Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Cast Your Cares

4 Rejoice in the LORD always. I will say it again: Rejoice! 5 Let your gentleness be evident to all. The LORD is near. 6 Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. 7 And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. 9 Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.

-Philippians 4:4-9

If This Were Anyone But A Clinton...

...just imagine the uproar, especially if it were a Republican. Cal Thomas has written a rather disturbing article regarding the wads of money made by Bill Clinton, most of which has come from speeches sponsored by foreigners.

A Washington Post story by John Solomon and Matthew Mosk is staggering in its revelations of Clinton's greed. In the six years since he left the presidency, Clinton has taken in nearly $40 million - between nine and 10 million of it last year. Clinton averaged "almost a speech a day" in 2006. Twenty percent of his fees reportedly "were for personal income." The rest of his speeches, says the Post, were for no fee or for donations to Clinton's foundation.

Unlike liberal Democrats, I am not obsessed with how much others make, as long as it's honest money and they pay their taxes. It ought to be a concern, though, when so much money is paid to a former president by foreign governments, foreign entities and corporations with interests in U.S. foreign and domestic policies. While Bill Clinton is no longer in a position to determine such policies, his wife, the junior senator from New York and Democratic presidential candidate, is and she may soon be in an even more powerful position. Given the Clintons' history of questionable political, business and personal relationships, can anyone say with certainty that the providers of this largesse are uninterested in influencing a President Hillary Clinton through her husband?

You know, of course, they'll get away with this. However, unlike Jim, I do not think Hillary Clinton will be elected President. But...what if she was?

The Clintons are plowing new ground. Ethics and election laws should keep pace. Never before has the spouse of a former president run for president. One of the reasons for disclosure forms is to ensure no improper influences are exerted on public officials by outside groups, or governments. Among those for whom Clinton spoke were a Saudi Arabia investment firm ($600,000 for two speeches), a Chinese real estate firm, run by a Communist Party official ($200,000), and a Toronto company, founded by a Kenyan immigrant who was convicted of stock fraud and barred for life from the brokerage business ($650,000 in 2005 and an undisclosed sum last year). The public needs to know more about their backgrounds.

While other ex-presidents have spoken for money, there has been nothing on this scale and none of their spouses served as elected officials.

Exactly. And of course we know the Clintons aren't above *anything*, including putting their country at risk for their own financial gain and political power. This should be vigorously looked into. The Republicans are going to have to be the ones to demand it, though. Pelosi's "ethics" are worth about as much as Bill Clinton's.

JASmius chortles: And we all know how adept Republicans have always been at exercising oversight of the Clintons (eyeroll). If GOPers have to be the ones to demand another investigation of Bill Clinton, I'm afraid we're gonna be in a lot bigger mess than just gagging at Mr. Bill's avarice.

Get ready to start saying "Madame President," gentles. And I don't just mean every Sunday night at 10PM on the SciFi Channel.

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Keep Praying

5 Then He said to them, "Suppose one of you has a friend, and he goes to him at midnight and says, 'Friend, lend me three loaves of bread, 6because a friend of mine on a journey has come to me, and I have nothing to set before him.'

7 "Then the one inside answers, 'Don't bother me. The door is already locked, and my children are with me in bed. I can't get up and give you anything.' 8 I tell you, though he will not get up and give him the bread because he is his friend, yet because of the man's boldness [a] he will get up and give him as much as he needs.

9 "So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

11 "Which of you fathers, if your son asks for [b] a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12 Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13 If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!"

-Luke 11:5-13

Vile Left-Wing Hatred

Those compassionate, wonderful, love-filled people on the Left are at it again. Are they mad at the terrorists who bombed the embassy where their Vice President was? NO! They're upset that they didn't kill him! Here is a pathetic example on Rush's site, Michelle Malkin has a good roundup from the Huffington Post, it is just absolutely *sick*. These people need some old fashioned shock treatment, I think. They really are deranged, evil people and it's sad that they live their lives like this.

JASmius adds: But don't forget, this is what the American people voted for last November.

You can be damned sure I'll never let any of you forget it.

UPDATE: Here is the poetic justice the Huff & Puffers truly deserve....

Carl Levin Is Full Of Bleep

Today I bring back that golden oldie, a study in contrasts.

First, this email from a Pentagon insider to NR's Rich Lowry:

Since my job at the Pentagon is to follow and report these kinds of things - there are several trends we are seeing lately.

1) Definite and measurable decrease in number of sectarian killings within Baghdad: From nearly 1,400 to 680 in the last two months.

2) We are killing and capturing increasing numbers of Sunni insurgents and Al Qaeda fighters. And when I say "we"- I mean Multi-National Forces Iraq as well as the Iraqi Army, the Iraqi Police Commando, and the newer "National Guard"/Territorial Forces in Anbar.

3) The recent bombings in ANBAR demonstrate red on red kinetic operations. Something which has been rare until the last few months. More and more Sunni tribes are pledging fealty to the Iraqi government and the Coalition and turning their back on the insurgents/AQI. This has caused them to be targeted.

We have seen the enemy bomb police recruitment drives, and now mosques of "apostate" Imams and Sheikhs who have sided with the Americans. This has happened twice in the last week. While the mainstream media considers this more proof of failure - it is actually a sign of the precarious position the terrorists are in. They need the Sunni population to protect them and shelter them. If they are now butchering them like everyone else - this could be a turning point in the relationship. This is crucial to watch. We need to protect the tribal leaders who have come over to us - and AQI knows that it is a death sentence for them if they can't stop it.

And then the arrogant ignorance that is Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, which I'll leave at the link rather than debasing this space directly.

The difference? The American people voted for the latter. Which means that many of the thousands of Americans who die at the hands of the Islamists that would not have had they voted properly will deserve their fate.

Their Iraqi (and Israeli) counterparts, on the other hand....well, how do you say "boat people" in Arabic?

The Da Vinci Code, Reloaded

First came The Da Vinci Code, a laughable piece of Christophobic trash that evangelical-hating Hollywood naturally made into a major motion picture depicting the Christian faith as a blatant fraud covering up the alleged "fact" that Jesus Christ wasn't REALLY God the Son but just a man Who in "reality" married Mary Magdelene and een had a son with her. Making Tom Hanks the lead character was, I guess, supposed to lend an air of credibility to this exercise in blasphemy.

Well, that was the foundation. Now we're getting "documentaries" purporting to have found the Jesus family cemetary:

Jesus had a son named Judah and was buried alongside Mary Magdalene, according to a new documentary by Hollywood film director James Cameron. The film examines a tomb found near Jerusalem in 1980 which producers say belonged to Jesus and His family.

Speaking in New York, the Oscar-winning Titanic director said statistical tests and DNA analysis backed this view.
Oh, really? And just when did the LORD submit DNA samples? And to whom? What "statistical tests"? Why is "the king of the world" trying to "scientify" this exercise in devil-inspired tabloidism? Other, of course, than to try and "de-deify" the King of Kings.

Hearteningly, it appears that nobody who actually knows anything about archeology is buying the vicious lie that Cameron is trying to sell:

Israeli archaeologist Amos Kloner, who was among the first to examine the tomb when it was first discovered, said the names marked on the coffins were very common at the time.

I don't accept the news that it was used by Jesus or his family," he told the BBC News website. "The documentary filmmakers are using it to sell their film." ...

"The historical, religious and archaeological evidence show that the place where Christ was buried is the Church of the Resurrection," said Attallah Hana, a Greek Orthodox clergyman in Jerusalem. The documentary, he said, "contradicts the religious principles and the historic and spiritual principles that we hold tightly to."

Kloner also said the filmmakers' assertions are false. "It was an ordinary middle-class Jerusalem burial cave," Kloner said. "The names on the caskets are the most common names found among Jews at the time."

Archaeologists also balk at the filmmaker's claim that the James Ossuary - the center of a famous antiquities fraud in Israel - might have originated from the same cave. In 2005, Israel charged five suspects with forgery in connection with the infamous bone box.

"I don't think the James Ossuary came from the same cave," said Dan Bahat, an archaeologist at Bar-Ilan University. "If it were found there, the man who made the forgery would have taken something better. He would have taken Jesus."

Stephen Pfann, a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem who was interviewed in the documentary, nailed the heart of the matter:

"I don't think that Christians are going to buy into this," Pfann said. "But skeptics, in general, would like to see something that pokes holes into the story that so many people hold dear." [emphasis added]

"Skeptics." Heh. Ever wonder why these same "skeptics" don't make "documentaries" depicting the "prophet" Mohammed as a mentally-ill drug addict? Why is their "skepticism" only directed at Christianity? Is it any wonder that these people have made common cause with the Islamic fanatics who will not stop their unholy war until the "Christian" West is an irradiated ashheap?

Brothers and sisters, if you ever wanted to know what time it is, let James Cameron be your satanic pocket watch. And if you want to get out of these times with your nuts and your soul intact, let He Who left behind an empty tomb (not an ossuary) be your Savior and LORD, before the "Heaven Express" (had to toss in another Tom Hanks reference, no matter how oblique) leaves the station.

Monday, February 26, 2007

Spray-On Mud

1 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.

6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7 always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. 8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth—men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. 9 But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.

-II Timothy 3:1-9

An Inevitable Oscar

Well, I suppose this had to happen:

Former vice president Al Gore used the success of his documentary, A Convenient Fraud [well, something like that, anyway...] to expand his efforts to educate people about global warming - and to tell a few jokes.

The film turned Gore's road show about climate change into a film that won Academy Awards for best documentary and best song.

Best song? Didn't he rehash the main title theme from Apocalypse Now? Or maybe it was Chicken Little - it's so easy to get those two mixed up.

Anyhow, it looks like Fat Albert has picked up a little buddy of his own, or perhaps a 2008 running mate:

Earlier in the evening, Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio took the stage to unveil a series of efforts the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences took to make this year's awards more environmentally friendly.

Pressed by DiCaprio about any other major announcement he might like to make, the former vice president pulled out a statement.

"My fellow Americans, I'm going to take this opportunity right here and now, to formally announce my intentions to . . ." Gore said before the orchestra broke in and he walked off, laughing arm-in-arm with DiCaprio.

Well, last year the Oscars almost went lavender (i.e. teasing a Best Picture award for Brokeback Mountain). Maybe with that grand exit they made up for it by going green AND lavender....

Dean Barnett has some inconvenient questions for Ozone Man that he'll never be forced to answer. At least not unless his new li'l buddy is strapped to the mast of the Titanic first.

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Celebration Of Creation

1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said:

2 "Who is this that darkens My counsel with words without knowledge?

3 Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me.

4 "Where were you when I laid Earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.

5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?

6 On what were its footings set, or Who laid its cornerstone 7 while the morning stars sang together and all the angels [a] shouted for joy?

-Job 38:1-7

A Party Less Refined

From FreedomWorks:

Earlier this week, pipeline problems in Alaska and a refinery accident in Texas sent oil and gas prices up, once again demonstrating there is little room for error in America’s energy refining and distribution system.

No new refinery has been built in the United States since 1976 in part because of outdated and overly burdensome regulations, high taxes, and runaway lawsuits. As a result, America is increasingly importing high value-add refined petroleum products to meet our demand—a sad turn of events since American entrepreneurs pioneered much of this industry. Not only are we failing to meet our own demand, but America is poised to miss a fantastic export opportunity; analysts estimate that the world's energy needs will be 50% higher in 2030, with 55-60% of that demand in the form of conventional oil and gas.

Meanwhile, as Congress fiddles and prices rise here at home, our international competitors are on the move. India announced this week a multi-billion dollar expansion of its plan to turn that nation into the “world's refinery hub.” America has failed to build a refinery in a generation, while India plans to grow its refining capacity by 62% over the next five years. America is importing these critical products; India will export $20 billion worth of refined products this year. The longer Congress fails to act, the more jobs and growth America will lose to over-regulation and higher gasoline prices.

Losing American jobs, stifling American growth, and higher energy prices are precisely what Democrats want because all three will empower them. Opie Edwards' "Two Americas" theme isn't a description of the reality of our society that he wants to combat; it is the America he and those who think like him want to create so that the public will have nowhere else to turn for "relief" but a bigger, more dictatorial and authoritarian federal government. And "shutting down the dynamo" is the surest way to accomplish it, as the stagflationary 1970s depressingly but spectacularly illustrated.

The other thing smothering domestic energy production will accomplish is to artificially generate national security vulnerabilities by locking the country into huge overdependence upon overseas energy sources that are concentrated in unstable regions (the Middle East) and hostile enemies (Iran, Venezuela). Indeed, tensions could arise even with friendly, allied powers like India as we concede economic advantages to them willy-nilly through the Democrats' insane environmentalist fanaticism.

To use blunt imagery, there's a reason why male athletes wear a "cup": to protect their vulnerable bodily areas. The new majority wants to lay our economic genitalia out for the whole world to stomp on, and when the stomping begins they'll point the finger at everybody but themselves.

And Republicans - they of the last congress's bloated, anything-but-free-market-oriented energy bill - will let 'em get away with it, too.

If you'll excuse me, I think I'll go have my scrambled eggs before the next brownout hits....

More Big Labor Thuggery

From FreedomWorks:

Instead of addressing fundamental competitiveness issues in the U.S. education, regulatory, tort, and tax systems, the new majority in Congress is bent on re-unionizing the economy.

On the heels of passing a minimum wage increase, the House is teeing up the next item in Senator Ted Kennedy’s union agenda: card check legislation.

Of course, expanding union membership has direct benefits for Democrat leaders, who exploit forced union dues as a major source of campaign funding.

Kennedy’s bill, officially titled the “Employee Free Choice Act,” will actually reduce workplace fairness and democracy. Under current law, when unions attempt to organize a workplace, employees usually vote by secret ballot in a government monitored election. This process of debate and private vote is, however, unacceptable to union bosses who often lose in a fair workplace election. The unions want to be able to demand that workers make a public decision in front of a union organizer - literally, "checking a card" instead of having the right to a private vote.

Obviously, card check removes privacy protections for employees. It opens the workplace to intimidation and corruption, and to say the least, is a violation of the American principle of a secret ballot.

A variation on this concept is what got a union into the plant where I work. Suffice it to say the unit employees who voted against unionization were not happy. Indeed, if a decertification vote were taken today the union would be tossed right back out, but good luck on jumping through all the bureaucratic and procedural hoops it would take to even attain such a vote. Unions are just like their Donk patrons: once they're in power, they make it impossible to ever get rid of them.

In case you're expecting, or forlornly hoping for, stout GOP resistance to this measure, guess again:

Shockingly, this legislation has 234 cosponsors – more than a majority of the House - and is expected to pass the House next week.

Doesn't shock me. There are 235 Democrats in the House, but I would be shocked if some of those co-sponsors aren't from the burgeoning RINO class.

Can forty-one Senate Pachyderms be mustered to filibuster the Labor Disenfranchisement Act? Theoretically, yes; realistically? Don't count on it. Even the Donks didn't block everything the past six years, and there'll be a lot worse fish frying than Uncle Teddy's Big Labor lap dances this biennium.

Rush On A Roll

Great monologue by Rush regarding the Democrats' desire for American defeat. I didn't get to hear this, but I'm sure it really packed a punch when he was delivering it. It's a bit long, but worth the time to read. Great sermon, Rev. Rush!

JASmius responds: I did listen to it, and I couldn't disagree with Limbaugh more. Let's take some typical passages (to continue the pastoral imagery):

I'm going to tell you, folks, the Democrat Party is now laying the foundation for their eventual landslide defeat. May not happen in '08, but it will happen soon thereafter. The American people do not like to lose wars. They do not like to quit in the middle of wars, contrary to popular media belief....The American people do not like terrorists. The American people love their military as much as the left and the Democrats hate the military. The consequences of a withdrawal from Iraq or anywhere else in the war on terror will be a disaster....
....for the Republican Party. The fact is the American people voted in November 2006 to lose this war. They voted to quit this war. They voted to hand victory to the terrorists. They voted against the military. They simply tired of the struggle and voted to "change the channel" as it were. And when the disaster Limbaugh refers to happens, they'll blame it on Bush and the GOP because that is whom the Democrats and the Enemy Media will tell them to blame. Not much of a stretch since the people already consider the conflict to be "Bush's war."

As much as the left and the Democrat Party will try to pin this on Bush or the Republicans, it won't work. Schumer and these Democrat candidates have staked out positions that they will rue. Mark my word and take comfort in what I'm telling you. Their words today, just as their words back in Vietnam, will be their undoing tomorrow. The American people do not like genocide. The American people don't like the nut job who runs Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The American people don't like Hezbollah. The American people don't like Palestinian terrorists. They resent Americans who do end up supporting these terrorist groups. These groups, groups like Hezbollah and the Palestinian terrorists will be empowered if we leave Iraq. And, of course, the enemy will have gained territory, the enemy will have gained resources and momentum, the likes of which they could never have dreamed, and it will all have been handed to them by the Democrats, if the Democrats succeed in getting us to defeat ourselves in Iraq.
The American people don't care about genocide, or Adolph Ahmadinejad, or Hezbollah, or Palestinian terrorists. Not even al Qaeda. If an enemy can't be defeated in the space of the proverbial commercial break, they lose interest and want to move on to the next item of journalistic titillation. And after half a decade of relentless "reporting" of "carnage" and "chaos" against which the "warmongering" American military is "helpless," they want their titillation to be of the shallow, salacious Clinton-era variety, not the stuff of substance and brutal reality. The brutal reality that cannot be escaped but from which they are determined to run away anyway. That's what the enemy is counting on, and they have good reason to do so, just as the domestic enemy has good reason to count on being able to successfully pin the blame on Dubya and the late, great Republican majority. The last election's outcome speaks for itself.

Here's the thing, folks. The Democrat Party and the left in this country have deluded themselves into believing that the November election, which they won by a thin margin, frankly, was a mandate for defeat. They are interpreting the election results last November as a mandate for defeat, a mandate for humiliation of the United States, and a mandate for genocide.

But that's not what they ran on, if you'll recall. They ran as moderates. They ran against corruption. They ran against Mark Foley. They did not advocate surrender. They did not advocate defeat and its consequences. Jack Murtha was told to keep quiet until after the election. Nancy Pelosi pretended to be something that she wasn't. But now they're out there in full liberal mode for all of us to see.

No, the Democrats did not run as "moderates." For six years they have been baying, treasonous neoBolshevik jackals, and that includes last fall's midterm election campaign. Even if they had tried to conceal what they are, it wouldn't have been possible. Not even Bill Clinton could have pulled off such a subterfuge, and the dimwitted duo of Crazy Nancy and Dirty Harry sure as hell didn't do it.

I'd love to be able to take such solace, though I'm not sure that an electorate possessed of such a level of relentless gullibility would be all that reassuring. I simply cannot take it seriously. I do not believe that three consecutive losing election cycles (2000, 2002, 2004) of being in "full liberal mode for all of us to see" can be overshadowed by a few months of incompetent misdirection. I do not accept that the American voter is dumber than Patrick Starfish holding the Orb of Confusion.

The brutal reality is that the majority that went to the polls three months and change ago knew exactly what it was doing. They were told by the Democrats that 9/11 is ancient history, a fluke that can't happen again, and that the "war on terror" is a bogus, fascist pretext for a Bush/GOP dictatorship that we can quit any time with no consequences. They were told to throw out the crypto Nazis and return to the halcyon golden age of Clintonoid Democrat rule. And they obeyed.

Of course, they were told these things by the Democrats in the three previous losing election cycles, too - but this time the voters bought it. That's why November 2006 was, indeed, a mandate for defeat and national humiliation. The 9/11 governing paradigm is gone, and the Clintonoid governing paradigm is back. That's the way it'll stay until the next, bigger disaster hits. And the duration of that paradigm shift will probably be even briefer still. It's why El Rushbo's stubborn optimism is, in my august opinion, unwarranted, if not borderline delusional. It's high time that the voters who pulled the plug on the war be held accountable for the disastrous choice they made, which is going to cost countless thousands of lives that need not have perished - not a few of them American civilians.

It is written, "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." That is a spiritual truth, but never has its political applicability been more depressingly clear.

Sickening, But Not Surprising

If you needed more proof that the Left as personified by their top moonbat blog Daily Kos is firmly behind the terrorists and against our own coalition forces, read this diary. Do not make the mistake of thinking that only left wing fringe extremists believe this. They are becoming more mainstream by the day, and our new majority in Congress listens to them. Fortunately, if you can keep your breakfast down long enough to read the comments, there is a soldier there who completely demolishes this argument with first hand knowledge. Not surprisingly, he has no impact on the writer of the diary, but hopefully people who go there and read this drivel will also stick around long enough to read his rebuttals. Charles Johnson over at Little Green Footballs has linked to it, so it should get wide readership. That's a good thing. It's about time more people opened their eyes to what the Left *really* thinks about our troops and our country in general.

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Dial "9" For Worship

1 [a] I will praise you, O LORD, with all my heart; I will tell of all Your wonders.

2 I will be glad and rejoice in You; I will sing praise to Your name, O Most High.

3 My enemies turn back; they stumble and perish before You.

4 For You have upheld my right and my cause; you have sat on your throne, judging righteously.

5 You have rebuked the nations and destroyed the wicked; You have blotted out their name for ever and ever.

6 Endless ruin has overtaken the enemy, You have uprooted their cities; even the memory of them has perished.

7 The LORD reigns forever; He has established His throne for judgment.

8 He will judge the world in righteousness; He will govern the peoples with justice.

9 The LORD is a refuge for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble.

10 Those who know Your name will trust in You, for You, LORD, have never forsaken those who seek You.

11 Sing praises to the LORD, enthroned in Zion; proclaim among the nations what He has done.

12 For He Who avenges blood remembers; He does not ignore the cry of the afflicted.

13 O LORD, see how my enemies persecute me! Have mercy and lift me up from the gates of death, 14 that I may declare Your praises in the gates of the Daughter of Zion and there rejoice in Your salvation.

-Psalm 9:1-14

American Travesty

Wow. Heavy read, but if you're interested in this travesty called the Libby Trial, read this.

Not Backing Down

I agree with Rush, Dick Cheney is my hero. He's not backing down regarding what he said about Nancy Pelosi, and he shouldn't. He's as right as he can be. Here is an excerpt from Rush's show regarding the interview:

CHENEY: I'm not sure what part of it is that Nancy disagreed with. She accused me of questioning her patriotism. I didn't question her patriotism. I questioned her judgment. Al-Qaeda functions on the basis that they think they can break our will. That's their fundamental underlying strategy. My statement was that if we adopt the Pelosi policy, that we will validate the strategy of Al-Qaeda. I said it, and I meant it. And I'm not backing down.

RUSH: My hero, not backing down. Nancy Pelosi, not referring to her as Speaker Pelosi, just referring to her as Nancy. You know, girl's gone hormonal. Next question from Jonathan Karl. Get this. “But hasn't our strategy been failing? Isn't that why the president has had to come out with a new strategy?”

CHENEY: A failed strategy. Let's see. We didn't fail when we got rid of Saddam. We didn't fail when we held elections. We didn't fail when we got a constitution written. They’re all success stories.

KARL: Didn't we fail when 3,000 American soldiers are all killed --

CHENEY: You wish there was never a casualty, Jonathan. Always a regret when you have casualties. But we are at war.

Apparently, Karl thinks we can defend ourselves without ever having a casualty. What a tremendously stupid statement. It's so refreshing to see someone like Dick Cheney, who says what he means and means what he says.

Then there are the liberals, who say what they mean and then, when confronted with their stupidity, pretend they meant something else. John Kerry's stuck in Iraq comment, John Edwards and Israel being the greatest threat to world peace, now George Soros is trying to weasel out of his comparing America to Nazi Germany. When these phonies actually lose their facade for a moment, forget themselves and tell the truth, then they have to backpedal and twist themselves into a pretzel trying to explain it away.

Anyway, thank you Mr. Vice President, for saying what more Republicans should be shouting from the rooftops. The Democrat plan is for America to lose and al-Qaeda to win. If we followed their plan, does anyone really doubt that al-Qaeda would be strengthened and emboldened? If we take off and turn Iraq over to them, do you think we'll be safer? The Democrats have to know this, yet on they go with their goal of defeat.

President Bush has hung tough against them in this fight, let's hope and pray he continues to do so.

JASmius adds: I'd question Crazy Nancy's patriotism, except that it's difficult to challenge something that's never existed.

Friday, February 23, 2007

The New Religion

1 I thought in my heart, "Come now, I will test you with pleasure to find out what is good." But that also proved to be meaningless. 2 "Laughter," I said, "is foolish. And what does pleasure accomplish?" 3 I tried cheering myself with wine, and embracing folly—my mind still guiding me with wisdom. I wanted to see what was worthwhile for men to do under heaven during the few days of their lives.

4 I undertook great projects: I built houses for myself and planted vineyards. 5 I made gardens and parks and planted all kinds of fruit trees in them. 6 I made reservoirs to water groves of flourishing trees. 7 I bought male and female slaves and had other slaves who were born in my house. I also owned more herds and flocks than anyone in Jerusalem before me. 8 I amassed silver and gold for myself, and the treasure of kings and provinces. I acquired men and women singers, and a harem [a] as well—the delights of the heart of man. 9 I became greater by far than anyone in Jerusalem before me. In all this my wisdom stayed with me.

10 I denied myself nothing my eyes desired; I refused my heart no pleasure. My heart took delight in all my work, and this was the reward for all my labor.

11 Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done and what I had toiled to achieve, everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind; nothing was gained under the sun.

-Ecclesiastes 2:1-11

A Majority Shift?

Wouldn't this just be delicious?

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut told the Politico on Thursday that he has no immediate plans to switch parties but suggested that Democratic opposition to funding the war in Iraq might change his mind.

Lieberman, a self-styled independent who caucuses with the Democrats, has been among the strongest supporters of the war and President Bush’s plan to send an additional 21,500 combat troops into Iraq to help quell the violence there.

"I have no desire to change parties," Lieberman said in a telephone interview. "If that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority of Democrats have gone in a direction that I don't feel comfortable with."

Imagine, just imagine the hatred, the vitriol, the absolute acid nastiness he would get from the drooling moonbats on the Left. Looks to me like the Democrats have a choice: either start supporting the troops and stop undermining them, or lose their Senate majority. Talk about a tough choice for a Democrat!

JASmius adds: Not for Lieberman, since he'd be in the majority either way. And didn't he already take an avalanche of "friendly" fire during last year's campaign? I'm still frankly mystified why he still caucuses with the Donks anyway, after the way he was betrayed and run out of that party. He doesn't owe them squat, and his crossing the aisle would be poetic justice of orgasmic proportions, as well as a very nice receipt for the Jumpin' Jim Jeffords caper.

I've been wondering why the Dems haven't formally defunded the war yet; I guess this is my answer, and why they're taking the "slow bleed" route instead. The question is how long will this nibbling at the war effort take to cumulatively tip Lieberman or call his bluff.

Jenny adds: Oh, I meant a tough choice for the OTHER Democrats, not Lieberman. I'm with you when it comes to being mystified why he continues to caucus with the people who betrayed him. Guess it's because on just about everything other than the war, he is a true blue least what Democrats USED to be: Wrong, but sincerely wrong. As to why the Democrats haven't defunded the war yet, it's because they don't have the stones or the principle to act on what they say they believe. They know they'd pay quite a political price for that, because even though the electorate was out to lunch in November, America collectively does not want to abandon our troops like that, and they know it.

I'd love to see Lieberman jump, if for nothing else than to watch Harry Reid's face get even more pinched and ugly.

Dems Determined To Lose

Boy, they can't stand the thought that this surge just might work and prove them wrong, can they? Even if it means American defeat and the loss of more soldiers, they gotta do what they gotta do:

Senate Democrats are drafting legislation to scale back the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq in an effort that would reduce the broad war-making powers Congress granted to President Bush in 2002, officials said Thursday.

While these officials said the precise wording of the measure remains unsettled, one draft would restrict American troops in Iraq to combating Al Qaeda, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces.

Get that? "Restrict American troops." In other words, tie their hands behind their backs in order to make SURE they don't win.

In a speech last week, Democratic Senator Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said, "I am working on legislation to repeal that authorization and replace it with a much narrower mission statement for our troops in Iraq."

He said Congress should make clear what the mission of the U.S. troops is: to draw down responsibly, while continuing to combat terrorists, train Iraqis and respond to emergencies.

Yes of course - let's continue to combat terrorists, train Iraqis, and respond to emergencies...with no backup, a castrated commander-in-chief, and continually fewer soldiers.


JASmius adds: Looks like filibuster fodder to me....

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Happiness & Holiness

13 Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed. 14 As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. 15 But just as He Who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; 16 for it is written: "Be holy, because I am holy."[a]

17 Since you call on a Father Who judges each man's work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear. 18 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. 20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. 21 Through Him you believe in God, Who raised Him from the dead and glorified Him, and so your faith and hope are in God.

-1 Peter 1:13-21

The Truth Hurts

Apparently, Crazy Nancy is upset that someone actually voiced the truth about her party's seditious actions:

Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday harshly criticized Democrats' attempts to thwart President Bush's troop buildup in Iraq, saying their approach would "validate the al-Qaida strategy." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi fired back that Cheney was questioning critics' patriotism.

"I hope the president will repudiate and distance himself from the vice president's remarks," Pelosi said. She said she tried to complain about Cheney to President Bush but could not reach him.

"You cannot say as the president of the United States, 'I welcome disagreement in a time of war,' and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country," the speaker said.

Mischaracterize, my eye. He's right on the button, which is why she's so upset.

The quarrel began in Tokyo, where Cheney used an interview to criticize Pelosi and Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., over their plan to place restrictions on Bush's request for an additional $93 billion for the Iraq war to make it difficult or impossible to send 21,500 extra troops to Iraq.

"I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the al-Qaida strategy," the vice president told ABC News. "The al-Qaida strategy is to break the will of the American people ... try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit."

How exactly does that mischaracterize your position, Ms. Pelosi? Isn't the "slow bleed" your strategy, you and that doofus Jack Murtha?

Pelosi, at a news conference in San Francisco, said Cheney's criticism of Democrats was "beneath the dignity of the debate we're engaged in and a disservice to our men and women in uniform, whom we all support."

Capital B capital S. You support nothing but the acquisition of power.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

The Blame Game

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as He was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"

10 He answered, "I heard You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."

11 And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"

12 The man said, "The woman You put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."

13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

-Genesis 3:1-13

Down The Midden Hole

Talk about pouring money into a black hole....

Checks from Hollywood's A-list stars such as George Clooney, Eddie Murphy and Barbra Streisand added up to a one-night take of $1.3 million for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who earlier Tuesday urged an audience of thousands at an outdoor rally to help him transform America.

Addressing a crowd at a South Los Angeles park during the day, Obama talked of a government that is failing the country and a slash-and-burn political culture that stands in the way of significant change.

Obama is the very definition of an empty suit. You never hear anything but platitudes from him. But hey, that's the kind of people the Hollywood types are, too. No wonder they love him.

Tuesday, February 20, 2007


11 But Naomi said, "Return home, my daughters. Why would you come with me? Am I going to have any more sons, who could become your husbands? 12 Return home, my daughters; I am too old to have another husband. Even if I thought there was still hope for me—even if I had a husband tonight and then gave birth to sons- 13 would you wait until they grew up? Would you remain unmarried for them? No, my daughters. It is more bitter for me than for you, because the LORD's hand has gone out against me!"

14 At this they wept again. Then Orpah kissed her mother-in-law good-by, but Ruth clung to her.

15 "Look," said Naomi, "your sister-in-law is going back to her people and her gods. Go back with her."

16 But Ruth replied, "Don't urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. 17 Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the LORD deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me." 18 When Naomi realized that Ruth was determined to go with her, she stopped urging her.

-Ruth 1:11-18

Bipartisanship - Uh Huh

Come on, does this *really* surprise anyone? The Democrats ran on being open and bipartisan and blah blah blah, but if anyone really believed they'd keep their word, they were being exceedingly foolish.

Democrats who control the House have reneged on vows to encourage minority participation in the legislative process and have instead muscled through their agenda with little debate.

Of nine major bills passed by the House during this session, Republicans have been permitted to make amendments to only one, a measure concerning biofuels, the Washington Post reports.

Won't do you any good to whine about it, Republicans, this is what you get when you lose to Democrats. You were accused of it, so you should have gone ahead and done the same thing to them.

In May, before the Democrats won control of Congress, current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said bills should come to the floor under a procedure allowing "open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process.” After the November election, Pelosi said "respect for minority participation in this House” is "the right thing to do.”

But thus far Democrats have largely bypassed the usual legislative committees and brought their agenda straight to the floor for passage.

Nancy Pelosi is the biggest liar on the Hill, and baby, that's saying something. She wouldn't know the right thing to do if it bit her on the butt. Her counterpart in the Senate, Mr. I-Can-Make-Illegal-Land-Deals-And-Get-Away-With-It Reid is as dishonest as the day is long, but hey, they're Democrats, so the press doesn't give a darn.

Pretty sad. Pret-ty sad.

Slow Bleed

Hey, everybody! Remember way back when I was actually a full-time contributor to this blog? Sure seems like a long time ago, huh?

Well, I guess it's true what they say, that sometimes "stuff" happens. My son goes insane and gets himself kicked out of his private school. The American voters go collectively insane and put the Democrats back in charge. My day job takes over my life. I make first contact with a delightful condition that wipes me out for what is now the sixth day in a row. Good times, gooooood times.

However, with another day to fill (hopefully the last one before I can turn my life back over to my day job), and scrolling down to peruse Jennifer's excellent work, I came across her Ollie North post, and that cross-connected with an RNC email I found in my in-box yesterday:

The Democrat strategy on Iraq is finally clear.

We've known all along that they want to cut and run before the job is done. But they've been afraid to confront President Bush directly. [Last Wednes]day, Democrat Representative John Murtha let slip what he and Nancy Pelosi really intend to do, and it is genuinely frightening.

They call it their 'slow-bleed' plan. Instead of supporting the troops in Iraq, or simply bringing them home, the Democrats intend to gradually make it harder and harder for them to do their jobs. They will introduce riders onto bills to prevent certain units from deploying. They will try to limit the President's constitutional power to determine the length and number of deployments. They will attempt to keep the Pentagon from replacing troops who rotate out of Iraq. They may even try to limit how our troops operate by, for example, prohibiting our armed forces from creating and operating bases in Iraq.

'Slow-bleed' is exactly the right name for this incredibly irresponsible and dangerous strategy. Cutting and running is bad enough. But the Murtha-Pelosi 'slow-bleed' plan is far worse. It is a cynical and dangerous erosion of our ability to fight the terrorists while we still have men and women on the ground in Iraq. It will put their lives in far greater danger, as resources slowly dry up. How can our troops operate without bases? How can they fight without backup?

'Slow-bleed' cannot become law. Luckily, we have an opportunity to stop it. The Murtha plan depended on stealth. Now, however, the press has broken the story. And now we can act.
Sounds like the "anti-Surge" to me. Leave it to the Traitorcrats to not be able to even commit fratricide honestly and honorably. Inflict creeping paralysis on the war effort and then cite the resulting debilitation as "proof" that it "can't work" and was "doomed from the start." And blame the inevitable, inexorable defeat - the first of an avalanche of defeats to follow - on President Bush and the GOP.

I'm afraid I can't be as optimistic about stopping the "slow bleed" as Mike Duncan is, though. We lost the ability to stop such schemes last November 7th. The very insidious, furtive nature of this strategy effectively negates the procedural obstacles the true Republican remnant can erect in the Senate. The minority can't stop the Donks from spending less on war appropriations bills, or force them to spend more; obstructing such bills won't get more resources to the troops, nor will presidential vetoes, even assuming Bush was willing to muster any. And we all know there'll be enough RINO defectors to provide all the necessary cover.

Sorry to have to be the voice of darkness again, but I see no reason why the Dems' "slow bleed" strategy won't work to a "t", and accomplish what sure looks to me like its primary purpose: to lay palms in front of the coronational procession of America's next president, Hillary Rodham Whatzizname.

The DisLoyalists picked a lousy time to rediscover discretion. Which is why it may not be too much longer before we're all looking back on these current days as being comparatively good times, indeed.

Monday, February 19, 2007

Dead Or Alive

1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2 So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the LORD out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put Him!"

3 So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4 Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. 8 Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed.

-John 20:1-8

The Anchor, The Old Senior Pastor, & Redeye

The anchor holds -----(Yes, the anchor holds)

Though the ship is battered
The anchor holds
Though the sails are torn
I have fallen on my knees
As I hear the raging seas
But the anchor holds in spite of the storm.

God bless you today - be encouraged! He will get you through your storm!

~ ~ ~

I can testify to the above. Not only has the LORD been my anchor over the past few days, but my head has felt like one as well.

Last Wednesday evening was not a particularly happy one for me. I was having an awful week at work, diverted onto a fruitless, endless project doomed to end in professional ignominy for me. My wife was out of town, gone home to be with her father as he lay on his deathbed. I wasn't able to make AWANA (again). Life was pretty much sucking canal water.

A few hours later I felt like I had been doing just that - literally. I had dozed off on my favorite couch, and the next thing I knew I was sitting bolt upright, the room spinning sickeningly around me in a typhoon of vertigo. The couch that has been so good to me these past seven years was rewarded with a tsunami of vomit that came pouring out of me in spectacular, fetid, fountaining waves. I hadn't thought I had eaten that much in the previous week, much less for dinner. My living room floor looked like the aftermath of a bulimics' convention.

However, unlike every previous instance of nausea I had suffered since the last time I got this sick, it just kept coming. Eventually I ran out of stomach contents, then small intestinal contents, then large intestinal contents. Ultimately I ran out of digestive tract. So I proceeded right into dry heaving, and just kept going. I clenched my eyes tightly shut against the dizzying, tornadal assault on my visual senses, only to be greeted by the sensation of what seemed like my very consciousness itself being sucked down a dark, enormous whirlpool.

There's a line from Matrix Reloaded. Neo has just encountered the new, improved, "liberated" Agent Smith and his attempt to assimilate him in Borg-like fashion. Morpheus and Trinity ask him what Smith was trying to do to him. Neo replies, "I don't know, but I know what it felt like; it felt like I was back in that hallway [where he "died" in the first Matrix] - it felt like dying." I've never died (yet), but that sure felt awfully and uncomfortably close to it.

It also felt alone. My wife, remember, wasn't home. I was unable to cry out. My kids were asleep. If that had been "it," there'd have been no stopping it. I pictured my daughter and son finding my remains on the couch, or the floor, slowly stiffening. I wasn't ready for my week to start sucking that badly.

But God was with me. He got me through it. But that was just the first step.

My next thought was, "What the heck has happened to me? Is this a virus? Or is it something else, something worse?" I had my son do a little online research last Friday. I wasn't reassured. When I tried to drift off into fitful sleep Friday night (no mean feat when you've been on your back for the previous forty-eight hours), still without my wife, it was with these fears and anxieties cloistered around me as the vertigo and vomiting had been the day before. And to top that off, my father-in-law passed away early Friday morning, and I was unable to comfort my better half.

So what else could I do? I clung to the LORD. I claimed every promise from Scripture that I could remember. I experienced His peace amidst the storm. And I fell asleep.

Over the weekend I improved steadily. Saturday I transferred my convalescence to that self same couch, which had been thoroughly cleaned by my daughter, who has been an angel of mercy to me. Yesterday my eyes resumed focusing and I could read again, and spent most of the day seated instead of supine. Today my balance is still a little affected (ruling out driving) and I'm getting my stamina back, but compared to where I was....well, let's just say that between that and my wife's dad passing away, it's been a long time since I wept. Not great, wracking sobs, but the eye-leaking was unmistakable. As is my gratitude to God for His healing touch.

And, as an ironic if appropo twist, my right eye is almost as red as that of my alter ego....

~ ~ ~

Many years ago, while watching a little TV on Sunday instead of going to church, I watched a Church in Atlanta honoring one of it's senior pastors who had been retired many years... He was 92 at that time and I wondered why the Church even bothered to ask the old gentleman to preach at that age. After a warm welcome, introduction of this speaker, and as the applause quieted down he rose from his high back chair and walked slowly, with great effort and a sliding gate to the podium. Without a note or written paper of any kind, he placed both hands on the pulpit to steady himself and then quietly and slowly he began to speak....

"When I was asked to come here today and talk to you, your pastor asked me to tell you what was the greatest lesson ever learned in my 50 odd years of preaching. I thought about it for a few days and boiled it down to just one thing that made the most difference in my life and sustained me through all my trials. The one thing that I could always rely on when tears and heart break and pain and fear and sorrow paralyzed me...the only thing that would comfort was this verse..........

"Jesus loves me this I know.
For the Bible tells me so.
Little ones to him belong, we are weak but he is strong.....

Yes, Jesus loves me...
The Bible tells me so.

"When he finished, the church was quiet. You actually could hear his foot steps as he shuffled back to his chair. I don't believe I will ever forget it."

Nor will I.

[h/t: Uncle]

Dark Thought For The Day

This is too nauseating to dwell on...

Diddling While Americans Die

Great column by Oliver North. If this doesn't piss you off, especially at the defecting RINOs, nothing will:

He was an American hero. On his second tour of duty in Iraq, he had already served in the Western Pacific and a prior combat tour in Afghanistan. On Friday afternoon, Feb. 16, when Sgt. Joshua Frazier, USMC, was laid to rest in the soil of his native Virginia, his comrades in arms from the 1st Battalion, 6th Marines were fighting terrorists on the mean streets of Ramadi, in Iraq's bloody Al Anbar Province. As Sgt. Frazier's grieving mother was being presented with a carefully folded American flag, the Congress of the United States was debating a meaningless "non-binding resolution" attacking the commander in chief.

Heroes aren't athletes who set new sports records or Hollywood actors who make "daring" films or politicians who make bold promises. Heroes are people who place themselves at risk for the benefit of others. Joshua Frazier was certainly such a man. Unfortunately, there are far too few members of Congress who fit the definition.

Amen. The majority in Congress now are self-serving power-hungry small-minded jackasses who would rather win re-election than save American lives. It really is that simple. Oh yes, they support the troops...but refuse debate on a resolution that includes guaranteeing funding for those troops while they are fighting for their - and our - lives. They support the troops - but have been on a continuous march to undermine their mission and destroy their commander in chief in a time of war. They support the troops - but they never, ever talk about American victory in the war on terror. They only talk about defeat and surrender. They support the troops - but you never hear them talk about heroes like Joshua Frazier because they don't want ANY positive light shed on his mission.

I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

Sgt. Frazier is one of more than 2,500 U.S. military personnel killed in action in Iraq. Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims the resolution being debated by the House of Representatives is a measure that "will continue to support and protect" U.S. military personnel. Yet, she also says it shows "Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on Jan. 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq." How this does anything but damage U.S. and Iraqi morale and embolden America's adversaries is beyond comprehension.

Ah, but that is exactly what she and her fellow seditious Democrats want. Failure. Failure that they can hang around the necks of Bush and the Republicans for generations to come. Apparently, it is worth it to them to lose a few more American soldiers to achieve that end.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, "our experience," in Pelosi's words, has proven that pulling U.S. forces out before the war is won is a formula for disaster. In Korea, the decision to withdraw U.N. troops to the 38th parallel resulted in stalemate and today's despotic, nuclear-armed regime in Pyongyang. In Vietnam, the congressional cut-off of funds in December 1974 precipitated the North Vietnamese communist takeover of the entire country less than five months later. The combined losses in both wars -- more than 108,000 Americans killed in action -- should be an object lesson for this Congress. Pulling out, holding back, withdrawing support, "de-funding" the war -- whatever it's called -- is tantamount to squandering lives.

Is that where this Congress is heading? Are the lives of courageous young American volunteers like Joshua Frazier worth so little to our Congress that they would ignore our peril for perverse personal political profit?

You got it, Mr. North. That is exactly where this Congress is heading if our Republicans who are still there do not do everything in their power to stop them.

Get out your pens or warm up your keyboards, people. Write to every Republican in Congress, and write twice to the wavering White Flag Republicans, and tell them what you think.

Sunday, February 18, 2007

The Way To Success

1 After the death of Moses the servant of the LORD, the LORD said to Joshua son of Nun, Moses' aide: 2 "Moses my servant is dead. Now then, you and all these people, get ready to cross the Jordan River into the land I am about to give to them—to the Israelites. 3 I will give you every place where you set your foot, as I promised Moses. 4 Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the great river, the Euphrates—all the Hittite country—to the Great Sea [a] on the west. 5 No one will be able to stand up against you all the days of your life. As I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will never leave you nor forsake you.

6 "Be strong and courageous, because you will lead these people to inherit the land I swore to their forefathers to give them. 7 Be strong and very courageous. Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go. 8 Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful. 9 Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go."

-Joshua 1:1-9

Back From St. Louis!

Whew! Just got back from a whirlwind overnight trip to St. Louis for a Feis. The things I do for that kid...she did well, though.

Now to catch up on the news. I see that the Republicans have blocked the anti-troop resolution in the Senate. Good for to write to the linguini-spined RINOs who voted in favor of it.

Saturday, February 17, 2007

Finding God In The Darkness

24"The God who made the world and everything in it is the LORD of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And He is not served by human hands, as if He needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole Earth; and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27 God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though He is not far from each one of us. 28 'For in Him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are His offspring.'

29"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the Man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising Him from the dead."

-Acts 17:24-31

Friday, February 16, 2007

The Best Find

14 While they were bringing out the money that had been taken into the temple of the LORD, Hilkiah the priest found the Book of the Law of the LORD that had been given through Moses. 15 Hilkiah said to Shaphan the secretary, "I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of the LORD." He gave it to Shaphan.

16 Then Shaphan took the book to the king and reported to him: "Your officials are doing everything that has been committed to them. 17 They have paid out the money that was in the temple of the LORD and have entrusted it to the supervisors and workers." 18 Then Shaphan the secretary informed the king, "Hilkiah the priest has given me a book." And Shaphan read from it in the presence of the king.

19 When the king heard the words of the Law, he tore his robes. 20 He gave these orders to Hilkiah, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Abdon son of Micah, [a] Shaphan the secretary and Asaiah the king's attendant: 21 "Go and inquire of the LORD for me and for the remnant in Israel and Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the LORD's anger that is poured out on us because our fathers have not kept the word of the LORD; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written in this book."

-2 Chronicles 34:14-21

Ethics and Courage

The Democratic Party is bereft of both. Look what accepting bribes will get you from Crazy Nancy:

Eight months after stripping Rep. William J. Jefferson of his seat on the Ways and Means Committee, Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to award the lawmaker with a spot on the Homeland Security panel.

Jefferson has been embroiled in a nearly two-year-old federal investigation focusing on whether the 59-year-old lawmaker accepted bribes when he attempted to help set up some telecommunications deals in Africa for a Kentucky-based company called iGate Inc. Court documents indicate that the FBI has accumulated a significant amount of evidence in the case, including video of Jefferson allegedly accepting a $100,000 cash bribe from an FBI informant.
The case became fodder for late-night talk show comedians after investigators raided his home and found $90,000 in cash tucked away in a freezer.

Yeah Nancy, clean up that House! You're doing a fine job!

Then...the Democrats passed their Resolution for Defeat today, with the help of 17 Republicans:

The House just completed voting, and has approved 246-182 the Democrats' defeatist resolution. This was expected: but the good news is, the 40-60 Republican defectors that the Democrats had been predicting failed to materialize. Only seventeen Republicans voted for the resolution --- and two Democrats broke ranks to vote against it.

Read further down in the article to see the two Democrats who did the right thing and the 17 White Flag Republicans.

Are the Democrats showing their true colors, or what?


Okay, I am beyond irritated, beyond disgusted, beyond sickened by the Democrats' sedition, I have graduated to enraged. Their determination for America to fail in the War on Terror is so painfully obvious I can't believe even the most jaded liberal can't see it. Here's Pelosi:

"The bipartisan resolution today may be nonbinding, but it will send a strong message to the president: we here in Congress are committed and supporting our troops,” Pelosi said. “The passage of this legislation will signal change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home safely and soon.”

This lying wench doesn't support our troops, she wants them to FAIL. She doesn't care if they live or die. I truly believe that. If she did, she wouldn't be working so hard for the defeat of America. She is more interested in making sure her plane is bigger than Hastert's was than in supporting our troops. It makes me sick that slugs like Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, et al are in positions of respect. There should be respectable people in those offices, and they are the opposite of that. Look at what Henry Waxman said:

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., called Iraq a "defeat."

"What we now have in Iraq is a defeat. We cannot achieve the illusions of the Bush administration that we will be able to create a stable unified liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American," Waxman said on the House floor. "Instead, we have sectarian fighting, death squads and a disabled Middle East that threatens to be engulfed by the nightmare that we have unleashed."

You WISH Iraq was a defeat, Nostrils. That is what you and your leftist buddies are working for, night and day. The only nightmare I can see is the one the voters unleashed on their fellow countrymen in November 2006. I hear there are 12 Republicans voting for this travesty. I can't wait to send them a few letters.

Rush is right:

But I'll tell you, there is no sound bite; there is no torturously crafted statement; there is no skillful twist of logic; no lawyerly proclamation; no media spin, whatsoever, that will turn the House vote tomorrow -- this nonbinding resolution -- into anything but a disgrace of historic proportion.

"A disgrace of historic proportion." Well put. But what do you expect when you put disgraceful people in public office?

Victory Caucus

There's a new conservative blog out there now called the Victory Caucus. Looks like it's going to be a good one, it boasts the names of Hugh Hewett, Dean Barnett, Austin Bay, and others. Their mission is victory in Iraq, and from what I can see, identifying those "White Flag Republicans," as they call them, and sending them a message. Here is their mission statement:

Deliver the perspectives and news on the war effort which the mainstream media neglects to help the American public understand the nature of our conflict and its true progress.

Provide tools and infrastructure to help citizens who are committed to victory organize into a recognized and influential caucus.

Identify opportunities for the caucus to act and exert influence on America’s leaders and to directly aid and support the men and women of our military.

The headlines on their home page today are interesting. The first one is:

House set to vote against troop increase.

Right underneath that:

GIs sweep Baghdad; al-Qaida leader hurt.

Our guys kicked butt yesterday, and all the Democrats and the White Flag Republicans can do is continue to push a resolution for defeat. What is WRONG with these people??!!

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Officer Waxworks

15 "If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16 And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him, for He lives with you and will be [a] in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Before long, the world will not see Me anymore, but you will see Me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in My Father, and you are in Me, and I am in you. 21 Whoever has My commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves Me. He who loves Me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show Myself to him."

22 Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, "But, LORD, why do You intend to show Yourself to us and not to the world?"

23 Jesus replied, "If anyone loves Me, he will obey My teaching. My Father will love Him, and We will come to Him and make Our home with Him. 24 He who does not love Me will not obey My teaching. These words you hear are not My own; they belong to the Father Who sent Me.

-John 14:15-24

Email From Iraq

Check out this email from a soldier in Iraq over at Rush's site.

Franken-Stein to Run

Al Franken made his big announcement on his last day on the air at Air America. Well, Minnesota would certainly be the place to do it. After all, they gave us Keith Ellison.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

There Is Love

7 (A) Beloved, let us (B) love one another, for love is from God; and (C) everyone who loves is (D) born of God and (E) knows God.

8 The one who does not love does not know God, for (F) God is love.

9 By this the love of God was manifested (G) in us, that (H) God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.

10 In this is love, (I) not that we loved God, but that (J) He loved us and sent His Son to be (K) the propitiation for our sins.

11 (L) Beloved, if God so loved us, (M) we also ought to love one another.

-1 John 4:7-11

Favorite Political Valentine

Well, I'm snowed in today. Level 3 snow emergency here in Wayne County, other words, non-essential vehicles are not supposed to be on the road. It is a rare thing for a Post Office to be closed, but they won't let us open so I guess there is nothing to be done about it. I fought the snow yesterday when we were at Level 2 and kept the place open, but I guess today will have to be a first in my 22 year postal career, unless the Postmaster makes it in to open it up. He's not supposed to be on the road, of course, but he might try it.

Anyway, I've had more time than usual to read around the Internet, and came across a great symposium over at NRO regarding several writers' favorite political Valentines. Go over there and enjoy.

Run Mookie Run

Once again, the Democrats find themselves on the wrong side of the fight. From Captain's Quarters:

Well, so much for the whole 72 virgins thing and the radical Islamist desire to die in martyrdom:

The story tonight in Iraq is not the arrival of more U.S. troops, but the departure of one of the country's most powerful men, Moqtada al Sadr and members of his army.

According to senior military officials al Sadr left Baghdad two to three weeks ago, and fled to Tehran, Iran, where he has family.

Al Sadr commands the Mahdi Army, one of the most formidable insurgent militias in Iraq, and his move coincides with the announced U.S. troop surge in Baghdad.

Sources believe al Sadr is worried about an increase of 20,000 U.S. troops in the Iraqi capital. One official told ABC News' Martha Raddatz, "He is scared he will get a JDAM [bomb] dropped on his house."

Sources say some of the Mahdi army leadership went with al Sadr.

This couldn't have come at a better time. Congress has tied itself in knots trying to opine on what a disaster the surge will be, and before they can vote on a resolution scolding George Bush for wasting resources, he's already chased one of the worst actors out of Baghdad. Nancy Pelosi will be holding a debate to disapprove of a strategy that has already demonstrated success.

Good timing, huh? What do you want to bet this won't lead on any of the news shows, or headline in any newspapers? The Democrats in the House are up there tearing down an idea that is clearly working. That's no surprise, really, but it would be nice if NBC would talk about it a bit.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Those Poor Icky Chicks

The Icky Chicks are in the news again, winning a bunch of Grammys and behaving like poor martyrs in the fight for free speech. Puh-Leeze. Read this, if you can without barfing:

"I think people are paranoid" was how former Grateful Dead member Mickey Hart's comments to Reuters began. Hart was speaking about this year's Grammy Awards and the Dixie Chicks. Then he provided a sterling example of that very paranoia.

"I think that if they speak out, they think they're gonna get whacked by the government. It's pretty oppressive now. Look at the Dixie Chicks. They got whacked."

Oh yeah, they got whacked all right. Whacked with 5 Grammys. Wow, how will they ever survive? Methinks Mr. Grateful Deadhead took a few too many hits off his bong. Who exactly in the government whacked the Chicks? "It's pretty oppressive now." Were there every any dumber words spoken?

It seems that free speech only applies if you're famous and bashing your country and your President. It does NOT apply when you disagree with what they said. As Jon Sanders says further down in the column:

But it's all vanity. Hart's comments, the "musical martyrs," the paranoia — it's just self-congratulatory hooey. Musicians aren't getting "whacked" by the Bush administration for "speaking out." But it's fun to believe it, because only then could the very mundane act of speaking out in this, the Land of the First Amendment, appear dangerous and brave instead of merely mercenary.

Perspective is sorely lacking when fabulously wealthy, celebrated recording artists somehow believe that the fabric of free speech in a community is in danger because they said something political and a bunch of folks replied in no uncertain terms that they didn't like what they said. They're seeing free speech at its most vibrant and they think it's in peril.

I am so sick of spoiled, stupid, multimillionaire celebrities trying to sound intelligent while whining and sniveling about their country. Cameron Diaz comes to mind...I can't find the link, but she was being interviewed and compared our freedom to Cuba's, meaning that we weren't any more free than they are. There are countless quotes to choose from...I think that will be my next project!

Hillary's Campaign Poster

This is perfect. Check out this Hillary Campaign Poster!

Monday, February 12, 2007

Knock, Knock

8 Therefore (A) do not be ashamed of the (B) testimony of our LORD or of me (C) His prisoner, but join with me in (D) suffering for the (E) gospel according to the power of God, 9 Who has (F) saved us and (G) called us with a holy (H) calling, (I) not according to our works, but according to His own ( J)purpose and grace which was granted us in (K) Christ Jesus from (L) all eternity, 10 but (M) now has been revealed by the (N) appearing of our Savior (O) Christ Jesus, Who (P) abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, 11 (Q) for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher.

12 For this reason I also suffer these things, but (R) I am not ashamed; for I know (S) Whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to (T) guard what I have entrusted to Him until (U) that day.

-2 Timothy 1:8-12

Liberal Derangement

They call it Bush Derangement Syndrome, and that is a very appropriate name. On my way home from work this morning, I was behind a car with two stickers in the window. One had the popular "W" sticker, but it said "W"acko. On the other side, the W was used as the first letter in "Worst President Ever." I expected to see an Earlham College type at the wheel, but it was an elderly gentleman...someone who at least should have the sense to understand that that kind of disrespect for the President, especially in a time of war, is inappropriate.

I do not understand the hatred for Bush that permeates the Left. I didn't like Bill Clinton, but it never occured to me to display stickers on my car to shout it to the world. I didn't agree with his handling of Kosovo, but those were our troops over there, therefore never, ever did I malign what they were doing. Liberals simply do not understand respect for their President and Commander-in-Chief. These people act like spoiled children...and we have given them the reins of power in our Congress. At this time in history, that is a very scary reality.

I was just reading about Barack Obama's comments regarding Australia over at Powerline:

On his first day of campaigning as an official candidate for president, Barack Obama committed what would in days of old have been recognized as a major international blunder. Times have changed, of course. If you are old enough to recall the proposition that politics stops at the water's edge, you are probably incapable of suspending rational thought to join in the excitement over a not-readly-for-prime-player joining the field of Democratic candidates for the presidential nomination.

Australia, you may recall, is one of America's steadfast allies in the war in which we are engaged. Australian Prime Minister John Howard criticized Obama's call for immediate American withdrawal from Iraq. When Obama was asked to respond, he declined simply to express respectful disagreement with a loyal American ally. Instead he insulted Australia's contribution to the war effort, belittling the 1,600 Australian troops in Iraq. He said that if Australia was so dedicated, maybe it should raise its contribution to 20,000.

Obama not only insulted our ally, he formulated the insult in the inelegant fashion of an intellectual thug. CNN reports that Obama said if the Australian prime minister was "ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq," he needs to send another 20,000 Australians to the war. "Otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric," Obama said. In Obama's case, the phrase "empty rhetoric" is pure redundancy.

*Real* presidential. If he is the "best and brightest" the Democrats have to offer, that is a sad situation indeed.

What's It Gonna Take?

Reading over some of the Democrats' responses to the "news" that Iran is actively involved in the killing of American soldiers, it's not hard to understand their reputation as being soft on national security. I mean, come on. From NewsMax:

Explosives seem to be flowing into Iraq from Iran, but does it stem from a deliberate government policy or rogue elements within the Iranian government, asked Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee?

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said that ultimately Iran wants a stable Iraq and that the United States needs to engage in diplomacy.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said the administration could be laying the groundwork for an attack on Iran and that "I'm worried about that. That's how we got into the mess in Iraq," by relying on what Dodd called "doctored information."

Senate Intelligence Committee member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said "the administration is engaged in a drumbeat with Iran that is much like the drumbeat that they did with Iraq. We're going to insist on accountability."

Isn't that typical? The Democrats are more suspicious of their own government and Commander-in-Chief than they are of dictatorships bent on the killing of American soldiers, and actively aiding terrorists in doing so. The Democrats won't recognize an act of war until a bomb explodes in their back yard, and even then they'll find a way to blame Bush.

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Out Of Proportion

1 Praise the LORD! I (A) will give thanks to the LORD with all my heart, in the (B) company of the upright and in the assembly.

2 (C) Great are the works of the LORD; they are (D) studied by all who delight in them.

3 (E) Splendid and majestic is His work, and (F) His righteousness endures forever.

4 He has made His wonders to be remembered; the LORD is (G) gracious and compassionate.

5 He has (H) given food to those who [a] fear Him; He will (I) remember His covenant forever.

6 He has made known to His people the power of His works, in giving them the heritage of the nations.

7 The works of His hands are (J) truth and justice; all His precepts (K) are sure.

8 They are (L) upheld forever and ever; they are performed in (M) truth and uprightness.

9 He has sent (N) redemption to His people; He has ordained His covenant forever; (O) holy and awesome is His name.

10 The [b](P) fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; a (Q) good understanding have all those who do His commandments; His (R) praise endures forever.

-Psalm 111