Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Claiming Responsibility

1 (A) Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

2 For He grew up before Him like a (B) tender shoot, and like a root out of parched ground; He has (C) no stately form or majesty that we should look upon Him, nor appearance that we should [a] be attracted to Him.

3 He was (D) despised and forsaken of men, a man of sorrows and (E) acquainted with grief; and like one from whom men hide their face He was (F) despised, and we did not (G) esteem Him.

4 Surely our [b] griefs He Himself (H) bore, and our sorrows He carried; yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of (I) God, and afflicted.

5 But He was [c] pierced through for (J) our transgressions, He was crushed for (K) our iniquities; the (L) chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by (M) His scourging we are healed.

6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.

7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He did not (N) open His mouth; (O) like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so He did not open His mouth.

8 By oppression and judgment He was taken away; and as for His generation, who considered that He was cut off out of the land of the living (P) for the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?

9 His grave was assigned with wicked men, yet He was with a (Q) rich man in His death, (R) because He had (S) done no violence, nor was there any deceit in His mouth.

10 But the LORD was pleased to (T) crush Him, (U) putting Him to grief; if He would render Himself as a guilt (V) offering, He will see (W) His offspring, He will prolong His days, and the good (X) pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.

-Isaiah 53:1-10

Global Warning Sophistry

This is great. I was reading in the Corner and found a link to this, a Dartmouth student's blog who says the "intellectual" global warming debate goes something like this:

— Listen, we’ve got global warming.
— Mmm.
— So will you sign on to this protocol?
— Nah. Gutting American industry doesn’t seem like a good idea to me.
— But the world is going to end in ten years.
— So how will not opening a few new car factories help? And wouldn’t this protocol encourage our chief competitors to open their own new factories while we’re hamstrung here?
— Because it will. Sign here, please.
— I don’t think that’s good policy.
— Listen. Why do you hate science?
— I don’t hate s—
— You’re a crazy Christian, aren’t you?
— What? Yes, Earth is getting warmer but this cycle’s been happening f—
— What we need to do then is sign this protocol here. Ready to sign?
— …
— Here’s a pen.
— …
— Sign.
— Look, the problem is that even if you can throw off a million years’ worth of evidence and demonstrate that human industry, in the plink of time we’ve had here, has caused a planet-killing shift in atmosphere, your ideas about fixing it are absolutely unworkable. I mean, it’s a gnat compared to the leviathan weight of human history you claim led us here.
— Stop it. OK? Just stop. Look at this picture. It shows a mountain with snow. Now, that was fifty years ago. Here’s another picture. What do you see?
— No snow.
— No snow! How can you not believe in global warming now, you planet-hating bastard? Don’t you understand that there is a scientific consensus? A consensus!
— Right, I know it’s getting warmer.
— Then sign on to my policy slate. Don’t read it. Just sign.
— No.
— When will we ever convince you Global Warming skeptics?

That sounds about right. I haven't really paid much attention to the Global Warming nonsense, but recently it seems like it has possessed some people on the Left. It's not surprising that empty-headed Hollywood types have signed on, it gives them the appearance of *thinking*, I guess. However, there are certainly major divisions in the scientific community regarding this phenomenon, but the lefties refuse to talk about THAT. No, they see a chance to damage big corporations and perhaps if they're lucky strike a blow to capitalism and free enterprise. I really don't think they give a damn about the environment.

JASmius adds: I thought lefties laughed at blind faith. Maybe we should start calling them protocol-thumping environmentalist fundies who should be forced to include other points of view to counter their fear talk in their own broadcasts watched by tens of millions of Americans, denied the right to demonize whole segments of American society, saying they are manipulated by Big Business and Christians and worthy only of conversion or eradication, and made to treat their opponents with respect and acknowledge the right of a fair hearing even as they exercise their own freedom to disagree with their opponents.

Or we could just shove petition boys like the above example down the nearest flight of stairs, and blame it on muscle-twitching brought about by global warming's erosion of the ozone layer.
That way it'd be all Al Gore's fault.

At least by his brand of "logic"....

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Existing Or Truly Living?

1 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is (A) a thief and a robber.

2 "But he who enters by the door is (B) a shepherd of the sheep.

3 "To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear (C) his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and (D) leads them out.

4 "When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know (E) his voice.

5 "A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know (F) the voice of strangers."

6 This (G) figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them.

7 So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am (H) the door of the sheep.

8 "All who came before Me are (I) thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them.

9 "(J) I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.

10 "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they (K) may have life, and have it abundantly.

11 "(L) I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd (M) lays down His life for the sheep.

-John 10:1-11

You Gotta See This...

I haven't been reading the DUmmie FUnnies as much since the election for obvious reasons. They're bad enough when they're out of power, when they're in power they are impossible to take. I bopped over there today just to see what they were up to, and this thread was being skewered by PJ Comix, who does the DUmmie FUnnies. These people really are psycho. In this thread, they are going paranoid nutso because someone with a crew cut who didn't happen to look like a loser throwback from the 60s was taking pictures at the anti-America rally this past weekend. That's it. They are convinced he's from the government sent there to watch them and file some report, or worse. It is absolutely beyond belief. It sounds like something from know, just too bizarre to be believed. However, I've read enough of their posts to know that they're dead seriously *crazy* over there. And they have the ears of the Democrats in Congress, never forget that.

Can You Imagine...?

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, imagine if a Republican Majority Leader kept having things like this broken regarding his business dealings:

New Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid bought undeveloped land in Arizona far below its assessed value, then introduced legislation that could have aided the seller of the property.

Revelations about the land deal follow last year’s reports that Reid, a Nevada Democrat, had collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn’t personally owned the property for three years.

I think the Republicans should start playing hardball, just like the Democrats would. After the repeated smarmy business dealings revealed about Harry Reid, they should be calling for his head, just as the Democrats would were he a Republican. And the press? You'll hear very little about this, of course, as opposed to if Reid were a Republican. You'd have to be BLIND not to see the media bias here.

UPDATE: Here is another story regarding Democrats and their ethical lapses...this time including Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emmanuel, and Evan Bayh.

JASmius adds: The real "culture of corruption" is back on top, and there to stay. And that's perfectly fine, because now the "right" pockets are being lined.

As to Republicans, they don't know how to play hardball, other perhaps than against each other. They don't dare take on the Dems, or they may lose even the crumbs and scraps that drop from the ruling table. And even if any of them mustered the courage to try, the Enemy Media would just slap them down as "extremists" and "malcontents" out to "destroy the spirit of bipartisanship," and our guys would just run away.

The GOP isn't allowed to be partisan, and Donk partisanship isn't defined as partisanism, but simply "the natural order of things". It's a dynamic that has already sent down deep, thick roots. And we're fresh out of shovels.

UPDATE: Well, I guess maybe we still have garden spades....

Odd Brand of Tolerance

Wow. This should perk your ears up. Chris Hedges, senior fellow at the Nation Institute, writes:

This is the awful paradox of tolerance. There arise moments when those who would destroy the tolerance that makes an open society possible should no longer be tolerated. They must be held accountable by institutions that maintain the free exchange of ideas and liberty.

The radical Christian Right must be forced to include other points of view to counter their hate talk in their own broadcasts, watched by tens of millions of Americans. They must be denied the right to demonize whole segments of American society, saying they are manipulated by Satan and worthy only of conversion or eradication. They must be made to treat their opponents with respect and acknowledge the right of a fair hearing even as they exercise their own freedom to disagree with their opponents.

Passivity in the face of the rise of the Christian Right threatens the democratic state. And the movement has targeted the last remaining obstacles to its systems of indoctrination, mounting a fierce campaign to defeat hate-crime legislation, fearing the courts could apply it to them as they spew hate talk over the radio, television and Internet.

Does your brand of tolerance include completely mischaracterizing a huge segment of American society? Apparently, it does. This garbage can be translated into: "I don't agree with their beliefs, therefore they must be silenced." What about the radical heathen left? Should they be silenced too? You want to see pure hatred? Go to a leftwing kook web site, such as Daily Kos or Democratic Underground. You'll get all you can stand. But...since you no doubt agree with them, it'll be okay with you. Right, Mr. Tolerance?

JASmius adds: Heh. At first I thought Hedges was referring to Islamic Fundamentalists, but I suppose I should have known better. Funny how he conflates their actual hatred, intolerance, and violent, imperialistic fanaticism with the motivations and doctrines of the Christian faith. Particularly the "worthy only of conversion or eradication" crack. I could have sworn that the LORD Jesus Christ Himself said, "Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet." I don't see anything in that passage about "off with their heads," "blow the bleeping infidels up," or "wipe them off the face of the Earth."

Of course we don't have to guess at how Mr. Hedges and people like him view the struggle against genuine theocrats, do we? Which leads to the conclusion that such intolerant heathen are only willing to openly "crusade" against "people of faith" that won't shoot real bullets back at them.

We know you hate us, Mr. Hedges, and we also know why. It would be nice if you could save some of that enmity for those who think you're just as "Christian" as we are, and want to kill us all for it. At least then your bigotry would be unleavened by the hypocrisy that turns it more bitter than the proverbial wormwood.

Monday, January 29, 2007

The Right Comparison

12 For we are not bold to class or compare ourselves with some of those who (A) commend themselves; but when they measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves, they are without understanding.

13 But we will not boast (B) beyond our measure, but (C) within the measure of the sphere which God apportioned to us as a measure, to reach even as far as you.

14 For we are not overextending ourselves, as if we did not reach to you, for (D) we were the first to come even as far as you in the (E) gospel of Christ; 15 not boasting (F) beyond our measure, that is, in (G) other men's labors, but with the hope that as (H) your faith grows, we will be, within our sphere, (I) enlarged even more by you, 16 so as to (J) preach the gospel even to (K) the regions beyond you, and not to boast (L) in what has been accomplished in the sphere of another.

17 But (M) he who boasts is to boast in the LORD.

18 For it is not he who (N) commends himself that is approved, but he (O) whom the LORD commends.

-II Corinthians 10:12-18


Unbelievable op-ed by David A. Bell asks if 9-11 was really that bad. I kid you not.

Has the American reaction to the attacks in fact been a massive overreaction? Is the widespread belief that 9/11 plunged us into one of the deadliest struggles of our time simply wrong? If we did overreact, why did we do so? Does history provide any insight?

Apparently, according to this article, we have to wait until they kill a lot more of us before we react. What a moron.

JASmius adds: A mindset like Bell's is precisely how that will happen. And just such a mindset now dominates Congress - on both sides of the aisle.

Once a Male, Always a Male

This just turns my stomach:

A 12-year-old German boy who insisted he was a girl trapped in a boy's body convinced his parents that something had to be done, so they agreed to allow him to receive a series of hormone injections, making him the youngest sex-change patient in the world, according to published reports Monday.

Now 14, the boy, who went by the name Tim, has now become Kim – a blue-eyed blonde with a growing bust line who is allowed to wear make-up at weekends.

Kim has no boyfriends at present but her parents say she is interested in what, now, is the opposite sex.

The headline is "Boy, 12 becomes Girl, 14." No, the boy has not become a girl. He has become a mutant. He should be taken away from his "parents," and his "doctors" should have their licenses taken away. What rubbish.

JASmius adds: A mutant named Tranny. Somehow that never made it into the X-Men trilogy.

Maybe Rosie O'Donnell and/or Harvey Fierstein weren't available....

Yet Another Example of Media Bias

Over at NRO's Corner, via Blogs for Bush, is this post regarding the Washington Post's coverage of the pro-life rally last week and the anti-America rally this past weekend.

On January 22, 2007, tens of thousands of people converged on Washington, DC, in order to make their voices heard on an issue of great importance to the future of America.

On January 27, 2007, tens of thousands of people converged on Washington, DC, in order to make their voices heard on an issue of great importance to the future of America.

The January 22nd demonstration was the March for Life demonstration - a broad coalition of pro-life groups gathering from around the country. It got this headline, on page A-10 of the Washington Post:

Abortion Foes to Renew Efforts

The January 27th demonstration was the anti-war demonsration - a straight-jacketed group of leftwing group-thinkers who came to DC to secure America's defeat in the War on Terrorism. It got this headline, on page A-1, above the fold:

Thousands Protest Bush Policy

Does the pro-life movement, by headline, even sound like it was a demonstration? Does headline for the anti-war demonstration give any indication of the kook-fest nature of the event?

This, of course, is nothing new, but we need to keep pointing it out because more and more people are seeing the blatant bias in media coverage today and readership is plummeting in many major newspapers. That's a good thing. When you put out rubbish, you deserve to go out of business.

Oh yes, and this is how the Left makes its point, by disrespecting the Capitol building and acting like spoiled, thuggish teenagers. I saw this on Fox News' web site. Have you seen it anywhere else? I guess the larger story here is the police commanders on the scene let them do it. Can't figure that one out, but it doesn't sound like the officers were too happy about it.

UPDATE: Another charming story from Michelle Malkin's blog:

In Washington, counterprotesters also converged on the mall in smaller numbers, but the antiwar demonstration was largely peaceful.

There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the Administration's policies in Iraq.

Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back.
Capitol police made the antiwar protestors walk farther away from the counterprotesters.

“These are not Americans as far as I’m concerned,” Mr. Sparling said.

Amen, Mr. Sparling. Amen.

JASmius adds: So much for equality under the law, too....

Sunday, January 28, 2007

The Name

1 Then God spoke all these words, saying, 2 "(A) I am the LORD your God, (B) Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

3 "(C) You shall have no other (D) gods [a] before Me.

4 "(E) You shall not make for yourself [b] an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on Earth beneath or in the water under the surface.

5 "(F) You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a (G) jealous God, (H) visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing lovingkindness to (I) thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

7 "(J) You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.

-Exodus 20:1-7

VBC Missionaries Of The Week: Roger & Diana Ward

The Wards' desire as TEAM missionaries to Mexico is to aid in the planting of national churche. Their specific duty has been working in the Church, doing training, discipleship, counseling, and youth ministry, with the goal of equipping the natives to take over these ministries themselves.

They work in the Church La Paz de Cristo in Baja California Sur, and returned to La Paz last August to continue their ministry.

Nuanced Treason

If you haven't seen this crap about John Kerry fraternizing with the enemy and bashing America while overseas, get ready to be pissed. What IS it about Democrats that they feel it necessary to run down their own country while in another country? Why doesn't Mr. Brave and Nuanced say that America is an international pariah HERE? Let's see what kind of reception he'd get. Well...if he were in front of KosKidz or the DUmmies at the Democratic Underground, he'd get a standing ovation. But among normal Americans he get quite a different reception. Which is why this proves what a coward he is, not that we didn't know. The thought of how close this ignoramus came to the presidency sends a shudder down my spine.

Saturday, January 27, 2007

Turkish Delight Syndrome

16 But I say, (A) walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out (B) the desire of the flesh.

17 For (C) the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, (D) so that you may not do the things that you please.

18 But if you are (E) led by the Spirit, (F) you are not under the Law.

19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: (G) immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, (H) sorcery, enmities, (I) strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, (J) disputes, dissensions, (K) factions, 21 envying, (L) drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not (M) inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But (N) the fruit of the Spirit is (O) love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, (P) self-control; against such things (Q) there is no law.

24 Now those who belong to (R) Christ Jesus have (S) crucified the flesh with its passions and (T) desires.

25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk (U) by the Spirit.

-Galatians 5:16-25

Down & Out

I've always prided myself on being a realist. Oh, I readily admit that I'm far from a perfect one; when a paradigm looks like it's working and entrenched, I'll hitch my tow-line to it, leave the bridge and go down to ten-forward to read a book. I'll also insufferably flog it to death until such time as it fails, and then I re-think things until I settle upon a new paradigm.

That's when other people tell me that I'm being a pessimist.

I suppose I'm feeling pessimistic these days. I must be, since I've said it here repeatedly, sometimes in posts I didn't hijack from Jen. The reasons why I elaborated to windy lengths after the election, and feel no compulsion to reprise here. Maybe I would if I had the time to blog at all these days, what with my job having become an ever-growing nightmare of eighteen- and twenty-hour days for which I'm given absolutely and utterly no credit or appreciation. I always thought that being dragged into daily high-level meetings was the mark of big-shot-dom; now I know firsthand that true big shots have underlings on whom to slough off the grunt-work so you can spend all day in high-level meetings and still go home at a reasonable hour. Not so, me, which is another reason why I may be typing with my toes at the moment for all I can tell. I do know my eyelids weigh in the neighborhood of forty to fifty pounds each, and are the color and texture of overripe plums.

Distracted from inexorable national peril and ruin by psychopathic overwork. And I thought my life was complicated when I was still a peon, as opposed to a peon with big-shot responsibilities and no big-shot perqs.

Anyway, herewith follows a laundry list of reasons why I'm pessimistic, and would be bordering on clinical depression if I had the time and no life:

***The Bush Administration has surrendered the NSA terrorist surveillance program:

The Bush Administration has apparently concluded that fighting to retain the warrantless surveillance program with a Democratic Congress would eventually be unsuccessful, and today announced that the presidential authorization for the program would not be renewed. Instead, the Department of Justice will transfer oversight responsibility to the FISA court, effectively ending the controversy over one of the most contentious counterterrorism projects adopted since 9/11.

Mark Levin understood the handwriting on the wall:

For the Bush Administration to argue for years that this program, as operated, was critical to our national security and fell within the President's Constitutional authority, to then turnaround and surrender presidential authority this way is disgraceful. The Administration is repudiating all the arguments it has made in testimony, legal briefs, and public statements. This goes to the heart of the White House's credibility. How can it cast away such a fundamental position of principle and law like this?

Because the Democrats won the 2006 mid-terms, and to the Bush family that means they get to run the country, and the remainder of Dubya's presidency along with it. Which is why Dafydd is dreaming when he says that putting the TSP in FISA's feckless clutches will make it "impossible for the Democrats to kill." With Bush's cave-in, it's dead already.

***Before 11/7/06 it was annoying that the Bush Administration was the worst propaganda operation in the history of the human race, but not a fatal debility. Now it's this White House's death knell, as summarized by Hugh Hewitt's synopsis of the big Bush PR campaign for his "surge" strategy in Iraq:

The President gave the Library Room speech on January 10. Tony Snow had briefed some bloggers before the speech, and made a few appearances on talk radio afterwards . The Vice President appeared on Fox News Sunday four days later, and the National Security Advisor made the rounds of the other shows. Senator McCain, Governor Romney and Mayor Giuliani – the big three of the GOP presidential campaign—all endorsed the plan. The President appeared on 60 Minutes.

And that was it.

Media offensive over.

It never stood a chance.

It never stood a chance because it wasn't a campaign. Campaigns are something you pursue relentlessly until you achieve your objective(s). They're not like New Year's resolutions that are made one day and forgotten the next; they're like diets or exercise regimens, something you stick with for the long term. They're committed relationships, not one-night stands.

That last metaphor looks grotesquely ironic being followed by an allusion to Bill Clinton, but I have to return to that example because he was the innovator of the permanent campaign. We on the center-right would scratch our heads (after we'd pulled all the hair out of them) at how he could be running an ongoing criminal conspiracy from the Oval Office itself and enjoy, absolutely wallow in, sky-high public approval ratings. The answer was in front of us all along: the permanent campaign. He and his machine never called off the dogs. They never stopped promoting their talking points. And they never stopped attacking their enemies. I figured that sooner or later the American public would get tired of it, and him, but to the contrary, they couldn't get enough.

I've long called George W. Bush the "anti-Clinton", most especially in his stubborn refusal to campaign for his issues outside of the two or three months before election days. He shares his father's, and party's, quaint, anachronistic, antique view that campaigning is something nasty you have to do once in awhile (kind of how some wives look at sex) in order to be "part of the club" and "govern" in good-ol' boy "comity" the rest of the time. The people in the other party aren't enemies, or even really opponents, but "colleagues" and "friends" - i.e. fellow members of the club. And if there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that these "colleagues" and "friends" look at the "club" the same way Pachyderms do, GDub chief among them, well, that doesn't matter because we'll just pretend that they do anyway, and if we do that long enough, why, they'll eventually return the favor.

Insert favorite expletive here.

It took six years, but the President's fanatical disinclination to sell his policies, particularly the war, and his equal obsession with "the New Tone," allowed public opinion to drift so far away from him that it handed Congress back to the Democrats. One would have thought that a wake-up call to the snoozing slackers in the White House press shop that they finally needed to shift into maximum overdrive, or at least start earning their paychecks for a change.

Instead we get a few days of interviews and a stiffer-than-a-corpse address to the nation - and then, silence.

Policies do not speak for themselves. Particularly critically necessary ones that propaganda neglect has needlessly allowed to grow manifestly unpopular.

Imagine if Bush tried to sell the invasion of Iran, which is even more imperative. The mind reels.

***He won't be selling a pre-emptive attack on North Korea, at least, since he's evidently decided to cave to their demands instead.

***Okay, I've beaten up on Bush the son enough for now. How about the American people instead?

Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?

Overall: 63% Yes 22% No 15% Don’t Know
Democrats: 51% Yes 34% No 15% Don’t Know
Republicans: 79% Yes 11% No 10% Don’t Know
Independents 63% Yes 19% No 17% Don’t Know

Note my emphasis. The question isn't, "Do you think the Iraq plan President Bush announced will succeed?" or "Do you support or oppose the Iraq plan President Bush announced?" but "Do you want it to succeed or fail?" One would think that whether or not Americans think it will work or not they would be united in wanting it to, right?

Well, there's still a majority that hasn't turned traitor. But that it is such a small one is the epitome of cold comfort. This is the kind of question that would never have dared been asked even a couple of years ago, and if it had been the numbers for "No" and "I don't give a shit" would have been in single digits. But almost forty percent of the country wants us to (or doesn't care if we) lose? A fifth of Republicans? How bad are these results that about the only solace a patriotic citizen can take from them is that there's actually a majority - barely - of Democrats that aren't jihadi-symps?

The 2006 elections showed the United States as a country with a death wish. Polls like this show just how difficult that will be to shake.

***Dean Barnett got an email from a traitor who is probably emblematic of the whole rotten bunch, and why they'll one day be hanged en masse from street lamps and Sunoco signs:

It's simple: If the surge succeeds, then the President, the Republicans and the Democratic supporters won't learn any lessons. In the USA victory only makes you more arrogant. Today Iraq, tomorrow Iran, Thursday Dafur, Friday Pakistan, Sunday Beijing, etc... Success would bring us into a state of perpetual war until we make a truly deadly decision. Making the same mistakes each time.

This war has only become "perpetual" because the President refuses to finish it, which has aided the cause of people like this asshole whose turncoat perfidy will only create the very "state of perpetual war" he paranoiacally harbinges. Unless of course he fully gets his way, in which case America will become an irradiated graveyard divied up by "Darfur, Pakistan, Beijing, etc." like the Roman centurions casting lots for Christ's garments.

Just remember, though: the voters put people like him in charge. And that's just the first installment.

To quote the noted philosopher Clubber Lang, "I got a lotta mo, I got a lotta mo," but I'll save it for later - say, after the Battlestar Galactica review I want to get written this afternoon before I succumb to narcolepsy.

Hey, even pessimists need a break from the doom & gloom once in a while.

Emboldening The Enemy

We knew this. Here is Robert Gates agreeing with Joe Lieberman's assertion that this stupid non-binding resolution of no faith in our military emboldens the enemy. When is Lieberman going to see the light that his party is anti-American and get out of it?

Here is a transcript of a debate between Joe Lieberman and Chuck Hagel on the troop surge and the non-binding resolution. It's hard to believe that the Republican is the one trashing the Commander-in-Chief and the Democrat is the one defending the efforts to win in Iraq. But...that's the way it is in this case. I'd trade Hagel for Lieberman in a heartbeat.

JASmius adds: Um, Lieberman isn't a Democrat anymore; and that's why. Beats me why he doesn't pull a Jim Jeffords in reverse and caucus with the GOP instead. It'd be the perfect revenge.

I guess Lieberman's is the loyalty of the Stepford wife. Which makes it a lot harder to respect him despite his stalwart patriotism, since he appears to have so little respect for himself.

Those Poor Things...

Well, isn't this sweet? Rosie O'Donnell is giving an all expense paid trip to Disneyland to Idol losers Jonathan Jayne and Kenneth Briggs. How like a liberal to reward failure!

Friday, January 26, 2007

Into The Desert

22 (A) Then Moses led Israel from the Red Sea, and they went out into (B) the wilderness of (C) Shur; and they went three days in the wilderness and found no water.

23 When they came to (D) Marah, they could not drink the waters of Marah, for they were bitter; therefore it was named [a] Marah.

24 So the people (E) grumbled at Moses, saying, "What shall we drink?"

25 Then he (F) cried out to the LORD, and the LORD showed him (G) a tree; and he threw it into the waters, and the waters became sweet There He (H) made for them a statute and regulation, and there He (I) tested them.

26 And He said, "(J) If you will give earnest heed to the voice of the LORD your God, and do what is right in His sight, and give ear (K) to His commandments, and keep all His statutes, (L) I will put none of the diseases on you which I have put on the Egyptians; for I, (M) the LORD, am your healer."

27 Then they came to (N) Elim where there were twelve springs of water and seventy date palms, and they camped there beside the waters.

-Exodus 15:22-27

NO Guts

I read with interest the story by Peggy Noonan about Chuck Hagel having "guts." I completely disagree with her in that I don't think Hagel's position has anything to do with guts. I think it has to do with riding what he feels is current public opinion. How gratifying it was to see that Kate O'Beirne agrees with me. Here is her entry in the Corner:

The Senate has unanimously confirmed General Petraeus to take command of U.S. forces in Iraq to implement the new mission in Baghdad with the help of additional forces. Rather than back a non-binding resolution of disapProval, why didn't the gutsy Senators, like Chuck Hagel, who are riding the surf of public opinion opposed to the troop surge and taking on a President with approval ratings at the freezing level vote aginst General Petraeus' confirmation? Their convictions hold that he has endorsed a wholly unjustified escalation and will be leading troops on a futile mission. They want a role in the conduct of the war and with the need to win Senate confirmation of General Petraeus the Constitution has given them one, but they have taken a pass. Because General Petraeus is an experienced, credentialed, credible advocate of the new strategy, Senators have no interest in tangling with him. When you're playing at being a military strategist you sure don't want to go up against the real thing, so better to have an unpopular commander-in-chief be the face of the new mission rather than the veteran general who will be in command.

That's right. Either you think it's a disaster over there and you use every means possible to get us out, or you admit that maybe, just maybe, we have a chance for victory. Chuck Hagel and the Democrats, you pretend to support the troops while doing everything you can to undermine them.

JASmius adds: Well, I didn't call him perfidious devilspawn for nothing.

Incidentally, I was reading over my posts in and following the notorious "memo of understanding" back-stabbing that Hagel, his Sith Master "Sailor" McCain, and five other of his padawans inflicted upon the Republican Party two years ago that sealed the fate of their majority this past November (as I predicted it would), and I came across this little piece of prophesying in reply to a B4B commenter who thought that any GOP betrayal of principle was hunky-dory as long as they stayed pure on the WAIF:

{If Social Conservatives with their not one more dime campaign can so cavalierly toss the good things that Republicans have done toward the war effort and withdraw their support over something that is relatively minor than I almost think that is worse than what the anti-war Democrats have done.}

Reclaiming the judiciary for constitutionalism is not "relatively minor," it is crucial if we are to remain even the quasi-republic we are today. It has also been the leading domestic issue and selling point to the GOP base the last two election cycles. If electing all these Pachyderms yields us fratricidal swindles like the one yesterday, what makes you think those same Pachyderms will be any more trustworthy on backing the military? C'mon, Mad, "moderates" are poll-watchers extraordinare; if the public at large can be turned against the [WAIF], what makes you think RINOs won't head for the peacenik tallgrass as fast as their fat, little legs can carry them? [emphases added]

Sometimes my foresight stuns even me. Which makes my current pessimism all the more depressing.

Liberalism Is A Sickness

Check out this phone call to Rush from an ex-liberal.

A Trend?

I have never read the military blog Blackfive before, but Glenn Reynolds linked to an interesting story there. I love to read views directly from the military, and they are always different from what the MSM is telling us, of course that's no surprise. His latest entry begins like this:

There has been a flurry of press reports recently about insurgents battling American and Iraqi security forces on Haifa Street in Baghdad, and around the rural town of Buhruz in Diyala Province. These same insurgents also claimed to have shot down a Black Hawk helicopter near Buhruz. At the same time, the Americans and Iraqis are declaring a major victory as evidenced by the increased number of dead or captured militants, and the uncovering of massive weapons caches. So, what is going on?

It's a pretty involved read, but a good one. Later in the article:

Last October, my sources began telling me about rumblings among the insurgent strategists suggesting that their murderous endeavor was about to run out of steam. This sense of fatigue began registering among mid-level insurgent commanders in late December, and it has devolved to the rank and file since then. The insurgents have begun to feel that the tide has turned against them.In many ways, the timing of this turnaround was inadvertent, coming at the height of political and bureaucratic mismanagement in Washington and Baghdad. A number of factors contributed to this turnaround, but most important was sustained, stay-the-course counterinsurgency pressure. At the end of the day, more insurgents were ending up dead or behind bars, which generated among them a sense of despair and a feeling that the insurgency was a dead end.

We on the Right have known that the U.S. Military will kick their butts before this is over. Though our "American" press is loathe to admit it, from what I've been reading lately we have made continual progress. How else to account for the steady success in military recruiting and retention? Obviously the people doing the actual fighting understand that we are doing the right thing, and we are winning. I doubt the numbers would be this good otherwise. It's a good thing our best and brightest are ignoring the ignoramuses in Congress who chase camera time by undermining our troops with worthless resolutions rather than focusing their energy on WINNING. No...can't do anything that might reflect positively on President Bush, that would be blasphemous.

Despite the crap being printed every day in mainstream rag press. I am optimistic about America's impending victory over the terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere. I know we're in it for the long haul, but our military cannot be beaten, and as long as Bush is in office I don't believe he'll allow the Democrats and RINOs to beat them from within.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Valuing Others

1 He (A) entered Jericho and was passing through.

2 And there was a man called by the name of Zaccheus; he was a chief tax collector and he was rich.

3 Zaccheus was trying to see who Jesus was, and was unable because of the crowd, for he was small in stature.

4 So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a (B) sycamore tree in order to see Him, for He was about to pass through that way.

5 When Jesus came to the place, He looked up and said to him, "Zaccheus, hurry and come down, for today I must stay at your house."

6 And he hurried and came down and received Him gladly.

7 When they saw it, they all began to grumble, saying, "He has gone to be the guest of a man who is a sinner."

8 Zaccheus stopped and said to (C) the LORD, "Behold, LORD, half of my possessions I will give to the poor, and if I have (D) defrauded anyone of anything, I will give back (E) four times as much."

9 And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is (F) a son of Abraham.

10 "For (G) the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost."

-Luke 19:1-10

Whine Me A River

Oh no...come on, guys, you're sounding like Democrats after 2004:

Representative Nancy Pelosi publicly and repeatedly pledged before November's election that if Democrats won a House majority and she became speaker they would treat Republicans with respect and comity and would foster bipartisanship.

Instead, three weeks into a session in which the strong-willed Pelosi has rammed through important legislation and major rule changes, increasingly exasperated and angry Republicans are asking when the new Democratic speaker and her leadership team will keep their pledge to create a less-partisan, more-open atmosphere.

This is a surprise?? The Democrats are no more interested in working with Republicans than they are in winning the war. They should have known Pelosi was lying through her teeth, that's what Democrats do. They're going to have to find a way to put up roadblocks and fight them, just as they fought us when we were in the majority.

"Whine me a river,'' one senior Democratic House aide said, referring to Republican gripes.

Yep. It ain't gonna do any good, so you might as well suck it up, GOPers, and figure out some way to stymie them. Fight dirty if you have to, they sure will.

JASmius adds: Aren't elephants supposed to have long memories....?

Up Your Resolution

Here is the email I just sent to Chuck Hagel:

I just want you to know that after yesterday's vote regarding the resolution against our troops (yes, that's what it is), I am ashamed that you call yourself a Republican. I'm from Indiana, but I will be sending money to whoever runs against you the next time you're up for re-election. Undermining our President now when he needs his Party most is unconscionable. Shame on you.
Jennifer Crawford

I realize he probably won't even read it...but just in case, I wanted him to know what I think of him. Jerk.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Saving Ourselves

12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there (A) is no resurrection of the dead?

13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14 and (B) if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.

15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He (C) raised [a] Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.

16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; (D) you are still in your sins.

18 Then those also who (E) have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.

19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are (F) of all men most to be pitied.

20 But now Christ (G) has been raised from the dead, the (H) first fruits of those who (I) are asleep.

-1 Corinthians 15:12-20


Yeah, that's my name for RINO Bob Corker. He didn't support the stupid resolution passed today, but here's his caveat:

Republican Senator Bob Corker, R-TN, said he didn't support the resolution because he didn't believe it would affect Administration policy. Instead, he said next time he talks to Tennessee soldiers he will tell them, "I oppose what you are doing but I thank you for your service."

I sincerely doubt they want to hear that, you wimp, so why not just keep it to yourself? Then there's this:

A separate nonbinding resolution did not get a vote in the panel, but clearly drove conversation.

That resolution, co-sponsored by Coleman and Senators John Warner, R-VA, Susan Collins, R-ME, and Ben Nelson, D-NE, is seen as a softer criticism of the President. It states "the Senate disagrees with the plan to augment our forces by 21,500, and urges the President instead to consider all options and alternatives for achieving the strategic goals set forth below with reduced force levels than proposed."

As if the President hasn't considered all his options and alternatives. With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?

JASmius adds: Or, in other words, keep doing what hasn't worked. "Don't just do something, stand there!"

As pessimistic as I've been since the election, I've never considered it a possibility that the Senate might convict Bush and Cheney and remove them from office when House Democrats impeach them. At the rate the GOP remnant is deteriorating, I might have to start.

The Speech

I thought it was good. Overall, I was pleased with what the President said. I think this was one of his best SOTU speeches, in fact. There are always a few sticking points on the domestic side of things, but again, overall I was pleased. Here is a link to NRO's symposium on the speech. These guys are tough on the President at times, but you will find their analysis fair and intelligent. Also, Michael Novak was overall pleasantly surprised at the President's performance.

It's important to note that Bush has never, ever wavered in his conviction that we must win the War on Terror. No Clintonesque finger to the wind, poll-driven decisions from him. He has been savaged in the press, especially since the 2006 election, but he maintains his stand no matter what they say. Bravo, Mr. President. I, for one, am proud to have you as my President.

UPDATE: We highlighted Jules Crittendon's article earlier about what he thought the President should say. Here is his analysis of what the President did say.

JASmius adds: It seems like a lot longer than it actually has been since the days when I would have stayed late at the office to live-blog something like this. Even a year ago I was sorely tempted, though I couldn't manage to make the time. Last night I was out on the production floor staring at the undersides of conveyors and then at home bulldozing my son into finishing a school project he's been putting off for two months. I realized on the way home that the State of the Union Show was on, but I didn't give it more than that passing thought.

I've read the post-game analysis. I also read the pre-game analysis. What strikes me is the sad emptiness that subsumed the President's words. What he said was fine, for the most part. What he didn't say was more telling. For all the stalwart rhetoric about the war, there was no ultimatum to Iran to cease pursuing nuclear weapons and meddling in Iraq, or else. Until the mullahgarchy is eliminated Iraq cannot be stablized. It's just that simple. If Bush isn't willing to do that, without which the "war on terror" cannot be won, then "the surge" and any other gimmickry we employ anywhere in the Middle East is futile, three thousand or so American servicepeople really have died in vain, and a whole lot more of their civilian counterparts will be joining them in the not very distant future.

On the domestic side, what we got was a rafter of good ideas that everybody in that chamber and everybody listening and/or watching knew will be dead on arrival at Capitol Hill in toto. That'd be the case even if the President (or the GOP congressional remnant) was willing to fight for any of them, which he won't. I could almost wonder why he even bothered.

Of course, the same thing could be said about his foreign policy comments, since the only practical question is not if the Democrats will defund the war and force our defeat, but when. Bush may have thrown down a gauntlet on Iraq last night, but the American public is solidly behind the DisLoyal Opposition's determination to cut and run, and will remain there at least until that determination produces the inevitable next disaster. And perhaps even beyond that.

The Son of Man once said that a prophet has no honor in his own country. How much less a gelded president shorn of the means as well as the inclination to muster the partisan fighting spirit that his words' realization will demand.

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Running From God

1 The word of the LORD came to (A) Jonah the son of Amittai saying, 2 "Arise, go to (B) Nineveh the great city and (C) cry against it, for their (D) wickedness has come up before Me."

3 But Jonah rose up to flee to (E) Tarshish (F) from the presence of the LORD So he went down to (G) Joppa, found a ship which was going to Tarshish, paid the fare and went down into it to go with them to Tarshish from the presence of the LORD.

4 The (H) LORD hurled a great wind on the sea and there was a great storm on the sea so that the ship was about to break up.

5 Then the sailors became afraid and every man cried to (I) his god, and they (J) threw the cargo which was in the ship into the sea to lighten it for them. But Jonah had gone below into the hold of the ship, lain down and fallen sound asleep.

6 So the captain approached him and said, "How is it that you are sleeping? Get up, (K) call on your god Perhaps your (L) god will be concerned about us so that we will not perish."

7 Each man said to his mate, "Come, let us (M) cast lots so we may learn on whose account this calamity has struck us " So they cast lots and the (N) lot fell on Jonah.

8 Then they said to him, "(O) Tell us, now! On whose account has this calamity struck us? What is your (P) occupation? And where do you come from? What is your country? From what people are you?"

9 He said to them, "I am a (Q) Hebrew, and I (R) fear the LORD (S) God of heaven who (T) made the sea and the dry land."

10 Then the men became extremely frightened and they said to him, "How could you do this?" For the men knew that he was (U) fleeing from the presence of the LORD, because he had told them.

-Jonah 1:1-10

Clinton/Thatcher Comparisons

To follow up on the post below regarding Hillary wanting to be regarded as the new Margaret Thatcher, Steven Bainbridge does some side-by-side comparison, and Hillary doesn't hold up too well:

There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families.

We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.

People think that at the top there isn’t much room. They tend to think of it as an Everest. My message is that there is tons of room at the top

Throughout the 1980’s, we did hear too much about individual gain and the ethos of selfishness and greed.

I owe nothing to Women’s Lib.

I'm not some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette

No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he’d only had good intentions—he had money as well.

We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.

If you want to cut your own throat, don’t come to me for a bandage.

Children’s lives are not shaped solely by their families or immediate surroundings at large. That is why we must avoid the false dichotomy that says only government or only family is responsible. . . . Personal values and national policies must both play a role.

I especially like The Ice Queen's "on behalf of the common good" remark. Sound familiar? It should. The woman's a socialist through and through.

The Real State of the Union

When I first saw this linked over at Instapundit, I thought, oh no, another Bush bashing tirade. The title was "The State of the Union is a Disaster." Then I went and read it, it's by Jules Crittendon. He's saying this is what the President should give tonight. It's actually awesome. Here's a sample:

The State of the Union is a disaster. I did my best, but I made mistakes, and my best wasn’t good enough.

We went to war without building up our army, and now, I am trying to make up for that.

But that is not the disaster.

The disaster is that you, Congress and the American people, do not care to fight.

Faced with a fundamental challenge to our own security, to everything we believe in, to the world order to peace and security for which we and our parents fought so hard for so many years, you now want to pretend like none of these threats are real. You want to surrender to the evil I have been telling you about. An evil that, unchecked, can consume large parts of the world and threatens to usher in a dark age.

You didn’t like it when I talked about evil. Sounded too simple, too uncompromising, too moralistic. Too … biblical.

I don’t know what else you call people who fly passenger jets into office buildings; who rape women in front of their husbands and children, and execute their opponents in acid baths; who seek to spread tyrannical and archaic religious regimes that enslave women and stifle fundamental freedoms. Who want to dominate the world’s primary oil fields with nuclear weapons.

Oh, how I'd love to hear Bush come out and tell it like it is like this. I love the guy, but he needs to take the gloves off. Read the whole thing, you'll be saying "AMEN" like you were in a Southern Baptist Church.

JASmius adds: "Union"? What "union"? Even after 9/11 there wasn't any "union" in any real, practical sense. The Democrats made sure of it. Which is why the fact that they're back in power is a disaster all by itself.

As for Bush "taking off the gloves," isn't that what we spent 1991 and 1992 waiting for his father to do? And did he?

The fruit don't fall far from the tree, as the old saying goes....

Monday, January 22, 2007

What God Owes Us

9 For this reason also, (A) since the day we heard of it, (B) we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the (C) knowledge of His will in all spiritual (D) wisdom and understanding, 10 so that you will (E) walk in a manner worthy of the LORD, (F) to please Him in all respects, (G) bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God; 11 (H) strengthened with all power, according to His glorious might, for the attaining of all steadfastness and patience; (I) joyously 12 giving thanks to (J) the Father, Who has qualified us to share in (K) the inheritance of the saints in (L) Light.

13 For He rescued us from the (M) domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of (N) His beloved Son, 14(O) in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

-Colossians 1:9-14

We Need A Conservative!!

I can't help but agree with Rush here. I can't get real excited about any of the Republicans who are in the presidential running so far. I do like Mitt Romney, I guess he would be my favorite so far. But...there's something lacking. How I long for another Ronald Reagan! I don't know if we'll see another of his caliber in our lifetimes. That's what this country needs right now, no doubt about it.

To think that McCain or Guiliani might be our candidate is a bit depressing. No doubt they would be better than any alternative the Democrats have to offer, but neither qualifies as a conservative in my book. Not even close. We need a Conservative with a capital "C." Wonder if there are any out there.

JASmius adds: Why else do you think President Rodham is inevitable?

Jenny replies: Well, as you know that's one thing I disagree with you on! I don't think Hillary will be elected. I think if she is on the ticket the Republican base will come out in droves, even if we do nominate a squishy middle-of-the-roader. Indeed, her candidacy may be the thing that puts the Republicans back in power in 2008.

JASmius responds: the GOP base allegedly came out in droves this past November, if belatedly. "Independents," however, did also and voted overwhelmingly Democrat. Given that they had been voting GOP because of national security, and Bush's failure to eliminate Syria and Iran has guaranteed an endless "insurgency" in Iraq, discrediting pretty much the entire war effort, and that discrediting is unlikely to change in the next two years, and Hillary will be allowed to assume whatever pleasing shape she chooses, and the American electorate appears nostalgic for the days of Clinton mass bamboozling....

Well, do the math. It's not a complicated equation.

The Night The Press Licked The Crazy Old Aunt In the Attic

This is from Mark Levin over at NRO:

I know it's not a revelation that the media are liberal. But "news" stories — wire stories even — like this are still stunning to me. When Tom DeLay consolidated power, he was abused in the big media. He was accused of stifling the moderates, which was considered bad. They called him "The Hammer" and they didn't mean it as a compliment. When Pelosi consolidates power, she's said to be in charge — and praised for it. She's such a sweet grandma. Besides, she's looking out for the children ... just like Hillary.

Ain't that the truth? Also, remember the Newsweek and Time covers of Newt Gingrich as the Grinch? This story referenced above will turn your stomach. The fawning and adoration of this dragon lady is sickening, especially in light of how they cover Republicans in the same position. Like Levin says, it's not a revelation, but it's still stunning.

JASmius adds: If it's not a revelation, it's not stunning, either, by definition. With all due respect to F. Lee (and you, Jen), why waste keystrokes on something that's as inevitable as the aroma of elimination? Crazy Nancy is a NeoBolshevik; the Enemy Media are neoBolsheviks. They'll do everything humanly possible to keep her and her despicable parasites in power forever, and that includes stomach-turningly hypocritical puff pieces. Two, two, four.

You think it's bad now? Wait until Hillary gets back in the White House. All the barf bags in the world won't be enough to contain our vomiting then.

Colts To Super Bowl!

Yee Hah! The Colts finally made it to the big game! Okay, I said Colts by 7 and it was Colts by 4, but that's good enough for me.

JASmius adds: Peyton Manning finally manages not to gag. I may really have seen everything.

My SuperBowl line is Colts by 6 1/2. Which should make Jen nervous, since I picked the Pats and Saints by a field goal each yesterday. That and the fact that Manning now has the biggest stage on which to don his trademark goat horns. Before it's said and done he may wish Tom Brady had gotten the best of him again.

Sunday, January 21, 2007

Spiritual Famine

1 Therefore, (A) putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all (B) slander, 2 (C) like newborn babies, long for the (D) pure milk of the word, so that by it you may (E) grow in respect to salvation, 3 if you have (F) tasted (G) the kindness of the LORD.

4 And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been (H) rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God, 5 (I) you also, as living stones, are being built up as a (J) spiritual house for a holy (K) priesthood, to (L) offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

6 For this is contained in Scripture: "(M) Behold, I lay in Zion a choice Stone, a (N) precious Cornerstone, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."

7 (O) This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve, "(P) the Stone which the builders rejected (Q), this became the very Cornerstone," 8 and, "(R) a Stone of stumbling and a Rock of offense"; (S) for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, (T) and to this doom they were also appointed.

9 But you are (U) a chosen race, A royal (V) priesthood, a (W) holy nation, (X) a people for God's own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you (Y) out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 (Z) for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not receive mercy, but now you have received mercy.

-1 Peter 2:1-10

VBC Missionaries Of The Week: Steve & Brenda Van Horn

Dr. Van Horn is the founder and president of International Training and Equipping Ministries. ITEM was established as an international ministry in 2003, although Steve initiated it in 1998 in Nairobi, Kenya while teaching theology there.

ITEM exists to provide training for pastors and church leaders in the world who do not have easy access to formal theological education. For more information about ITEM, click on the link above.

Ice Queen as Iron Lady?

Oh my gosh. Read this:

HILLARY CLINTON is to be presented as America’s Margaret Thatcher as she tries to become the first woman to win the White House. As she entered the 2008 presidential race yesterday, a senior adviser said that her campaign would emphasise security, defence and personal strengths reminiscent of the Iron Lady.

Hillary honey, the only thing you have in common with Margaret Thatcher is your gender. Obama better watch his back, because the claws will be coming out very soon.

JASmius adds: That is, of course, blasphemy. But Hillary will do anything she has to do, and pretend to be anything she has to be, to get the dictatorial power after which she lusts.

And she'll pull it off, too, if the 2006 mid-terms are any indication.

Sundance Off The Cliff Again

More bilge from a has-been actor:

Robert Redford opened the Sundance Film Festival last night with a bang. He told the audience assembled at the Eccles Auditorium, where Brett Morgen’s Chicago 10 was about to screen, that we were owed an apology from the Bush Administration for everything that has happened since September 11, 2001.

“Six years ago, we held off [saying anything negative about the Administration]. But considering what’s happened, I think we’re owed an apology,” Redford declared.

So, Bush should apologize for keeping this country safe from another attack for 6 years? For taking out the Taliban in Afghanistan? For three successful elections in Iraq? You said EVERYTHING that has happened, Mr. Redford. I must conclude from that that you think it would be better if Saddam Hussein were still alive and in power.

You *idiot*.

JASmius adds: D'ya notice how Sundance thinks "we" did Bush such a huge favor by not blasting him before the towers had finished falling? Is that, might that, could that be because perhaps, just maybe, he and the rest of his "we" knew then, and knows to this day, that Bush's predecessor - most definitely a soucily prominent member of Double-R's "we" - owes "us" an apology for doing nothing - NOTHING - to prevent 9/11 in the first place?

Bill Clinton makes the mess, but it's George Bush's "fault" for making a good faith effort to clean it up, despite the despicable ankle-biting of petaQ like Robert Redford.

Y'know, at least Butch Cassidy makes a mean salad dressing and tasty grape juice. What has Redford contributed to the world besides being an empty-headed, black-hearted pretty boy a generation before The Real World was invented?

Saturday, January 20, 2007

Forever Perfect

8 After saying above, "(A) Sacrifices and offerings and (B) whole burnt offerings and sacrifices (C) for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the Law), 9 then He said, "(D) Behold, I have come to do your will." He takes away the first in order to establish the second.

10 By this will we have been (E) sanctified through (F) the offering of (G) the body of Jesus Christ (H) once for all.

11 Every priest stands daily ministering and (I) offering time after time the same sacrifices, which (J) can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice (K) for sins (L) for all time, (M) sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time onward (N) until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet.

14 For by one offering He has (O) perfected (P) for all time those who are sanctified.

15 And (Q) the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying, 16 "(R) This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put my laws upon their heart, and on their mind I will write them," He then says, 17 "(S) and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more."

18 Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.

-Hebrews 10:8-18