need 11 or 12 million illegal aliens and the businesses that hire them. If we do, we change our laws. If we don’t, then we might even decide to enforce the laws we already have that makes it illegal for aliens to sneak into the country with false or no papers and illegal for American employers to employ aliens who are here illegally.

Unfortunately, the last time I checked, it was the Latino activists who were getting cold feet about the boycott. Apparently, many illegal aliens have decided they better not push their luck by staying away from work AGAIN so soon after the nationwide marches that took place in April.

Know When To Fold 'Em

A growing proportion of the center-right punditry/blogosphere is bailing on President Bush these days, and in all honesty I'm still on the fence myself. But one commentator who isn't is Thomas Lifson, who is stubbornly adhering to the old orthodoxy that Bush is poised to fool everybody into "misunderestimating" him again and pave the way for another GOP triumph in next fall's mid-term elections.

He even uses the same poker analogy:

There are two distinct aspects of President George W. Bush's persona. Measured against his immediate predecessor, who obsessively managed his daily standing in popularity polls, President Bush appears indifferent, isolated, surrounded by cronies, and even hapless, mired now in the low thirties [sic] in the polls. But when elections loom, when voters pay closer attention, and when popularity really matters, he becomes a shrewd poker player, who has lured his enemies into betting on weak

I have nicknamed the second persona "The Crawford Kid." It is an identity the President probably would never embrace, because keeping it secret keeps his opponents unwary. But they will never learn. Contempt for the President and their own ego-maintenance demands will not let them recognize reality when they are outsmarted.

The Crawford Kid doesn't swagger, pal around with floozies, or behave like most of the screen versions of a successful itinerant poker player. The Crawford Kid learned long ago that his enemies' greatest weakness is their inflated self-regard, lethally combined with withering contempt for him and his embrace of evangelical Christianity and Texas.

I have always seen George W. Bush in a different light than almost all of his opponents, and even many of his supporters. He is a trained strategist, an MBA graduate of Harvard Business School, where he learned that the point of having a strategy is to win when it counts, not just to feel good about yourself at every moment of the process.

When it counts, right at election time, Bush tends to come out much better than his enemies assumed he would. The positions they embraced when they thought he was down and out turned out to be not such a winning hand.

As comforting as that indulgence in nostalgia is, there are a number of flaws in it.

1) The last time midterm elections approached, in 2002, Bush's approval numbers were in the stratospheric seventies and eighties, not the (as of today's Rasmussen results) 38% hole they're in now. It's easy to win at poker when you own most of the chips. When you don't, even holding better cards doesn't guarantee victory - and how much more so when you have to bluff.

2) Without post-9/11 public goodwill to draw from, that made it imperative for Bush to "obsessively manage" his day-to-day popularity. As Dick Morris has rightly pointed out, without decent approval numbers it simply isn't possible to get anything done in Washington, D.C. because nobody on Capitol Hill has any political reason to submit to your lead. Or, in other words, a president with no stroke is....a lame duck. And lame ducks do not tend toward much success at poker, again, because they simply don't have enough of that famous commodity, political capital, to parlay it into a significant jackpot.

3) The reason that Bush's numbers are so low, and concommitantly the first step in rebuilding that vanished political standing, is the recognition on his part that he has, of late, and in some cases since he took office, been whizzing all over the wants, desires, and issues important to his core supporters. I refer primarily to runaway federal spending and illegal immigration, two sticking points that have, well, stuck in the craw of the Republican base but got subsumed in the overarching approval of his leadership in the GWOT. Thanks to more recent frustrations over the White House's stubbornly persistent refusal to defend its Iraq policy or trumpet its accomplishments in that theater or any other, and the hideously misguided Dubai Ports World deal - and Harriet Miers, which undercut another overarching priority, reclaiming the federal courts - Dubya's wartime mojo even with his supporters is eroding, and teeters on the edge of becoming irretrievable.

It is, in short, and will be a lot more complicated an endeavor for the President to pull another rabbit out of his hat this November than Mr. Lifson is acknowledging. And when you tiptoe through the Bush tulips from just this past week, it makes you wonder whether the "Crawford Kid" is still playing with a full deck.

***Bush has pre-emptively surrendered on ANWR drilling for this year, not even making a token attempt to counter the "populist" demogoguery about "Big Oil profiteering" and "price-gouging" and other conspiracist tinfoil hat nonsense blithering out of Congress these days - probably because it's coming from his own party's congressional leadership. Indeed, GDub even joined in the hew and cry for a(nother) federal investigation of Big Oil, although he did, with some fraying cord of sanity, manage to stop short of endorsing Arlen Specter's invocation of Jimmy Carter's old "windfall profits" tax.

***The White House is still foot-dragging on releasing its motherlode of captured Saddamite documents, and downplaying the ones it has let go - which reveal that "Saddam sponsored terror groups in the Philippines, that the Russian ambassador was passing U.S. war plans to the Iraqis, that Saddam approved meetings of Iraqi government officials and al-Qaeda, and Afghani sources claimed Iraqi intelligence was cooperating with the Taliban and al-Qaeda." The Bushies are also still leaving untouched "all of the Democrats who spent most of the 1990s lamenting that the first President Bush didn’t finish the job and go on to Baghdad in 1991". Oh, yes, and the Iraqis broke their political impasse and have a new prime minister. A fact you'd never know if you only had the White House press office as your source of news.

***GWB has [drumroll, please] threatened a veto of his own request for supplemental funding for the global war on terrorism and hurricane-related relief if the price tag comes in at anything above $92 billion. Which would be all very-very and to-to if not for the fact that we've seen this particular song & dance so many times before. Witness last year's obscene highway bill, which Bush vowed to veto if it exceeded an itself-bloated $284 billion. Congress just laughed at him because of his failure to veto ANYTHING in his entire presidency. And sure enough, the bill came to something like $40 billion over his designated ceiling, and Bush meekly signed it because his veto would have easily and inevitably been overridden.

Remember what I said above about presidential stroke. It's a lot like what Mick Foley once wrote about wrestling props: If you come to the ring with a guitar or a bullrope or a skateboard and never play/use it, fans will know you can't. And if presidents threaten vetoes but never issue them, Congresses will stop taking the threats seriously. And whaddaya know, the Senate is already $24 billion past Bush's limit on its version of the bill - think anybody in the upper chamber is listening to a word that he's saying?

***Last Tuesday the President went into a dark, smoke-filled White House room and cut a deal with the open-borders side of the congressional immigration fracas behind the backs of their border security opponents, who were not even invited to be in attendance, much less participate. Remember that this puts Bush (1) on the side of Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, and their RINO stooges, and (2) in the position of flipping the double-bird at two-thirds of the American electorate, prompting the ordinarily measured and temperate Cap'n Ed to thunder:

The Bush Administration is about to go squishy on a national-security issue, and....this....has real security implications for the US. It is a national disgrace that more than four years after 9/11, we still have not credibly secured our southern border. During a war in which our enemy moves primarily by stealth and attacks exclusively through individual or small-group terrorist actions, allowing the unfettered movement of people on the vast scale we see presents a clear danger to our nation. Instead of focusing on that, the President has aligned himself with Democrats and the handful of Republicans who put political correctness (and political expediency) ahead of their Constitutional duties.

The President spent the remainder of the week trying to pathetically hide from the implications and consequences of his not exactly undisguised pro-amnesty stance and the blanket betrayal by which it was delivered - which Mr. Morrissey aptly christened, "this Republican president conspiring with Harry Reid to give him political cover with immigration hard-liners in his own party."

In his linked post above, Jim Geraghty echoes my conclusion that.... of the big reasons the President is in trouble is that his defenders are tired. We see these examples, we remember these examples, we blog about these arguments – but the White House press operation itself too often seems quiet, muted, defensive and milquetoast.

But it's emails like Michelle Malkin has been cc'd on that should be blasting the Bushies out of this maddening complacency of theirs - these three in particular:

No amnesty. No "guest worker" status. No sellout!

Enforce existing law. Deport illegal aliens to their country of origin. Enforce the border to combat illegal traffic of people, drugs, weapons, biohazards.

What part of "preserve, protect, and defend" doesn't my President understand?


I have a message for the President. The White House is not an Ivory Tower, where you can exercise your power by thumbing your nose at the American people, all the while exclaiming 'Neener, neener, neener.' Every time you fling your fighting words at us, sir, and your smug attitude, it is only inspiration for us to fight for what is right. And we will.

There will be no guest worker amnesty. There will be border security and there will be law enforcement. The people have spoken.
And what form might their words ultimately take?

Mr. President: I am a member of the Republican Base. I give money and the five members of my family vote in every election. I have supported you through all of your troubles because I always thought you had the Country's best interests at heart. I am so disgusted with the current path that immigration reform is going, that I no longer support you. SECURE THE BORDERS AND NO AMNESTY. My family nd I will no longer stand in line to vote for Republicans who act like Democrats. [Emphasis added]

Sure, that'll just give this GOP grass-rootser Democrats who act like Democrats, but when it comes to betrayals of principle, rational calculation has little to do with Pachyderm thought processes. Something for which Bush the son once had a front-row seat with his dad's self-destructed presidency, and which he vowed never to repeat. Until now, it seems.

Preserving a Republican majority this fall ought not be analogous to drawing to an inside straight, but if this past week alone is any indication, the only player the Crawford Kid is successfully bluffing is himself.

"Champion Of The Earth"

From National Review Online's Window on the Week:

Reluctant though we are to flog the dead mule that is the United Nations, we can't resist commenting on its bestowal of a "Champion of the Earth" award to Massoumeh Ebtekar, Iran's erstwhile vice president and head of the department of environment. Miss Ebtekar was rewarded for her commitment "to protect life on earth," primarily by introducing clean production technologies into Iran's petrochemical industry. She is better known to Westerners as "Screaming Mary," the sobriquet she earned as main spokesman for the hostage-takers of 1979. Asked at that time whether she would be willing to shoot the captives herself, she responded, "Yes. When I've seen an American gun being lifted up and killing my brothers and sisters in the streets, of course." She remains an adamant defender of the mullahs' regime, which is furiously trying to build a nuclear arsenal. Ah, yes: There's nothing quite like a commitment "to protect life on earth."

Unbelievable, ain't it?

A Can Of Worms

I'm back on my uncle's emailing list again. I don't really know how I ever fell off of it, but now I get his daily chuckles again, of which this one is a good example:

A minister decided that a visual demonstration would add emphasis to his Sunday sermon. Four worms were placed into four separate jars. The first worm was put into a container of alcohol. The second worm was put into a container of cigarette smoke. The third worm was put into a container of chocolate syrup. The fourth worm was put into a container of good clean soil.

At the conclusion of the sermon, the Minister reported the following results: The first worm in alcohol - dead. The second worm in cigarette smoke - dead. Third worm in chocolate syrup - dead. Fourth worm in good clean soil - alive.

So the Minister asked the congregation - What can you learn from this demonstration? A little old woman in the back quickly raised her hand and said, "As long as you drink, smoke and eat chocolate, you won't have worms!"

Don't you just love little old ladies????

Indeed. My only question, though, is what about the fish?

VBC Missionaries Of The Week: Ryan & Stephanie Buczak

The Buczaks are VBC missionaries in training. Ryan plans on using the aviation abilities God has given him as a tool for church-planting in remote areas. He is currently studying at Piedmont Baptist College and will finish in 2008. The couple is seriously considering Togo or Paraguay as a future mission field. Stephanie grew up in Valley Bible Church and has been interested in missions since the age of twelve. She has been on mission trips to Venezuela, Triniadad, and Austria in 2002.

Saturday, April 29, 2006

Lifted From The Depths

1 I (A) waited [a] patiently for the LORD; and He inclined to me and (B) heard my cry.

2 He brought me up out of the (C) pit of destruction, out of the miry clay, and (D) He set my feet upon a rock (E) making my footsteps firm.

3 He put a (F) new song in my mouth, a song of praise to our God; many will (G) see and fear and will trust in the LORD.

4 How (H) blessed is the man who has made the LORD his trust, and (I) has not turned to the proud, nor to those who (J) lapse into falsehood.

5 Many, O LORD my God, are (K) the wonders which You have done, and Your (L) thoughts toward us; there is none to compare with You. If I would declare and speak of them, they (M) would be too numerous to count.

-Psalm 40:1-5

Most Beautiful Family??

Talk about *sickening*. People magazine has named Angelina Jolie one of its Most Beautiful People, and her Pitt & kids relationship as Most Beautiful Family. Unbelievable. She breaks up a marriage, gets pregnant before getting married, and her adopted children and new baby will almost certainly grow up in a broken home. Unless, of course, you think she and Brad will live in married bliss for the rest of their lives. No...just until one of them falls for another co-star, then it's bye-bye to the world's Most Beautiful Family.

I never understood the angst over Pitt and Anniston's breakup. Like you expect a Hollywood marriage to last?

And no, before you ask, I don't read that parade of phonies called People Magazine. I read this on Fox's web site.

Friday, April 28, 2006

Tramps & Pilgrims

13 (A) All these died in faith, (B) without receiving the promises, but (C) having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and (D) having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on Earth.

14 For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own.

15 And indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, (E) they would have had opportunity to return.

16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a (F) heavenly one. Therefore (G) God is not ashamed to be (H) called their God; for (I) He has prepared a city for them.

-Hebrews 11:13-16

Stick To It, President Bush!

Over at the Heritage Foundation, where they haven't been terribly excited over President' Bush's fiscal policies, they are happy about his leadership regarding this latest supplemental funding bill for the War on Terror and Katrina victims.

The House quickly passed, with few changes, President George W. Bush’s request for $92 billion of supplemental funding for the global war on terrorism and hurricane-related relief. However, the Senate Appropriations Committee, in a stunning move of fiscal irresponsibility, veered far off course, adding $14 billion of non-emergency spending unrelated to the original purpose of the bill. While some senators vow to strip out this additional spending, others are readying amendments to add $10 billion more to the bill, bringing it $24 billion over the President’s request and vastly expanding its scope. But now the dynamic has changed. Last night, the White House supplied the firm leadership needed to stop the Senate from hijacking this supplemental by issuing a strongly-worded promise to veto the bill if the extraneous spending is not removed. This line in the sand deserves high praise.

Once Bush says he will do something, he does it, so I think we can count on him sticking to his guns here. Perhaps he is finally hearing the ever-increasing sound of conservatives growling about the government's runaway spending.

Cavuto Nails Durbin

This is great. Of all the slugs in Congress, and there are many, Dick Durbin ranks down there with the worst. In this interview with Neil Cavuto, he is ranting and raving about the "Big Oil" companies and their record profits. Cavuto nails him with the fact that the oil companies' profit is about 9 cents per gallon, and the tax bite (the government profit) is about 50 cents per gallon. As Cavuto asked, "Who's doing the gouging?" Watch Durbin splutter...guess he forgot he wasn't talking to Chris Matthews.

How Bad Was My Day?

Look at the date/time of this post. I haven't gone home yet. And I didn't get near even reading today's headlines, much less blogging about any of them. If I hadn't had to run all of a co-worker's errands today, during which I picked up a frantically rushed bite to eat, I wouldn't have eaten in over thirty hours. And all because of a monster spreadsheet I had to whip up from scratch with only a day in which to do it, all the while being interrupted every five minutes by the !#$%^&* phone or the !#$%^&* doorbell, because my boss is leaving town Saturday. And I'm still not done with it, though I am hopefully close. And he said it didn't have to be "elaborate"! I wish that had turned out to be true.

This pushed everything I would ordinarily have done today into tomorrow, which is precisely where I don't need it. That co-worker is going to be giving me a big hand tomorrow, I can tell you that.

I hope it'll be enough.

Thursday, April 27, 2006

In Conference

1 It happened that while Jesus was praying in a certain place, after He had finished, one of His disciples said to Him, "LORD, teach us to pray just as John also taught his disciples."

2 And He said to them, "(A) When you pray, say: '[a]Father, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come.

3 'Give us (B) each day our daily bread. 4 'And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves also forgive everyone who (C) is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.'"

5 Then He said to them, "Suppose one of you has a friend, and goes to him at midnight and says to him, 'Friend, lend me three loaves; 6 for a friend of mine has come to me from a journey, and I have nothing to set before him'; 7 and from inside he answers and says, 'Do not bother me; the door has already been shut and my children and I are in bed; I cannot get up and give you anything.'

8 "I tell you, even though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, yet (D) because of his persistence he will get up and give him as much as he needs.

9 "So I say to you, (E) ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.

10 "For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened.

11"Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he?

12 "Or if he is asked for an egg, he will not give him a scorpion, will he?

13 "(F) If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?"

-Luke 11:1-13

New Jersey Candid Camera

This news story has GOT to be a parody:

If there ever was a political honeymoon for Governor Jon Corzine, it appears to be over.

In his first four months in office, the Democrat has proposed an increase in the sales tax and broken a promise to give homeowners dramatic relief from the highest property taxes in the nation.

Corzine's approval ratings have sunk, and fellow Democrats in the Legislature are hesitant to back his budget plan.

"He did a great job as senator. You would just figure it would carry over as governor," said disappointed Democrat Neil Harry Lori, a plumber from Montclair who liked Corzine's liberal record in the Senate, especially his 2002 vote against authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq.

Corzine said he is unmoved by such troubles, arguing that tough decisions are needed to right a state with chronic tax and budget problems.

"It is time we face it directly and squarely," the governor said last week. "It won't always be pretty politics."

I'm telling you, this can't be on the level. It has to be a joke. And April Fool's Day was almost four weeks ago. We're expected to believe that in a state that has been ruined by one-party Donk rule and its high-tax, profligate, suffocatingly regulatory statism, the plumber from Montclair typifies the voters who elected YET ANOTHER DONK to keep the same ruinous one-party rule in place; that he cites as one of his principle reasons Corzine's vote against the Iraq war resolution, which has no relevance to the governorship of New Jersey unless the Fedeyeen Saddam suddenly attack Hackensack; and that he is actually surprised that Corzine would (1) break a tax-cutting promise, (2) raise taxes instead, and (3) be not just unrepentant but actually proud of it.

Honeymoon, my fanny. Watch a recall movement arise in the Garden State (I know, I know, the Jersey courts would squash it no matter what their election law says, but work with me here), Corzine get thrown out on his big, bald, sanctimonious ass, and then Jersey voters replace him - with another Democrat!

Who says you can't skin a cat more than once? And is it any wonder that George Carlin once said, "Kiss her where it smells, take her to New Jersey"?

Gas And Hot Air

It has been almost amusing, if not so maddening, to watch the Democrats weep, wail, and sob over gas prices. Their hypocrisy is just stunning to watch. Ann Coulter sums it up pretty well in her latest column:

I would be more interested in what the Democrats had to say about high gas prices if these were not the same people who refused to let us drill for oil in Alaska, imposed massive restrictions on building new refineries, and who shut down the development of nuclear power in this country decades ago.

Yes, these are the same people who are horrified that we might misplace a few caribou if we drill in ANWR for our own oil. Apparently the caribou are more important than those "working families" we keep hearing about.

The last time the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the presidency was in 1993. Immediately after trying to put gays in the military and socialize all health care, Clinton's next order of business was to propose an energy tax on all fuels, including a 26-cent tax on gas. I think the bill was called "putting people first in line at the bus station." This is the Democratic Party. That's their program.

How like the Democrats to screw an issue up royally, then blame the Republicans. And how like the Republicans to let them.

The Democrats' proposed gas tax did cause a revolution at home, and consequently the Democrats were able to sneak through only an additional 4.3-cent federal tax on gasoline. After tut-tutting the idea that voters would object if the Democrats attempted a huge gas tax increase, Speaker Tom Foley soon became former speaker, and indeed former Congressman Tom Foley.

Gary Hart, another whimsical demonstration of what Democrats think a president should be like, said at the time, "I certainly favor consumption taxes, particularly on energy." Then there's John Kerry, who favored a 50-cent increase in the gas tax in 1994. If he were a rap artist, Kerry's stage name would be "Fifty Cent a Gallon."

They all thought that high gas prices were wonderful back then, why, it would reduce global warming because fewer people would be driving! They should be the happieset people in the world right now, if happiness were possible for a liberal.

How many times do Democrats have to tell us they want to raise the price of gas for the average American before the average American believes them? Is it more or less than the number of times Democrats tell us they want to surrender in the war on terrorism?

It's as if a switch goes off in people's brains telling them: The Democrats can't be saying they want to destroy the lives of people who drive cars because my father was a Democrat, and the Democrats can't be this stupid!

Think about many people do you know who hold the same conservative values you do, yet still vote Democrat because their family always has? I can name several of my acquaintances like that right off the top of my head. One of my friends, a fine Christian lady, votes Democrat because her daddy was a Democrat. Yet she is as pro-life and fiscally conservative as I am. Even when I try and educate her about what the Democrats really stand for, it's like a wall goes up. I don't understand it. My brother is another example. He is vehemently pro-gun rights, anti-homosexual marriage, etc. etc...but he's a union member, therefore he reads their propaganda and unfortunately believes it.

Back to Ann's column:

The Democrats' only objection to current gas prices is that the federal government's cut is a mere 18.4 cents a gallon. States like New York get another 44 cents per gallon in taxes. The Democratic brain processes the fact that "big oil companies" get nearly 9 cents a gallon and thinks: WE SHOULD HAVE ALL THAT MONEY!

When the free market does the exact thing liberals have been itching to do through taxation, they pretend to be appalled by high gas prices, hoping the public will forget that high gas prices are part of their agenda.

That's right. They aren't appalled at the profit the GOVERNMENT makes from every gallon of gas, are they? Even though it is more than twice what the "big oil companies" get. I must admit I didn't know until I read it on Rush's site what the actual profit is for the oil companies. Yet, I'll bet 9 out of 10 people you ask are mad at the OIL COMPANIES rather than the government for the high prices.

What a mess.

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Be True To Your Word

33"Again, (A) you have heard that the ancients were told, '(B) You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the LORD.'

34 "But I say to you, (C) make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is (D) the throne of God,
35 or by Earth, for it is the (E) footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is (F) the city of the Great King.

36 "Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.

37 "But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of (G) evil.

-Matthew 5:33-37

United 93: Roll It?

[posted by Kay Ryan]

Last night A&E TV aired the film about hijacked United Flight 93 that crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. Much ado was made of the timing of the release...too soon, too painful, opens old wounds? All of that is soooo true, but memories are fading for Americans not directly affected by the horrible carnage we on the East Coast experienced that clear, beautiful day in September 2001.

It's time to refresh memories...time to forcefully defend ourselves against the barbarians still at large and lethal. Unite and support our President's sincere efforts to prevent more American deaths at the hands of ruthless jihadis.

As to the film, all victims' families approved of Paul Greengrass's sensitive portrayal in real time(90 minutes) of the 40 brave souls who stormed the cockpit and gave their lives so that others would live...Live to avenge their sacrifice.......This film is a must see for those that oppose our aggressive offensive against al Qaeda and radical Islam. Many have come to believe that if we just leave them alone (like wasps) they won't bother us...Watch this film and judge for yourself the accuracy of that naive conclusion...It's hard to watch, but film should be an important part of the dialogue...United 93 is the first in five that the ice is broken, expect to see Hollywood jump into the mix with a blockbuster about 9/11.

Lights, camera, action...roll it!! Lest we forget.

Snow (Gets The) Job

[posted by Kay Ryan]

Fox News contributor, journalist and radio talk show host, Tony Snow, will replace Scott McClellan as White House press secretary next week.

Since Tony Snow is recovering from colon cancer he had to delay acceptance of the President's offer until he received a go ahead from his doctors. This job is tiring for a well man..I wonder if Tony will be able to keep up with the tirade of hard questions hurled at the poor guy at the podium...EVERY day?

Tony Snow is familar with all the press critters and they with him. Already the Lefties have circulated an email containing Snow's negative remarks about the President: "...he's become somewhat of an embarrassment"..and more of Snow's popular rants. I believe you can read it all right here...y'all can look it up.

Snow has a special relationship with the President since he was a speech writer for his father. Supposedly he'll be in the loop and will be able to offer advice as to the presentation of Administration events and policy to the public. Perhaps he might even insist that the press use some ink on such matters as: Mary McCarthy's leak of classified information about foreign prisons, obviously harmful to National Security and her dismissal for breaking her pledge of secrecy with the CIA? Perhaps he might even discuss whether it's beneficial to national security if a "shadow CIA" that leaks at the pleasure of the Democratic Party is helpful to our success with the War on Terror? NSA surveillance too. Geeeze, it's outrageous that Dana Priest got a Pulitzer instead of jail time?

In short, Tony Snow can turn the tables and ask the most important question in every election since 9/ll..."Can Democrats be trusted with National Security?" OR, is their hatred for GW Bush and lust for power more important than prosecuting any Democrat for treason OR protecting this country?

Raza-ist de los Americanos?

After reading this, you won't need any caffeine this morning:

A new poll on Mexican attitudes towards the U.S. debate on illegal immigration has found that a large plurality of those surveyed say Americans who favor tighter border security are "racist."

The survey, co-sponsored by the Dallas Morning News and Mexico's El Universal newspaper, found that the largest segment of respondents - 43% - cited racism as the chief reason that Americans oppose illegal immigration.

A much smaller number - 16% - said U.S. citizens are most concerned about law enforcement. Just 14% think Americans are not racist, but fear being overrun by foreign cultures.

That's rich coming, at least in part, from reconquistadors who run around bellowing "Aribe la raza!!!" on a regular basis. It reminds me of Hawaii's rejected state motto: "Haka tiki mou sha'ami leeki toru"(Death to mainland scum, but leave your money). Except that in this case it's more like, "You're all racists but give us all your money AND your country." Indeed, playing the race card should be designated a corollary to Godwin's Law as an indication that its player has already lost the illegal immigration debate.

Maybe Mexicans should take a look at their own government's immigration policy, which is enormously more restrictive than is ours. I'd call it racist except that, well, nobody really wants to immigrate TO Mexico anyway. Perhaps there's a reason for that, too.

Hillary Clinton, BTW, who has lost many a debate but most definitely wants to win the next presidential election, has once again gotten to the GOP's right by coming out in favor of a border wall. I guess that means the reconquistadors will finally have a "racist" president they can like. After she, you know, changes her mind the morning after the election.

Hey, some traditions are eternal.

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Life Is Real

1 Be gracious to me, O God, for man has (A) trampled upon me; fighting all day long he (B) oppresses me.

2 My foes have (C) trampled upon me all day long, for they are many who (D) fight proudly against me.

3 When I am (E) afraid, I will (F) put my trust in You.

4 (G) In God, whose word I praise, in God I have put my trust; I shall not be afraid. (H) What can mere man do to me?

5 All day long they [a](I) distort my words; all their (J) thoughts are against me for evil.

6 They [b](K) attack, they lurk, they (L) watch my steps, as they have (M) waited to take my life.

7 Because of wickedness, (N) cast them forth, in anger (O) put down the peoples, O God!

8 You (P) have taken account of my wanderings; put my (Q) tears in Your bottle. Are they not in (R) Your book?

9 Then my enemies will (S) turn back (T) in the day when I call; this I know, [c] that (U) God is for me.

10 In God, whose word I praise, in the LORD, whose Word I praise, 11 in God I have put my [d] trust, I shall not be afraid. What can man do to me?

12 Your (V) vows are binding upon me, O God; I will render thank offerings to You.

13 For You have (W) delivered my soul from death, indeed (X) my feet from stumbling, so that I may (Y)walk before God in the (Z) light of the living.

-Psalm 56

Snow Storm

Looks like Fox's Tony Snow is about to become the new White House press secretary. Could this mean that the Bushies have finally figured out that in politics, the ability to communicate effectively (and often) actually matters?

Hey, it must be a good hire if it has Quin-boy slobbering.

UPDATE 4/26: It didn't take the extreme Left long to start unloading on Tony Snow, but I have to say I'm not real impressed with the crap they came up with.

But then, when am I ever?

Republicrats Rising

...or sinking, depending upon how one looks at it.

The most diplomatic way I can look at it is that I don't understand what GOP poobahs are thinking these days. I really don't.

Just take a gander at this:

Rhode Island Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee says arrogance by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration has hurt the U.S. handling of the war in Iraq.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Chafee said the Administration has a dismissive attitude and has been unwilling to listen to outsiders.

He calls it "the arrogance factor."

Chafee said he shares the concerns about Rumsfeld's management style raised by a half-dozen retired generals, and urged Bush to meet with them.
"Linc" is reading from Democrat talking points. Period. And while he might escape this faux pas with the excuse that his Republican primary challenger, Steve Laffey, is also obtusely calling for Rummy's ouster, it is far from his only one. The very fact that Chaffey didn't vote for his own president's and party leader's re-election ought to be pretty decisive as to where he's coming from. He's a Republican running and governing as a Democrat. He's a RINO if there ever was one.

So why is the Republican party backing Chaffey to the hilt? I don't understand.

As the AmSpecBlog boys put it, "the boys are back in town," and look at what their next order of business is going to be:

[N]othing captures Congressional nonsense better than Republican attempts to out-Democrat Democrats on gas prices. There's a populist demand to "do something," in spite of a spate of articles calmly explaining why the gas prices reflect lower supply and higher demand - basic economics. Instead of explaining the facts and sticking to market principles, Bill Frist and Denny Hastert will reportedly request an investigation into higher gas prices.

And guess who'll be leading that investigation:

The government should consider a tax on oil companies if they make excessive profits amid rising gasoline prices, a leading Republican senator said Sunday.

Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said a windfall profits tax, along with measures to stem concentration of market power among a few select oil companies, could offer eventual relief to consumers hurting at the gas pump.

"I believe that we have allowed too many companies to get together to reduce competition," Specter said.

"They get together, reduce the supply of oil, and that drives up prices," he said. "In the short run, it's hard to deal with it for tomorrow. But I think windfall profits, eliminating the antitrust exemption, considering the excessive concentration of power are all items we ought to be addressing."
The Democrats were gleefully endorsing their opponents' suicidal adoption of their statist/interventionst approach - Senator Carl Levin got off the yowler that if President Bush backed this vicious assault on the energy industry, gas prices would plunge "within days" - but that's to be expected. Heck, I don't even begrudge it. The party of the Left should celebrate such an abject policy surrender from the party that is supposed to represent the Right, and sure as the devil wasn't elected to majority control to attack "Big Oil" for the idiocies of Big Government.

This isn't even the first time that this "Republican" Congress has gone down this cul de sac. But brother are they all getting in on it - Frist and Hastert, House Majority Leader John Boehner, and the White House is already running up the white flag on ANWR drilling for this year (and ordering a probe into "price gouging"). Even their rhetoric - "Republicans are sending a strong signal to would-be gasoline price gougers tat they will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law," cried Boehner's press release entitled GOP Leaders Take Action on Energy Prices to Safeguard Growing Economy. Next thing you know they'll all be showing up at Capitol Hill pressers wearing capes and big "R"s on their chests.

Which isn't to say that all Republicans are hopeless. Quin-boy noticed Bob Livingston on Fox News last Friday taking Eleanor Clift to school on energy policy:

She started in with all the tommyrot about how the high prices are Bush's fault, but he blew her out of the park with a concise list of policy mistakes for the last thirty years that led us to this point. E.g., Regs that keep refineries from being built. Regs that pretty much killed (until last year's energy bill, in one of that bill's few good provisions) the development of nuke energy here for thirty years. Prohibition of drilling within about a zillion miles of the oh-so-precious Florida coast, and in ANWR, AND off the coast even of states that want drilling (or appear to) such as Virginia. And so on. Note that all these policies go back to the Jimmy Carter days. Livingston made the case; he made it strongly and effectively.

But there's one thing different about Livingston as compared with his GOP colleagues - he's no longer in Congress. Which means that in his mind he has nothing to lose by being an unabashed advocate of free market energy policies, whereas Hastert and Fristy and the rest obviously (and foolishly) think they do.

Contrast this with Hugh Hewitt's downright pleading for some hint of a spine from the majority on energy policy:

[T]he House and Senate leadership have got to push ANWR to the center of the debate over gas prices. Juan Williams demonstrated on Fox News Sunday why the left cannot be taken seriously on energy. Brit Hume and Bill Kristol could not conceal their astonishment at Williams' inability to grasp the connection between prices and supply.

The good news is that voters are not going to be fooled by the arguments that untapped oil supplies don't matter to gas prices - if the debate actually occurs. Given the public's daily collision with the left's refusal to allow America to use its own oil, it will by legislative and political malpractice if the Republicans do not bring ANWR up for debate least monthly between now and November. [emphases added]
The debate is not going to occur because Republicans are "so scared of Dem-ogoguery that they run screaming away like scared two-year-olds," even though this is a fight tailor-made for them to win.

And yet despite it all, GOP governance will almost certainly continue.

I don't understand it.

UPDATE: NRO has a great deal to say about this topic today.

UPDATE 4/26: Comparing the President of the United States unfavorably to Chucky Schumer? Wow, Tony Blankley has really taken the gloves off.

No Cuffs?

This is amazing! Why isn't Mary McCarthy in jail? Andrew McCarthy has a great piece up over at National Review Online asking this question:

There are countless questions that arise out of the CIA's dismissal of a prominent intelligence officer, Mary O. McCarthy (no relation), for leaking classified information to the media. But one in particular springs to mind right now: Why isn't she in handcuffs?

Indeed. Where are the Dems and all of their righteous indignation now that we have a legitimate traitor? Woops, that's right, she's in the "correct" party and donates to the "right" people, so it's strictly hands off. Read A. McCarthy's description of what she did and what damage was done. And Dana Priest won a Pulitzer for writing about it. Aren't Democrats wonderful?

As a result of all this, McCarthy was fired, stripped of her security clearance, and escorted from the CIA's premises last Thursday. Yet, she has not been arrested.

More alarmingly, according to government officials who spoke to the Washington Post, she may not even be the subject of a criminal investigation. Indeed, unnamed Justice Department lawyers reportedly told the Times that McCarthy's "termination could mean she would be spared criminal prosecution."

This is hard to fathom. Federal law, specifically, Section 793(d) of Title 18, United States Code, clearly makes it an offense, punishable by up to ten years' imprisonment, for anyone who lawfully has access to national defense information — including information which "the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" — to willfully communicate that information to any person not entitled to have it.
McCarthy had access to classified information about our wartime national defense activities by virtue of her official position at the CIA. The compromise of that information appears to have been devastating to U.S. intelligence efforts — in wartime, no less. CIA Director Porter Goss testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee in February that the "damage" from leaks "has been very severe to our capabilities to carry out our mission." The unauthorized disclosures were also, patently, a boon to several foreign nations, which have used it to put immense pressure — under the guise of international law — on countries that heretofore have been willing to run the risk of helping the United States battle terrorists.

Imagine, just imagine, if she were a Republican shill who gave a large percentage of her salary to George Bush and the Republican party. Think Queen Nancy would be quiet? Think Harry Reid would give her a pass as he is Mary McCarthy? Talk about front page screaming headlines, it would be Abu Ghraib all over again, times 10.

In the same vein, head over Rush Limbaugh's site and read how he connects the dots on all of these Clintonoids and their attempts to undermine this Administration. It's an interesting read. He calls the Democrats the "Culture of Treason" and he's right. They've been proving that since our military has been fighting to protect their sorry butts and their right to do everything they can to sabotage their mission.

I really, fervently hope the Republicans wake up and start fighting back a lot harder before November rolls around. They're running out of time, and it's difficult to express how horrible it would be to have the Democrats in charge of protecting this country.

JASmius adds: Kudos to Jen for getting to this story quicker than I could. I do have some additional thoughts of my own on the matter.

For one thing, if there had ever been a right-wing mole burrowed anywhere within the Clinton administration who had done anything anywhere near what Ms. McCarthy did (say, to undermine Mr. Bill's unconscionable post-impeachment aggression against Serbia in 1999), they not only would have been fired, and denounced by the White House and its Extreme Media allies as a traitor, but would doubtless have been prosecuted as such. And Republicans, naturally, would have tripped all over their trunks fleeing for the tall grass, echoing the libs' denunciations in as panicky obsequious a fashion as humanly (or rodently) possible. And, naturally, all to no avail - remember the Oklahoma City bombing?

But no. Nothing of the sort will happen in response to what has to be dubbed "NeoMcCarthyism." Indeed, not only is this admitted felon being lionized by the same press that continues to denounce Scooter Libby (who never did anything except suffer the "memory lapses" that were a patented tactic of the Clinton crowd) as a proxie for Bush and Cheney, but Donk pols are stampeding to embrace her.

Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ):

Senator Robert Menendez, D-NJ, called on President Bush to hold accountable
those in his Administration who leaked information about the Iraq intelligence in the run-up to the war and outed undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame. "Apparently, President Bush doesn't believe what's good for the CIA is good for the White House," Menendez said.

One small problem with that "analysis": the President doesn't "leak" by definition. He can release any information he damn well chooses. Ms. McCarthy did not have that authority.

John "Patriot" Kerry:

… Here's my fundamental view of this, that you have somebody being fired from the CIA for allegedly telling the truth, and you have no one fired from the White House for revealing a CIA agent in order to support a lie. That underscores what's really wrong in Washington, DC here. …
Has John Kerry ever had a "fundamental view"? Oh, yes, he did back in 1971 when he betrayed his country. And he does it again here. Whether or not Ms. McCarthy was "telling the truth," allegedly or otherwise, it was against the f'ing law for her to reveal classified information. It was, in a word, treasonous. Whereas Valerie Wilson was not a CIA "agent," and was not "covert," and therefore had no "cover" to be revealed. And it was her husband, Yellowcake Joe, who was telling the lies. And they, McCarthy, and Dana Priest, and Sandy Berger, and a chain of human filth stretching back to ol' Sick Willie himself, ultimately, are all fellow travelers doing what comes naturally to them: doing everything in their power to ruin the country so long as they cannot rule it.

Remember when Sandy Berger's burglary of classified documents from the National Archives caused then-presidential candidate John Kerry to quietly ax him as his national security aide? McCarthy was a contributer to Kerry's campaign, but Mr. Winter Soldier doesn't look embarrassed or skittish to me.

What concerns me most about this business is the Bushies' limp response to it. It was that whole "New Tone" idiocy that allowed all those Clintonoid holdovers to remain infested throughout the permanent bureaucracy in the first place. Once 9/11 hit it became a fait accompli that they would go into DEFCON-1 ass-covering mode for their slimewad of a boss by waging covert political war against his overly forgiving naif of a successor. If any of their operatives got caught, the Extreme Media would guarantee there'd be no public relations consequences to anything but their criminal prosecution.

And McCarthy probably isn't even going to be investigated.

How is it that George Bush can recognize our foreign enemies so clearly (other than the Iranian mullahs, that is) but be so blind to their domestic counterparts, who are the former's last, best hope of victory?

Monday, April 24, 2006

Relevant Routine

1 There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a (A) time for every event under heaven - 2 a time to give birth and a (B) time to die; a time to plant and a time to uproot what is planted; 3 a (C) time to kill and a time to heal; a time to tear down and a time to build up; 4 a time to (D) weep and a time to (E) laugh; a time to mourn and a time to (F) dance; 5 a time to throw stones and a time to gather stones; a time to embrace and a time to shun embracing; 6 a time to search and a time to give up as lost; a time to keep and a time to throw away; 7 a time to tear apart and a time to sew together; a time to (G) be silent and a time to speak; 8 a time to love and a time to (H) hate; a time for war and a time for peace.

9 (I) What profit is there to the worker from that in which he toils?

10 I have seen the (J) task which God has given the sons of men with which to occupy themselves.

11 He has (K) made everything [a] appropriate in its time He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man (L) will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end.

12 I know that there is (M) nothing better for them than to rejoice and to do good in one's lifetime; 13 moreover, that every man who eats and drinks sees good in all his labor - it is the (N) gift of God.

-Ecclesiastes 3:1-13

Whose Lie Is It Anyway?

Last Thursday it was Senator Hairplugs' turn in the Bush defamation rotation, and he certainly had his stuff with him:

Senator Joe Biden, D-DE, says President Bush has no credibility among leaders of foreign nations when it comes to discussions of foreign policy.

Biden, appearing on MSNBC’s Imus in the Morning show, said Bush lost credibility when weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq and his reluctance to apologize for "coming clean on Iraq” is hurting the nation’s reputation abroad.

"The President has yet to be straight with the American people on what the deal in Iraq is,” Biden said. "All the way back since Abu Ghraib, the President has yet to be straight about the mistakes he has made ... He has no credibility. No one believes the President of the United States on matters of foreign policy.”

Actually, there are hundreds of millions of people who believe the President of the United States on matters of foreign policy, and some of them are actually foreign leaders. It's just that Slow Joe and his ilk are still trying to sabotage the credibility he earned between 9/11 and the liberation of Iraq three full years later. As is always the case with liberals, they never admit defeat when they lose elections. For them 2004 settled nothing, and so they continue flogging away at the same discredited canards in the blind faith that doing so long enough will finally convince the public to side with them. That Albert Einstein once defined that as insanity apparently doesn't phase them at all.

Another way to look at it is that they are still sore that Bush won't take their day-glo obvious bait and jump through their hoops, which is what the stale, tiresome "admit his mistakes/come clean" mantra means. Not much given to subtlety, the Delaware blowhard confirmed it with another demand that Don Rumsfeld be canned. Biden's not real big on originality, either.

The irony is that if he and his fellow-travelers would change one consonant - exchanging an "n" for a "q" - he'd actually be making some sense. It's Bush's refusal to apply the doctrine that bears his name to Iran and its Hitlerian, nuke-obsessed frontman that is bleeding his foreign policy credibility, not the reconstruction going on next door, which bears not the slightest resemblance to left-wing annihilation fantasies. Indeed, the Iraqi democratic process just passed another milestone:

The selection of a compromise prime minister in Iraq [Jawad al-Maliki] is a major victory for that country’s fledgling political class, and for the Bush Administration. Purveyors of doom on Iraq now have some explaining to do: If the country is in the midst of a full-scale civil war fatal to our project there, how is it that elected representatives of the major factions were able to sit down and hammer out an agreement on the top positions in a national unity government? Iraq pessimists act like they have a special immunity from ever having to recalibrate their view of the conflict, as they instead move on to the latest iteration of their metaphysical despair.

Libs act like that because they do have a "special immunity," at least as far as the Extreme Media is concerned. The thing is, the Bushies never challenge them either, apparently permanently content to serve as Democrat punching bags until Dubya's second term expires. But either way it wouldn't change Donk talking points because for them expressing the same wish incessantly makes it so. They want the President politically crippled in time of war; they want our enemies to win in Iraq; they want their own country to be defeated in the GWOT because finally engaging this enemy is what "legitimized" the Bush presidency and destroyed their own foreign policy credibility, and political viability along with it. It doesn't matter to them if gas soars past a hundred bucks a barrel, or Israel is destroyed, or the "insurgency" we've seen in Iraq falls upon American cities. They'd just blame it all on Bush and his "warmongering" that "provoked" the Islamist onslaught that they themselves encouraged through the stubborn, militant pacifism they would even then proclaim as the solution to yet another self-inflicted crisis.

Don't believe me? Biden himself argued against military action, citing the "Iran won't have a nuke for another decade" BS. And then there was this piece of unadulterated idiocy from Dirty Harry:

The Bush Administration is relying too heavily on other countries in the international effort to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, according to Senator Harry Reid.

Reid, D-NV, said the Administration should be taking the lead, but instead is relying on Germany, France and Great Britain to convince Iran to end its uranium enrichment program.

"It is hard to comprehend," Reid said Tuesday in Reno. "We should be involved at trying to arrive at a diplomatic solution. ... Not just these three countries."
Leaving aside the gaping contradiction with the one-time Dem criticism of Dubya's one-time "unilateralism" and the need to "rebuild alliances" with our "European allies" (i.e. that very same France and Germany whose numbnut diplomats spent the past several years getting repeatedly humiliated by the mullahs), TKS's Jim Geraghty makes a very inciteful point: Since the United States does not have diplomatic relations with Iran (that whole embassy-storming, hostage-taking thing, you know), Reid's dumbass dhimmizing would require us to restablish them. Which would be to reward beyond the mullahgarchy's wildest imaginings (and ol' Adolph Ahmedinejad can imagine a whooooooole lot) their policy of lying, double-dealing, nuclear brinksmanship, genocidal threats, subversion, and that little matter of the war they declared on us twenty-seven years ago by seizing sovereign U.S. territory (which is what an embassy is) and taking fifty-three American nationals prisoner. This is precisely the kind of warped thinking that gave us the 9/11 attacks and would bring on a helluva lot worse if it were ever re-implemented.

Do seditious petaQs like Biden want to see Los Angeles nerve-gassed or Chicago nuked or Atlanta irradiated? Do they want to see ourselves and our "allies" subjected to nuclear blackmail that would devastate the global economy? Some would say they're too stupid to see that that would be the inevitable outcome of their addled polyanism; others would condemn them as traitors and be done with it. For my part, I don't think they give a damn one way or the other. They simply want their power back. If the "realm" has to be poisoned, figuratively and literally, to get it, and if their rule is subject to Islamist overlords and sharia law, so be it - just so George W. Bush and the Republican Party are vanquished.

If gloryhogs like Biden wanted to maximize their attention, they wouldn't bother with viewerless cable news shows - instead they would release audiotapes every few months crammed full of their obligatory, broken-record Bush derangements. They sound enough like bin Laden anyway that it would be a handy piggy-back vehicle for "getting their message out," and I'm sure their co-belligerant wouldn't mind.

Of course unlike the DisLoyal Opposition, even bin Laden makes a token attempt to keep his material updated. But what could he do about it - sue the DNC for gimmick infringement? Or perhaps blow up their 2008 convention in the same way that Count von Stauffenberg blew up Hitler's "wolf's lair" - ensuring that Hillary will survive and ride the wave of public sympathy and indignation to the White House, from where victory will be handed to Iran and Syria and al Qaeda be default.

Wonder what Senator Hairplugs would have to say about that. Okay, not really.

Sunday, April 23, 2006

Soiled Rag Masterpiece

13 [B]ut you know that it was because of a bodily illness that I preached the gospel to you the first time; 14 and that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition you did not despise or loathe, but (A) you received me as an angel of God, as (B) Christ Jesus Himself.

15 Where then is that sense of blessing you had? For I bear you witness that, if possible, you would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me.

16 So have I become your enemy (C) by telling you the truth?

17 They eagerly seek you, not commendably, but they wish to shut you out so that you will seek them.

18 But it is good always to be eagerly sought in a commendable manner, and (D) not only when I am present with you.

19 (E) My children, with whom (F) I am again in labor until (G) Christ is formed in you - 20 but I could wish to be present with you now and to change my tone, for (H) I am perplexed about you.

-Galatians 4:13-20

Boortz On The Economy

Great blurb over at Neil Boortz's web site regarding the economy, posted in its entirety:

By any measure, the economy of the United States of America is booming. Unfortunately, if you watch television news or read the newspaper (remember those?,) everyone thinks we've fallen on hard times. That's too bad. All that government schooling sure comes in handy for the liberal elites running the press when they want to push the big lie.

Right now, unemployment is at 4.7%. By any measure, that's very low...approaching full employment. In fact, in 1996 when Bill Clinton was running for re-election, the media bragged about the unemployment at the time of around 6%. Why brag? Because they wanted the public to think things were oh-so-swell so they would keep Clinton in office. So you get the idea...when there's a Democrat in the Oval Office, low unemployment is low, but if it's a Republican, all unemployment is high. And so the media template goes.

The economy right now is on fact, it's been growing year after year. But don't tell the dumb masses. They'll tell you that the economy is in the toilet. Why? It's those darned gas prices! Never mind that gas prices have been high for several years running in the summer months, and ignore the fact that, adjusted for inflation, they've been higher in the past.

Another example: When Bush ran for office he promised to increase jobs in the U.S. For years after his election the press ran with examples on how Bush was failing to live up to his promise. Then .. the promised jobs started to materialize, the press suddenly couldn't find its tongue. No surprise.

So what's really behind the lack of good news about our great economy? Make no mistake, it is the slanted propaganda churned out daily by the mainstream media and the Democrats. Such is their desire to remove Republicans from office that they will do anything to create the impression that the economy is terrible, and that includes fail to tell you the truth about our current economic boom.

But just look around you.....and you'll see otherwise.That is, unless your head is in the sand. Like most people on the left.

This is one of the most frustrating things to me...with every economic indicator showing how strong our economy is, with the Dow Jones staying up over 11,000, people still talk about how crappy the economy is. I don't know how many people I've corrected about that, but it just doesn't sink in. They can't tell you why they think the economy is bad, they just think it is. Boortz is right, the slanted, biased news coverage day in and day out has had exactly the effect the left wants it to. That's a shame. We just have to keep hammering the message day in and day out ourselves. The MSM ain't gonna tell the truth, that's for sure.

JASmius adds: No, the Bush White House needs to hammer the message day in and day out. They're getting no credit for the booming economy because they're not seeking any.

When Clinton was president, he and his surrogates were on the tube, well, "day in and day out" touting and taking credit for it. Sure, the media was their willing accomplice, but the Clintonoids didn't take that for granted nor any chances whatsoever; they made sure that every last American was programmed to credit Mr. Bill with every good thing and blame the Republicans for every bad thing. And you know what? For the most part, it worked. Bill Clinton lied, cheated, perjured, suborned perjury, witness-tampered, obstructed justice, and betrayed his country to the Red Chinese. He committed high crimes and misdemeanors that dwarf the worst mendacities the Left has ever hurled at his successor. Yet he left office with one of the highest approval ratings in modern political history. And all because he spared no effort to "focus on [usurping credit for] the economy like a laser beam."

When's the last time you saw Bush or John Snow (He's the Secretary of the Treasury, in case you didn't know) or...heck, I can't think of any other economic policy point people right off hand (a very telling lack) - anyway, when's the last time you saw a Bushie talk up the economy in any kind of systematic, campaign-like, pound-it-into-the-ground-until-it-sinks-into-the-public-consciousness way? Or, God help us, link the boom to the President's tax cuts, which to date are the Administration's only legitimate domestic policy achievement? Never, that's when. And thus the media's doom & gloom propaganda keeps flowing into American heads, unopposed by facts and truth.

Frankly, I personally tire of defending White House policies that they won't defend themselves. Especially when they are so quick to defend other policies (immigration comes to mind) that are simply indefensible. And I suspect I'm not alone amongst the GOP base in that regard.

Might that be why the President's polling numbers are in the sewer? So why doesn't Dubya start mending those fences? After all, the impeachment he would be avoiding would be his own.

Inexhaustible Sinofilia

As long as I live, I will never understand why the entire foreign policy establishment of both major American political parties stopped being the slightest bit skeptical of the "People's Republic" of China three and a half decades ago.

Here's just the latest example:

China presents a golden opportunity for energy business with the United States, according to Senator Norm Coleman, R-MN.

Coleman, appearing Thursday on Fox News Channel, said China and the United States could work together to "avoid Middle Eastern oil dependence” and establish strong business and technology relationships for alternative energy.

"China has great oil needs and a demand for oil and alternative energy” Coleman said. "If the U.S. and China could somehow team together on some of the renewables, such as ethanol fuel, you’d have a huge market for corn growers and soybean growers and you’d be able to meet the oil needs without a greater dependence on foreign oil.”

Coleman’s home state would be an ideal source of business for China’s energy needs, Coleman said.
Well, of course it would. And while I suppose that Senator Coleman is doing his job in the most parochial sense, his gopher focus is blinding him to bitter facts about the ChiComms that both disserve his country and undermine his pro-Minnesota sales pitch:

The "message" Chinese President Hu Jintao most want[ed] the American people to come away with as he visit[ed] the U.S. [last] week and me[t] with President Bush [wa]s: Although China is a rising global power, there is no need to fear its ascendance because Beijing is committed to being a responsible international player.

At first blush that may appear to be true — at least on the trade front. Chinese leaders spent weeks in the U.S. before Hu's visit buying billions in Boeing airliners and legal copies of Microsoft software. It even hinted at revaluing the yuan to ease the U.S.'s $200 billion trade deficit with China.

But there is another, dark side to Chinese foreign policy that is grossly underreported. That is China's cozy relationships with a string of rogue states that aids and abets such vexing problems as political repression, human-rights abuse, poor governance, WMD programs, and, even, conflict.

Beijing's close ties with some of the world's most repressive regimes in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia call into question the credibility of China's assertion that its rise to global prominence will be a wholly positive evolution in international politics.

Regimes like North Korea, which without ChiComm support would collapse like a K-Mart deck chair; Sudan, whose Islamist rulers continue to inflict genocide on the country's Christian minority; Zimbabwe, whose marxist dictator Robert Mugabe has transformed into a reverse-racist nighmare orders of magnitude worse than apartheidist South Africa ever was; and, of course, jihadist Iran, which Beijing is protecting both as a reliable source of petroleum (Sorry, Norm) and as another catspaw with which to make trouble for us and keep us distracted from their Machiavellian machinations to gain decisive influence over key strategic areas of the global chessboard.

From a historical perspective, the irony is twisted. Americans have had a weakness for China for a century and a half; the only time that fondness lapsed is in 1949 when the Truman administration pulled the plug on Chiang Kai-shek and allowed the Chinese communists to take over. After President Nixon "opened up" the Dragon, and President Carter applied lipstick to it, and President Reagan kept that ball rolling, and not even a repressive massacre on worldwide global television (Tianenman Square) could dissuade the first President Bush from toasting the butchers of Beijing almost literally on the corpses of their victims, and President Clinton sold them virtually every strategic military secret we had for campaign cash, well, is it any wonder that President Hu (a name that must have had Bud Abbott and Lou Costello muttering in their graves) was grinning so broadly at the side of Bush the son?

Twenty-six years ago the Russian dissident Alexander Solzhyenitsyn wrote the following in an essay for Time magazine:

In expectation of World War III the West again seeks cover and finds Communist China as an ally! This is another betrayal, not only of Taiwan, but of the entire oppressed Chinese people. Moreover, it is a mad, suicidal policy: having supplied billion-strong China with American arms, the West will defeat the USSR, but thereafter no force on Earth will restrain Communist China from world conquest.

Thanks to Ronald Reagan, we defeated the USSR without the ChiComms' help. So they are simply following in Lenin's footsteps - indeed, raising his classic subversion strategy to an art form Lenin himself would scarcely have recognized - by selling us the rope with which they will one day hang us.

And pols like Norm Coleman cannot contain their enthusiasm for cornering the noose market.

If we somehow survive the looming war with Iran that will settle the GWOT one way or the other, the ChiComms will be waiting to pick off the winner, mark my words.