The Pulpit Pounder

As You May Have Noticed...

2005-09-03T09:25:00.000-04:00

I am no longer able to spend much time in this endeavor...I don't want to say I'm closing shop but, as September hits, the demands on my time go up dramatically and I doubt I'll be blogging much between now and the holidays...anyhow, I'll be in, out and around from time to time, just wanted those few who might notice (and you know who you are) that there is no family emergency or tragedy or anything...just real life intruding, as it always does. I'm sure when something the liberals do annoys me (another sure thing) I'll throw my $.02 up here.

The Big Draft...

2005-08-28T07:31:00.000-04:00

Well, my fantasy football draft went off yesterday, and today I find I have mixed emotions...Priest Holmes, T.O. and Tom Brady are my core players, with Priest coming off injury and T.O. not talking to D.M., which is N.G. (Not Good). On the other hand, I got 2 of the top 7 or 8 preseason picks in a 12-player league, which can't be a bad thing. I guess I will have to see how it plays out on the field, eh? Anybody else drafting? How are you making out?

Things That Don't Go Together...

2005-08-26T11:32:00.000-04:00

I suppose all's fair in commerce and war, but when I see Snoop Dogg and Lee Iacocca walking down the fairway together in the new Chrysler commercial, the words "...Dead Head sticker on a Cadillac..." pop into my head.

Maybe it's just me...

A Shocker By Pat Robertson

2005-08-25T00:01:00.000-04:00

In a surprise move, Pat Robertson said he was misquoted (even though his call for the assassination of a foreign leader is on video), that his remarks were taken out of context, and that his statement was being blown out of proportion by the press--I am stunned--oh wait, that's what I said he would do, isn't it...Let's see, does he look like a horse's ass while he's doing it? Yup...Nostradamus, move over...

Pat Robertson Should Just Shut Up

2005-08-24T09:19:00.000-04:00

Maybe that's all I need to say, but of course I won't stop there...

Being a pastor, I am about as sick as I can be of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and people like Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker being held up as spokesmen for and examples of Christian clergy. They should not represent themselves as leaders of all Christianity (which they are not), nor should the media be so quick to connect the vote of all "white evangelicals" with these jokers.

I am the pastor of an independent Baptist church--that means we are beholden to nobody but God, and nothing speaks for our church but the Bible. Pat Robertson has apparently failed to adopt the adult habit of thinking--and then pausing to consider the effect of his words--before speaking. He regularly comes out with some off the cuff comment that sends the media into a tizzy over supposed extremism by Christians. Then he backs off, apologizes, claims he was misquoted or taken out of context, and once again looks like the horse's ass he is...but that has nothing to do with me or with 99% of Christians in this country.

So Pat--shut your pie hole.

TSA Ready to Go Back to "No-Hassle" Passenger Screening?

2005-08-14T08:57:00.000-04:00

According to the Associated Press, the Transportation Security Administration is considering allowing icepicks, knives, razor blades, bows and arrows and other such items on airplanes soon. Not only that, but they would also like to reduce pat-down searches and eliminate shoe checks unless the passenger sets off a metal detector, is flagged by a computer, or looks "reasonably suspicious." This is intended to reduce "hassles" and make the process more "passenger-friendly."

We are approaching the fourth anniversary of 9/11, and apparently we have already forgotten its lessons. The best way to make the process of flying more "friendly" for me is to make sure my plane doesn't fall out of the sky in flames or run into a building, thank you very much. We already know that, if one has to look "reasonably suspicious" in order to have your shoes checked that will eliminate all young arab-looking males from searches, since checking them would be "racial profiling," hence "baaaddd."

I don't need a knife, a razorblade or an icepick while flying (the icecubes are usually small enough), and I haven't seen any target ranges for bows and arrows in flight, either...my advice to the TSA is to keep us safe first, worry about hassles second--or third--or fourth--and if you don't like all the "hassle" associated with flying commercial, get a license and plane and fly yourself or take the train.

More Than a Tad Busy

2005-08-11T17:40:00.000-04:00

Sorry my blogging's been off if you have been dropping by to see me...I had a service last night, a funeral today and another Saturday, and a Sunday school class and 2 sermons for Sunday to write...and no secretary this week, so I also have to the bulletins and all the other office stuff...So I stopped in long enough to say howdy, but I don't even know what's going on in the news this week, let alone have time to comment on it...I'll get caught up next week, promise.

Bush Supports Teaching of "Intelligent Design" Alongside Evolution

2005-08-08T01:01:00.000-04:00

Not that it will make much difference to the Left, but President Bush came out in favor of teaching "Intelligent Design" in our public schools, in addition to "evolutionary theory," last week. Intelligent design is the theory that says the universe does not display the characteristics we would expect to see if it had occurred by chance, therefore an intelligent creative force must have been at work.

Now, I have a name for this "Intelligent Creative Force," and there's the problem...liberals, secular humanists and atheists don't want to put their theory--that everything in the universe was created from absolutely nothing, and completely by accident (which seems a little silly when it's held up to the light)--up against the theory that there is a Higher Being, namely God, who created everything, and let students judge for themelves. (The fact that these people don't think teens can make a legitimate, informed choice between evolution and intelligent design makes you wonder why they think it's okay to give teens sex ed and condom demonstrations and expect them to make good choices...but I digress.)

If this was any other theory--for instance, if you wanted to teach that space aliens from Alpha Centauri "seeded" the earth with life, the ACLU would be in there punching for your right of free speech and educational freedom. But even though there are holes in the theory of evolution big enough to drive a truck through, and even though evolutionary theorists have been warned by their own scientific leaders not to debate the issue because they always lose, evolutionary theory is treated as sacred...

Indeed, I am sure that once this is posted, someone will come and comment that evolution is a "fact", even though not one example of a transitional evolutionary form has ever been discovered for any species of animal, and even though no viable type of macro-evolution (one species to another species) has ever been demonstrated or can even be forced to occur in laboratory conditions. Evolutionary theorists have never let facts get in the way of their flights of fancy.

So kudos to President Bush for stepping forward on the issue, but until there is a judicial sea-change (another reason to keep praying for soon-to-be Justice Roberts) I am afraid the courts will continue to strike down the teaching of intelligent design, without regard fo the fact that evolution should not even be dignified with the title "theory"--it is entirely a figment of the "scientific" community's imagination.

Interesting Weirdness in Strange Places

2005-08-06T08:47:00.000-04:00

Recently I have been spending a bit of time on Blogshares, amassing a fantasy fortune by "trading" in the "blog market"...I'm sure many of you are aware of the game, but you may not be aware that there are lots of opportunities on Blogshares to buy links with the virtual blogdollars ("B$"), or to get people to comment on your site, or write a review of your site on their site, or design your site, or...well, you name it, you can probably find somebody on Blogshares who will take some amount of B$ to do it.

They even have a section of the game called "missions", where you can post a "mission" for other participants to perform, and in return they will receive some reward. Today I found Mission #334, "Fight For Your Constitution"--Those of you who know me know that this was like a magnet to me, so I read it to see what I could do to help. Here are the first two paragraphs of this plea for help--

This mission is unlike any mission ever before posted on blogshares. This is a call to US citizens for help. The first amendment of the united states constitution has, as of today, been deteriorated. They have taken certain peoples constitutional rights away and I am one of those people.

I ask that everyone read my entry on this matter, and stand up and do the right thing. I ask all of you to make a blog entry about this violation of our rights. It is not fair and I hate to have to sit back and watch the fall of america because not enough people care. So I refuse to just sit back and I ask for your help.

Touching, right? The non-capitalization of the proper nouns made me think that this might even be a very young person who was taking up for their rights. So I looked up the offending US Code section cited in the post in order to see what, specifically, was offensive to the First Amendment about it. It's 18 US Code sec. 2257, "Record Keeping Requirements."

"What is the heinous effect of this statute?" you might ask. What chilling effect does it perpetrate on our First Amendment right to free speech? It requires pornographers to ascertain their "performers'" dates of birth and names. In other words, you can't hire "Daisy Mae Lapdance," who "looks 18, anyway, Judge" without finding out that she's really Susie Smith, age 15.

So, according to this moonbat, the First Amendment protects his right to hire people without knowing their actual name or age or keeping any record of it, in order that they can plead ignorance when charged with the production of child pornography. I hope all of you with Blogshares accounts will go to this "mission" on the site and tell this clown exactly how much we think the right to make and disseminate kiddie porn ought to be protected by the First Amendment.

The GOP--Time For Radical Change?

2005-08-04T07:44:00.000-04:00

The national committee of the Republican Party is meeting in Pittsburgh today--The theme of the meeting is "Give us a chance, we'll give you a choice: Strengthening Lincoln's legacy."

According to the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, not only is the theme a joke, the members of the committee are "a herd of sheeple." What are the recent accomplishments of the GOP, according to the Trib?

"Federal spending is out of control.
The distribution of pork has reached obscene levels.
The just-passed highways bill is an embarrassment.
The energy bill isn't any better. (To wit, support for ethanol -- which takes more energy to make than it produces -- is idiocy incarnate.)
The Medicare prescription drug plan is a 10-pound sledgehammer driving a finishing nail.
Social Security reform? Rationalized, diluted and largely shelved.
Immigration policy? Confused, misguided and a threat to national security.

"This isn't the work of conservatives; it's the work of a Republican Party that has forgotten what conservatism is."

Imagine this--me agreeing with the editorial board of a newspaper! It's time for the Republican Party to represent the people who voted the Republican leadership into office. While I admire Dubya's wartime leadership in a time of world crisis, our domestic policy look's more like Walter Mondale's than Ronald Reagan's, and it's time to stop "compromising" with the Democrat Party; the reason we're in the majority in both houses of Congress and hold the White House is because people are fed up with liberalism. We need real Social Security reform (and please shut up AARP--nobody plans to starve old people--we just want there to be something left when we retire, too); we need to rollback the prescription plan--the biggest boondoggle in history; we need to stop trying to fix everything by throwing more money at instead of demanding results with what we have.

The Trib comes to the conclusion that the Grand Old Party is just that--OLD. It's time to get rid of the Trent Lott generation and start putting some energetic, young and aggressive leadership in place and take the fight to the Democrats. Before we become indistinguishable from them.

Coulter 100% Correct on Roberts Nomination

2005-08-02T12:32:00.000-04:00

Up to now, my takes on the John Roberts SCOTUS nomination have been about his confirmability and the predictable attacks by the Left, as I have been reserving judgment about what kind of a Supreme Court Justice he will actually be...but I think Ann Coulter hits the nail on the head with her July 27 piece on Roberts.

The fact of the matter is, we dont know, we can't know, what kind of Justice Roberts will be. Every time conservatives think "strict constructionism" of the Constitution is gaining a foothold on the Court, we get fooled. As Coulter points out, President George H.W. Bush, Newt Gingrich and John Willke of National Right to Life all thought David Souter was a good choice. No one would have guessed that the appointment of Harry Blackmun would result in Roe v. Wade, or that Sandra Day O'Connor would wind up being the swing vote in many cases favoring the liberal agenda.

So if you want to be happy about the Roberts nomination, fine, but I wouldn't start whistling "Don't Worry, Be Happy" just yet. I would have preferred it if President Bush had really decided to pick a conservative that everybody knew was a conservative and "gone to the mattresses" for him, rather than picking a "stealth" nominee that might backfire on us in five years.

Bush Takes a Stand for Bolton

2005-08-01T18:30:00.000-04:00

I'm sure I'm one of the last to comment regarding the recess appointment of John Bolton to the UN--Forgive me, I have been driving since 2:30 am, taking a load of my daughter's belongings to her in her new apartment...it is now 6:34 pm, and I just got to a computer.

The Democrats are in their usual frenzy about the President doing anything without their express consent (I always enjoy a good Democrat frenzy). Harry Reid calls Bolton "a seriously flawed and weakened candidate." The Tedster, never one to use reason when hysteria and hyperbole will do, said "It's a devious maneuver that evades the Constitutional requirement of Senate consent and only further darkens the cloud over Mr. Bolton's credibility at the UN."

First of all, Democrats question Bolton's "demeanor" and his "temper", which I for one think we could use a great deal more of at the UN. Getting angry at the lassitude of the UN could only be an improvement over sitting back and doing nothing while the innocent peoples of the world, that the UN ought to be protecting, die in the millions. President Bush deserves credit for putting someone of passion in the position.

Secondly, far from being an evasion of Constitutional requirements, the Constitution states: "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the end of their next Session." It is interesting to note that this same objection was raised, incorrectly, by Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma when then-President Clinton appointed James Hormel to the position of Ambassador to Luxembourg in 1999. Michael Brus of Slate pointed out at the time that, while such appointments are not looked on with favor by the Senate, they are Constitutional.

Let the Senate Democrats have their tizzy, they are powerless to do anything about this fait accompli. I would just note that, once again, had the leadership in Congress done its job a recess appointment would not have been necessary, but as usual the Bill ("Limp") Frist Republican leadership has been flowing, not leading...Let's hope the next election brings upheaval to the Republican power structure in the Senate.

"Limp" Frist Breaks With Bush on Stem Cells

2005-07-29T09:30:00.000-04:00

Since it has become increasingly clear over the last several months that Bill "Limp" Frist is on nobody's short list to become the next Republican Presidential candidate, he has decided to now come out in the open and break with President Bush publically over stem cell research. On the Senate floor, Frist said,

"While human embryonic stem cell research is still at a very early stage, the limitation put into place in 2001 will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases...Therefore, I believe the president's policy should be modified. We should expand federal funding ... and current guidelines governing stem cell research, carefully and thoughtfully, staying within ethical bounds."

This analysis, of course, ignores the fact that the federal government has no business using my tax dollars to fund this research, and there is no proof that embryonic stem cell research is superior to adult stem cell research...there is only supposition. Saying that the government will stay within "within ethical bounds" is laughable...what is ethical about harvesting human life for research?

I find it disgusting that, once again, the supposed leadership of the Republican Party has the moral integrity of a limp noodle. Get rid of Frist now!

NIF also has a link to the NYT story...

Warning: Toilet Hot?!

2005-07-29T09:24:00.000-04:00

I do not know what they are using to clean toilets at Denny's, but whatever it is, I think they need a new plan. Kathleen Williams of Kansas has filed suit against Denny's after allegedly receiving serious chemical burns on her derriere while using the Denny's facilities. Washington Times story here.

Death Watch On For Helen Thomas...

2005-07-28T18:04:00.000-04:00

One more reason for Dick Cheney to run for President...Helen Thomas has said that if he runs, she will kill herself. This old battleaxe has heckled presidential press secretaries incessantly for years, and her questions are usually along the lines of, "Has President Bush stopped torturing Iraqi babies yet?" In spite of the fact that she is certifiable, she seems to be nearly immortal, so perhaps the only way to get rid of her is if she does the deed herself.

Woo Hoo!! Cheney in '08!!

The Llama Butchers are with me on this...

The Rotting Carcass of "Straight Talk America" Rises Again

2005-07-28T09:26:00.000-04:00

John McCain, RINO and proud member of the Republican Filibuster Wimps, has dusted off the stinking corpse known as "Straight Talk America" and is once again poised to attack everyone and everything is sight in his continuing effort to be seen as a "maverick." John likes nothing better than to portray himself as a Washington outsider, when in fact he is every inch the Washington insider, and has nothing more on his tiny mind than where the next photo-op is (never get between "Straight Talk" and a camera...it could cost you your life). Be prepared for more "concern" from John about the state of the Republican Party as he gears up to announce for 2008.

John McCain wouldn't know what straight talk was if it bit him on the...ankle. This guy dances back and forth across the aisle in the Senate, spinning like a ballerina on meth. If you want his vote, be ye Republican or Democrat, come hat in hand and begging for the notice of the "maverick." He doesn't give a damn about anything but his own power base, and he will sell out the Republican party for a dime. If he had believed Francois Kerry could have won, he would have been Democrat VP candidate. He pushes legislation he knows is unconstitutional (McCain-Feingold) because it makes a good soundbite ("We're cleaning up CORRUPTION").

John, do us all a favor and re-embalm your "straight talk."

Also served up with lunch at Basils' Blog...

Dick Durbin--Working On His Howard Dean Impression

2005-07-27T17:35:00.000-04:00

Dick Durbin seems to be a man never content with the truth if there is an opportunity to dissimulate. Take the July 25 story in the Los Angeles Times by Jonathan Turley--Turley stated that, according to two people present at a meeting between Durbin and SCOTUS nominee John Roberts, Durbin asked Judge Roberts what he would do if he had to make a ruling contrary to Catholic dogma. According to Turley's sources, Roberts told the Senator that if that were the case he would recuse himself.

The report seems to have caused some concern among conservative and Catholic court-watchers, who see such questions as symptomatic of an anti-(conservative)Catholic prejudice. Here's where it gets a little weird...Durbin's Press Secretary, Joe Shoemaker, accused Mr. Turley of being inaccurate; according to them, Durbin never asked the question, and Roberts never answered it. Shoemaker specifically said, "I don't know who was his source. Whoever the source was either got it wrong or Turley got it wrong."

Senator John Cornyn then said that, when he asked Judge Roberts about the column, Judge Roberts "assured me that he would not have any difficulties ruling on such issues." I notice that Judge Roberts did not say the question wasn't asked, he just says it doesn't present a problem.

So, it seems that: 1) either the source for the story lied about the question being asked and answered, or; 2) the source for the story told the truth about the question being asked, but lied about the answer, or; 3) Durbin's office is lying about not asking the question...right? Except Durbin and Shoemaker were the sources for the story in the first place. Turley got it direct from Durbin, and read the story back verbatim to Shoemaker, who verified it.

So either Durbin's lying or Durbin's lying or Durbin's lying...take your pick. Oh, waitaminnit...now he says that he was the source for the story, but Mr. Turley "incorrectly captured the private conversation" and Mr. Durbin doesn't have an anti-Catholic "litmus test" for court nominees. Mr. Shoemaker refused to comment on the fact that, according to Mr. Turley, he specifically verified the story.

This has to be a continuing source of embarrassment to the Democrats...not Durbin specifically, I mean the fact that their leaders keep getting caught saying stupid things and lying about it. Maybe Bill and Hillary could conduct a seminar on how to lie consistently and with a straight face.

Yes, It's True...

2005-07-27T12:11:00.000-04:00

I am 21% Idiot.

I am not annoying at all. In fact most people come to me for advice. Of course they annoy the hell out of me. But what can I do? I am smarter than most people.

Take the
Idiot Test
@ FualiDotCom

Islam -- Still A Religion of Violence

2005-07-27T09:44:00.000-04:00

Although I generally have nothing in common with the International Humanist and Ethical Union, (since "humanism" is just code for "atheist"), I was glad to see them prodding the UN regarding the atrocities committed by muslims in the name of their religion. David Littman of the IHEU was attemptng to address the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights to condemn killing in the name of religion, but was unable to complete his remarks due to interference by islamic representatives.

Littman was trying to point out that, while many in this country and around the world have been hoodwinked into thinking that islam is essentially a religion of peace, the fact is that high-ranking muslim clerics support and defend murder and suicide bombing. They take the view that suicide bombers are not apostate, but are good muslims, and that terror attacks are permissible as part of islam.

As usual, we can expect no reaction from the UN. Once again, I would note that there is no reason for the US to continue to be in this organization. If the islamic UN states will not condemn terror in the name of their religion, we ought to demand their expulsion or withdraw from the UN ourselves. We are under the roof of a building in New York City playing nice with countries that covertly rejoice over 9/11.

Abortion and Federalists and Privilege--Oh My!!

2005-07-26T12:58:00.000-04:00

Now that the Lefties are really starting to rant, it's time to take another look at their latest efforts to derail the Roberts' SCOTUS nomination. So far, I would have to give them a B+ for effort, but a C- for results...

What have we really got so far? Not much. First, Roberts helped write anti-abortion briefs as an attorney. OK, you can write briefs for lots of things, including things you don't personally agree with. Moreover, even if your personal feelings run in one direction, it doesn't mean that a thinking, rational person can't decide, as a judge, to put his or her personal feelings aside and rule with whatever he or she concludes the law is (not should be).

Second, Roberts is listed in the "Federalist Society Lawyers' Division Leadership Directory, 1997-1998," but claims to have no memory of ever having been in the Federalist Society, let alone having been in leadership. This is considered highly suspicious by the Left, and Nan Aron, the President of Alliance for Justice, thinks "the Senate needs to go behind the glowing accounts of Roberts's record to figure out what he really thinks and what he really did." Just a thought on this...I once joined the Federalist Society while I was in law school...um, well, or at least I attended a few meetings, and I might have filled out a form to join, or I might not have. So I can tell you, without equivocation, that if you asked me if I was a member of the Federalist Society, I would have to say I have no memory of actually having been in the Federalist Society, though I attended Federalist Society functions, just like Judge Roberts did.

"But how could he be in leadership and not remember?" Well, when I was in a large firm (similar to Hogan & Hartson), a partner took me aside and suggested I get involved in some boards in the community, get some "name recognition" for the future. Often this involved nothing more than being at the right party or function and having somebody say, "Hey, you would be a great addition to XYZ ... would that be OK? We might occasionally want a bit of legal advice." I would say OK and often would get a little ink saying I had joined the board of XYZ charity. Sometimes I would wind up with an active role, sometimes I would never hear from them again. Although Roberts is listed in a "leadership" directory, being on the "steering committee" is, I would guess, a pretty honorary position--and probably he got listed by handing somebody a business card at a luncheon and promptly forgetting the conversation.

Lastly, Patrick Leahy is already throwing a tantrum about the fact that certain documents prepared by Roberts or connected to his work for the first Bush Administration are privileged. "'If the White House announcement is intended to begin a dialogue about documents, I welcome it,' said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the top Judiciary Democrat. 'If it is intended to unilaterally pre-empt a discussion about documents the Senate may need and is entitled to, then this is a regrettable beginning.'" Now, lest you think that the White House is not giving the committee any documents, be aware that 75,000 documents have been supplied, and more are on the way.

Moreover, although the Democrats will take the position that this is somehow Roberts' way of hiding the ball, the attorney-client privilege is not his to waive...the privilege belongs to the client, not the attorney, and it would be inappropriate and unwise for the current Bush Administration to waive the privilege of the former Bush administration and turn over the legal thoughts and strategies of the past Republican administration to the very people who oppose them...the Lefties of NOW, the ACLU, the PFAW, and Planned Parenthood, among others. (Just by-the-by, although some folks think Arlen Specter is "on board" with this nomination, he is one of the voices expressing concern over getting more documents for the Dems to pore over.)

In sum, there's a lot of smoke so far, not a lot of heat. More as this develops further.

Tunnel Builders Caught on US--Canadian Border

2005-07-22T09:50:00.000-04:00

On Thursday, US and Canadian enforcement agencies closed a 360-foot tunnel going across the Canadian border north of Seattle, and charged its builders with conspiracy to import and distribute marijuana. According to the reports, the Canadian border guards noticed large amounts of building materials going into a quonset hut on the Canadian side of the border, and lots of dirt coming out, but they couldn't figure out what was being built, so they tipped off investigators who have now arrested five people in connection with the scheme.

"They were smart enough to build a sophisticated tunnel," U.S. Attorney John McKay said in this border town about 90 miles north of Seattle. "They weren't smart enough to not get caught."

What I want to know is, why bother to build a tunnel at all? This is the same border that Gregory Depres crossed carrying "a homemade sword, a hatchet, a knife, brass knuckles and a chain saw stained with what appeared to be blood." And, if you recall, Mr. Depres looks like Pee-Wee Herman on crack. Yet he got across the border.

And if you don't feel like taking your chances with the pot hidden in your car or truck, you can always just walk it across the border at one of the many places the border is relatively unguarded. "Dozens of crossings are marked by orange cones and a "Closed" sign late at night. Travelers are expected to go the nearest 24-hour station. They used to be unwatched; today, they are monitored by border agents."

Monitored--not staffed. Or you could just jump the border in one of the areas where "the international boundary is "a ditch so puny a person could leap it."

What were they thinking, wasting their time building a tunnel?

Here's A Constitutional Amendment We Can Forget About....

2005-07-21T12:19:00.000-04:00

In the movie "Demolition Man," set several decades in the future, Sylvester Stallone's character expresses his disbelief that there is a "Schwarzenegger Presidential Library." Sandra Bullock's character tells him that Aaaanold became eligible and was elected after passage of the 61st Amendment. In real life, after he became Governor of California, there were whispers that it might be time to consider the reality that the Aaaanold phenomenon could necessitate such an amendment.

Life will not be imitating art in this case, however.

Although you might think anyone would be a vast improvement after Gray Davis, the former Governor who was ridden out of town on a rail, you would apparently be underestimating Aaaanold's stupidity and cupidity. Reuters reports that, after he vetoed a bill to regulate the distribution of diet supplements to high school athletes last year, it was discovered that Aaaanold signed a deal with the publisher of "Flex" and "Muscle and Fitness" magazines to be an "executive director" to the tune of $1 to $2+ million a year. The LA Times reports that, according to SEC documents, Aaaanold signed with American Media two days before his inauguration and makes more than the CEO of the company.

Aaaanold's approval rating has dropped 18 points since February. The chair of the state Democrat party has filed a complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission, and democrats are indicating that they plan to milk this for all it's worth to undermine Schwarzenegger's proposed goverment reforms.

Put that Constitutional Amendment on hold, Sandra...

Now It Begins

2005-07-20T16:44:00.000-04:00

Over at Hoystory, it is noted that the Center for American Progress's statement on John Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court is "wary, but responsible..."

So I started to look around to see the other lefty reaction:

People for the American Way--"People for the American Way is extremely disappointed that the President did not choose a consensus nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O’Connor. John Roberts’ record raises serious concerns as well as questions about where he stands on crucial legal and constitutional issues..."

Planned Parenthood--"President Bush's nomination last night of Judge John G. Roberts to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court raises serious questions and grave concerns about women's health and safety. This morning, Planned Parenthood staff and supporters, including the "Roe Rangers," gathered at the court to demonstrate that concern. Because Roberts has gone on record calling for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, it is imperative that the Senate conduct a thorough and independent review before approving a lifetime appointment to the nation's highest court. Roberts must affirm his commitment to constitutional protections for women's health and reproductive rights." (I hope never to meet a "Roe Ranger" in a dark alley--or anywhere else.)

The ACLU--"The American Civil Liberties Union today expressed deep concern about some of the civil liberties positions advocated by Judge John Roberts, President Bush's choice to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court...'Without the Supreme Court, the South would still be segregated, illegal abortions would be claiming thousands of lives, the indigent would have no right to a lawyer, and lesbian and gay Americans could be imprisoned for their private sexual conduct...The stakes could not be higher,'"according to Anthony Romero, ACLU executive director. (This is ACLU-speak for "lying about the nominee is OK, since the ends justify the means, and we know what's good for you better than you do." It also links the nominee to heinous past events that have nothing to do with the matter at hand without actually accusing him of anything.)

NOW--"Bush Picks Anti-Roe Judge...Women's Lives on the Line" (No, I'm not kidding, that's what it says).

NARAL --"Help Save the Supreme Court From President Bush: Tell Your Senators to Oppose Anti-Choice John Roberts!... If Roberts is confirmed to a lifetime appointment, there is little doubt that he will work to overturn Roe v. Wade."

So for all those blogging out there today that this is going to be a slam-dunk winner and the lefties are going to be reasonable and responsible, guess again.

Over-Analysis of Supreme Court Nominees

2005-07-20T10:00:00.000-04:00

Well, it has been a long wait, but it is time once again for pundits everywhere to begin analyzing the President's pick for SCOTUS, John Roberts. Does he favor big business or protect environmental rights? Is he pro-life or pro-death? Does he believe in the radical view of the Establishment Clause the Court has adopted, or is he more of a "Free-Exerciser"? Is he for original intent, or does he think the meaning of the Constituation changes with the times? Does he walk to work or carry his lunch? Speaking of lunch, where has his Coke can been, and who has it been near?

Let me just interject something here, before we all decide whether his views will result in his being confirmed or not...this all doesn't matter. All that matters is that George W. Bush nominated him, and therefore he will be in for a terrible beating from the Left, win or lose. Table after table of lefties will come up to testify and express their "grave concerns" about his "judicial temperament." NOW and NARAL and Planned Parenthood and the ACLU will deluge the Judiciary Committee with papers and opinions tegarding the potential danger to Roe. Sentences in the footnotes of his opinions will be dissected and diagrammed and parsed to prove he's a closet Nazi. He's probably an anti-Semite, just nobody told him yet (ask Robert Bork).

Don't be surprised if false accusations are made about anything and everything, from his home life, to his work life, to his political views--it is all fair game in the minds of the Ted Kennedys and Chuck Schumers of the world. These hearings are going to be like one of those movies you went to see as a kid that you couldn't watch, so you put your hands over your eyes and peeked through your fingers.

Will he ultimately get confirmed? I don't know. As I said yesterday, this is the kind of nomination that Arlen Specter is in a position to sink unless the President is doing the requisite arm-twisting. Up to now, the Senate leadership and the President have been more compromisers than arm-twisters. It's time to twist 'em--and break 'em off if necessary.

Check out Basil's Blog for links to other opinions on the nomination.

Arlen Specter, Political Hack...Excuse Me For Being Redundant...

2005-07-19T09:19:00.000-04:00

Is anyone else totally sick of Arlen Specter? Why is he the Chair of the Judiciary Committee during a conservative Administration when we need every vote on that committee and in the Senate to be solidly with the president?

Specter is the Sandra Day O'Connor of the Senate...he loves the limelight of controlling (and destroying) conservative judicial nominees in the same way that Sandy-Baby loved controlling the direction of the Court...and now we're going to have to endure the tedium of looking at his ugly mug once again and listening to his nasal whine as he pretends to know more about Constitutional law than an experienced jurist. I predict that, unless the President either nominates a liberal (I'll just call it what it is and not pretend Specter wants a "moderate"), or has something he can use to force Specter to play ball on the right team, Specter will not hesitate to vote with the Democrats and lead a Charge of the Lightweight Brigade in the Republican party to stop his own President from exercising his Constitutional prerogative to choose members of the Supreme Court.

Having lived in a state where Specter was one of my senators and another state where Hillary Clinton and Chucky Schumer were my senators, I can tell you that they are three of a kind...their position on any issue can be predicted by gauging its effect on their political ambitions...but at least with Chucky and Hillary they are upfront about being liberal nits.

Lucas Davenport's 100 Greatest Rock Songs

2005-07-17T18:41:00.000-04:00

Sorry I have been away for a few days. I was visiting my dad, and had a great time, including a nice day hanging out with him and my uncle Bob. We sat around and solved all the world's problems, but I forget the answers. I should have written them down.

Anyway, I also got to read "Broken Prey," the latest Lucas Davenport mystery by John Sandford, and in it Lucas's wife gives him an iPod and 100 songs...Lucas sees this as a challenge, as he only wants the 100 best songs of all time...he begins compiling a list (with a little help from his friends). Anyway, here's my thought...this list stinks...help me fix it...take out a song and add a song...you can take out as many as you want, but you have to add one for every one you take off the list, OK? Here's the list...

Lucas Davenport’s "Best Songs of the Rock Era"

In no particular order, except that, as any intelligent person knows, any decent road trip will start with ZZ Top.

1. ZZ Top, "Sharp-Dressed Man"

2. ZZ Top, "Legs"

3. Wilson Pickett, "Mustang Sally"

4. Crash Test Dummies, "Superman’s Song"

5. David Essex, "Rock On"

6. Golden Earring, "Radar Love"

7. Blondie, "Heart of Glass"

8. Jefferson Airplane, "White Rabbit"

9. Jefferson Airplane, "Somebody to Love"

10. Derek and the Dominoes, "Layla"

11. Doors, "Roadhouse Blues"

12. Animals, "House of the Rising Sun"

13. Aerosmith, "Sweet Emotion"

14. Aerosmith, "Dude (Looks Like a Lady)";
Led Zeppelin, "Stairway to Heaven"

15. Bruce Springsteen, "Dancing in the Dark"

16. Bruce Springsteen, "Born to Run"

17. Bruce Springsteen, "Thunder Road"

18. Police, "Every Breath You Take"

19. Tom Waits, "Heart of Saturday Night"

20. Van Halen, "Hot for Teacher"

21. Who, "Won’t Get Fooled Again"

22. Gipsy Kings, "Hotel California"

23. Tracy Chapman, "Give Me One Reason"

24. Creedence Clearwater Revival, "Down on the Corner"

25. Eagles, "Lyin’ Eyes"

26. Eagles, "Life in the Fast Lane"

27. Dire Straits, "Skateaway"

28. Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, "Mary Jane’s Last Dance"

29. Janis Joplin, "Me 'n Bobby McGee"

30. The Doobie Brothers, "Black Water"

31. Joan Jett and the Blackhearts, "I Love Rock ‘n Roll"

32. John Mellencamp, "Jack and Diane"

33. Pink Floyd, "Another Brick in the Wall (Part 2)"

34. Pink Floyd, "Money"

35. Billy Joel, "Piano Man"

36. Eric Clapton, "After Midnight"

37. Eric Clapton, "Lay Down Sally"

38. AC/DC, "You Shook Me All Night Long"

39. AC/DC, "Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap"

40. The Hollies, "Long Cool Woman (in a Black Dress)"

41. Bob Dylan, "Like a Rolling Stone"

42. Bob Dylan, "Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door"

43. Bob Dylan, "Subterranean Homesick Blues"

44. The Rolling Stones, "Satisfaction"

45. The Rolling Stones, "Brown Sugar"

46. The Rolling Stones, "Sympathy for the Devil"

47. Sex Pistols, "Anarchy in the UK";
Social Distortion, "Story of My Life"

48. Grateful Dead, "Sugar Magnolia"

49. The Pointer Sisters, "Slow Hand"

50. Eurythmics, "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)"

51. Elvis Presley, "Jailhouse Rock"

52. David Bowie, "Ziggy Stardust"

53. Bob Seger, "Night Moves"

54. The Everly Brothers, "Bye Bye Love"

55. Jimi Hendrix, "Purple Haze"

56. The Kinks, "Lola"

57. Jackson Browne, "Tender is the Night"

58. The Kingsmen, "Louie Louie"

59. George Thorogood and the Destroyers, "Bad to the Bone"

60. Metallica, "Turn the Page"

61. Lynryd Skynyrd, "Sweet Home Alabama"

62. Queen, "We Will Rock You"

63. The Allman Brothers Band, "Ramblin’ Man"

64. Led Zeppelin, "Rock ‘n Roll"

65. Tina Turner, "What’s Love Got to Do With It"

66. Steppenwolf, "Born to Be Wild"

67. U2, "With or Without You"

68. Black Sabbath, "Paranoid"

69. Foreigner, "Blue Morning, Blue Day"

70. Billy Idol, "White Wedding"

71. Guns ’n Roses, "Sweet Child o’ Mine"

72. Guns ‘n Roses, "Paradise City"

73. Guns ‘n Roses, " Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door"*

74. Lou Reed, "Walk on the Wild Side"

75. Bad Company, "Feel Like Makin’ Love"

76. Def Leppard, "Rock of Ages"

77. Van Morrison, "Brown Eyed Girl"

78. Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels, "Devil With a Blue Dress On"

79. Aretha Franklin, "Respect"

80. John Lee Hooker and Bonnie Raitt, "I’m in the Mood"

81. James Brown, "I Got You (I Feel Good)"

82. The Righteous Brothers, "Unchained Melody"

83. Prince, "Little Red Corvette"

84. Chuck Berry, "Roll Over Beethoven"

85. The Byrds, "Mr. Tambourine Man"

86. Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, "Ohio"

87. Buddy Holly, "Peggy Sue"

88. Jerry Lee Lewis, "Great Balls of Fire"

89. Roy Orbison, "Oh, Pretty Woman"

90. Del Shannon, "Runaway"

91. Run-DMC, "Walk This Way"

92. Otis Redding, " (Sittin’ on) the Dock of the Bay"

93. Nirvana, "Smells Like Teen Spirit"

94. Paul Simon, "Still Crazy After All These Years"

95. Bo Diddley, "Who Do You Love? "

96. Brewer and Shipley, "One Toke Over the Line";
Lynyrd Skynyrd, "Gimme Three Steps"

97. Ramones, "I Wanna Be Sedated"

98. The Clash, "Should I Stay or Should I Go"

99. Talking Heads, "Burning Down the House"

100. Dmitri Shostakovich, "Jazz Suite No. 2: Waltz 2"

* Yeah, yeah, I know it’s on the list twice.

I am taking off "One Toke over the Line" by Brewer and Shipley...I can't believe anybody would put this on a greatest rock songs list...its a nice little ditty, but come on...I am adding "Gimme Three Steps" by Lynyrd Skynyrd (which is better than "Sweet Home Alabama" any day of the week). C'mon rock fans, join the party.

2005-07-14T18:28:00.000-04:00

Our Prayers Are With Our British Friends

God Bless Chief Justice Rehnquist

2005-07-14T00:04:00.000-04:00

I do not know what the Chief Justice's symptoms or prognosis are, as of this hour, but I know he has worked as hard as humanly possible, and beyond, over a 33-year career on the bench of the Supreme Court for this country, not to mention his prior contributions. In my view, Chief Justice Rehnquist has remained true to his calling, true to the legal and judicial professions, and true to the Constitution of the United States.

God Bless You tonight, Mr. Chief Justice!!

The ACLU's Gitmo Smoking Guns

2005-07-13T18:30:00.000-04:00

I think I will be posting my blogburst early this week, as I will be on the road Wednesday through Friday or Saturday. I have some thoughts on the ACLU and its unceasing efforts to portray the Guantanamo "illegal enemy combatant detainees" as martyrs and victims. The ACLU would like to prove that our government and the members of the Bush administration have tortured these poor fellas who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. In fact, I doubt the ACLU gives a hoot about these detainees, it would just like to see the Administration embarrassed, if not ousted. This is simply an extension of a time-honored credo of the ACLU, "conservative=bad; liberal= good."

If you go to the ACLU website, you will notice on the front page the caption "Torture Documents" in the left margin. This is sure to titillate the casual ACLU site reader, I am sure...then you navigate your way to a page captioned "Government Documents on Torture," which informs you that the ACLU has documents "the government did not want the public to see"!! Oh, the Humanity!! What could these foul miscreants of government have done to these poor boys! Everyone knows the Administration and its military-industrial complex are the lowest form of human life, what miry depths could they have sunk to now? The Rack? The Iron Maiden? Beds of Nails?

Well, not exactly...I started to go through these summaries and re-summarize them to make them more easily digestible, but it was a little too boring, tedious and pointless--they consist of a combination of whining and unsubstantiated allegations by detainees--you will either, like the ACLU, see a pattern of "torture" in them, or you will, like me, see very little of substance, punctuated by instances of possible violence. Let me suggest that it is likely that any prison in the US would have more instances of violence per capita than what are recounted in these "smoking gun" documents about Guantanamo.

In addition to the "torture," I would be remiss if I did not add that one detainee confessed that one uprising was caused by another detainee dropping a koran on the ground and blaming it on a guard. Moreover, to show you how mind-numbed these Islamic robots are, one confessed that, although he was engaged in a hunger strike because of poor treatment by the guards, he had never been abused, or seen any cruelty by the guards, nor had he heard any of the derogatory comments the guards supposedly made.

You can see for yourself what's actually in these so-called "Torture Documents" but here are some of the highlights of the "torture" (and keep in mind, these are interviews of detainees--this is the worst they could come up with):

Sometimes the guards push detainees around; sometimes, after emptying their waste buckets, they "throw" them back to the detainees, sometimes with waste
still in them. (slop bucket detail might make me a little testy at times, too--I don't imagine the crack troops were doing this.) The detainees are being forced to shower, dress and use the bathroom in front of others. (Such a shame).

One detainee complains he is not sleeping well. (Conscience?) He is diagnosed as having post-traumatic stress syndrome and depression. He dreams about being beaten (Justice?). One detainee says he was treated harshly by soldiers at Peshawar and Kandahar--no mention of Gitmo or the circumstances that provoked the "harsh treatment" elsewhere. One detainee confesses that uprising at Gitmo blamed on guards was caused by detainee dropping koran on ground and blaming a guard. One detainee says that guards' "behavior is bad." The specifics? Other than one claimed beating 5 months previously, the sum of the bad behavior is that guards "dance around" during detainees prayers. (I'm trying hard to picture American Military personnel dancing around to muslim prayers, not quite getting there.)

Several Detainees claim they were beaten in Bagram and Kandahar, but do not mention Guantanamo. Another detainee says he has not been abused while in American custody. One detainee claims his prayer cap was thrown in the trash by a guard (find that guard and shoot him).

Another detainee claims that, upon his capture, he was tortured for 2 days and wound was not treated...no mention of treatment at Guantanamo. Another
detainee recants his confession because he claims he confessed under threat of
Pakistani torture. Detainee claims he was kicked and "had cold water thrown on
him." One detainee thinks the other detainees believe he is a spy, which is causing him stress...He confesses having mental problems in the past...he has been moved to isolation at his request. Another detainee says he won't talk until his treatment gets better--(he had "comfort items" removed from his cell due to his bad behavior).

One detainee claims that detainees are beaten and treated worse than a dog, but is mysteriously unable to provide any details. One Detainee admits that he has never seen any cruelty by the guards or personally heard any derogatory comments by the guards, but is on a hunger strike anyway, because the guards are treating the detainees like animals.

This goes on and on. Now, let me be clear (not that it will do any good): I am not saying no prisoner was ever beaten at Guantanamo Bay, and I am not saying that no act of violence ever occurred at Guantanamo Bay, and I am not saying that the koran was never abused (although I find that a silly issue, since they admit to doing it themselves). What I am saying is that, when you look at all these "smoking gun" "documents the government never wanted you to see", what I see is a bunch of unrelated incidents, attested to only by people with an axe to grind--ACLU, for once let the government do its job and stay out of this issue. These are not Americans, so their Civil Liberties should be of no interest to you in any case.

Joining a Gym

2005-07-10T08:56:00.000-04:00

Since I am in a sedentary profession, I decided this week to officially accept the fact that I am middle-aged and out of shape and join a gym, er... health club, er...fitness center--well whatever it is, it has machines and weights and stuff. Anyhow, part of the deal is to have a couple of sessions with a trainer, and I thought this was a good idea, since I don't know how to work all the machines in the gym. What a mistake.

Let me tell you something right now...never let a trainer get hold of you...I think this guy's name was Genghis...no wait, it was Greg, it just sounded like Genghis after awhile...I said I wanted to work on my legs and abs, so he has me do about 100,000 squats, followed by 50,000 leg curls followed by about a million crunches. Then he has the audacity to say "how're you doing?" I said, "you mean other than wanting to puke on your shoes?"

I managed to stumble to the car and luckily the gym is only a few blocks from my house. So I get home, my wife says, "What happened, were you in an accident?" I gasp "noooooo" and fall into a chair...she then says, "I'm taking you to the hospital" and I am thinking, "yeah, right, I get to the hospital and they say 'what happened?' and I say 'Genghis.'" So I tell my wife, "No, I'm fine dear." So after an hour or so she gets over her solicitous attitude and for the next two days, as I stagger around on legs made of jell-o, she makes fun of her "old man." Nice.

So, am I quitting? No way. Back to the gym, uh fitness center, for more torture...I will keep ya'll posted.

Was Terrorist From Gitmo?

2005-07-07T22:58:00.000-04:00

According to the Northeast Intelligence Network, they have information from inside the Pentagon that one of the terrorists involved in the London bombings was a released Guantanamo Bay detainee. At this point the story is not confirmed, but if true it only emphasizes the importance of not caving in to calls from the left to "charge or release" these illegal combatants as long as there is any shred of doubt about their roles in terrorism.

Update--As of 10:30 pm, the Pentagon source was standing by this story, saying, "one of the bombers who is believed to be involved in this attack was recently released from the prison at Guantanamo, Cuba."

Islamic Cowards Kill More Innocent Civilians

2005-07-07T12:41:00.000-04:00

That's what this is, and that's what there is to say about it. Some bunch of nuts calling themselves the "Secret Organization of Al-Qaeda in Europe" says they were the ones who set off the bombs in London this morning. At least 33 are dead and hundreds are wounded. They proclaim themselves to be "heroic mujahedeen" and warn "all crusader governments that they will receive the same punishment if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan."

These spineless murderers think themselves heroes, and morons like Bill Maher and other luminaries of the left probably agree with them...Now is the time for the President to call on the spineless Kerry-esque wimps of the left in this country to stand up for Democracy and get on board with our efforts to eradicate (yes eradicate) al-Qaeda and all other groups like al-Qaeda...I don't really want to hear any more crap about how peaceful Islam is and how we ought to just try to get along with these loons. We need to find them and destroy them, and if we have to do more than turn up the air-conditioning and play loud rock music to get answers out of these creeps, we ought to do what it takes.

It's Blogburst Thursday

2005-07-07T12:01:00.000-04:00

Seeing as how the ACLU opened its new website, Take Issue, Take Charge, last week (a website whose professed mission is to stop the teaching of sexual abstinence until marriage to teens in favor of "responsible sexuality"--it is part of the ACLU's "reproductive freedom project" (whatever that means)) it is only fair that Stop the ACLU gets its grand opening this week.

The ACLU stands for, and will continue to stand for, the right to kill unborn children at will; the right to peddle and possess child pornography; the right to disseminate information about how to be a pedophile and get away with it; the right of a minor to kill an unborn child without even informing her parents; the right of illegal aliens to enter the US and receive all the benefits of a citizen; the right of homosexuals to marry, adopt children and receive all the benefits of marriage; the right of felons to vote; the right to burn the flag of the United States; and the right not to be "offended" by public displays of religious belief (although our forefathers came to this land to find freedom to practice one's religion).

What rights do they stand against? The right of the unborn to life, the most basic of all rights; the right of parents to have their children educated as they see fit, and not brainwashed by secular humanism; the right to have the symbols of the historic Judeo-Christian roots of our country displayed in public; the right to pray in public; the right to recognize that our nation was founded "under God"; the right of the Boy Scouts or other groups to have equal access to public facilities with secular or atheistic groups; the right to protect our borders from illegal immigration; the right to know when there is a sexual predator living in your neighborhood; and the right not to have children exploited and abused and even murdered by pornographers and pedophiles.

The ACLU has used a propaganda machine to portray itself as a defender of "rights"...the question you have to ask yourself is: Are these the "rights" you want defended? The Pulpit Pounder encourages you to visit Stop the ACLU and join our efforts to curtail the ACLU's unchecked attack on the real freedoms we enjoy as Americans.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. To join us go to our Protest The ACLU Portal and register. You will be added to our mailing list, and receive further instruction from there. If you have any trouble email Jay at Jay@Stoptheaclu.com.

One More Reason to Leave the UN

2005-07-05T17:52:00.000-04:00

The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has announced its intention to push for a permanent "Islamic" seat on the UN Security Council. This is wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to start. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary general of the OIC, said "The Islamic world, which represents one fifth of total mankind, cannot remain excluded from the activities of the Security Council which assumes a fundamental role in keeping security and peace in the world,"

First of all, if Islamic nations feel excluded, it might be because they represent the most destabilizing force in the world. I don't know about you, but when I think "world security," the first thing that pops to mind is not "those peaceful and security-conscious Islamic states."
If they want to be a part of "security and peace in the world" maybe they could start by closing the terrorist training camps in their own countries, executing terrorists instead of reporters, not teaching religious hatred to their children and policing the dictatorships in their midst.

Second, since when is UN representation and decision-making based on religion? Do conservative Christians get a Security Council seat if Islam does? How about Catholics? What about Mormons? This is supposed to be an organization for nations, not religions. If there are no Islamic states on the Security Council, maybe it says something about countries run by Islam, not about the Security Council.

To me, this is just another reason to put the UN on a ship and send it elsewhere...it is only going to get worse, not better.

Hat Tip to Pamela at Atlas Shrugs.

My Son the Celebrity

2005-07-05T16:54:00.000-04:00

Well, maybe not, but my son the sushi chef made the front page of the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle Saturday...he is working for California Rollin' II, a sushi bar at the new "Fast Ferry" terminal in Rochester, that connects Toronto and Rochester. Check out his pic here. (He's the one in the Steeler hat...)

NASA: Messing With Karma, or Mojo, or Something

2005-07-05T14:03:00.000-04:00

Astrologist Marina Bai is reportedly suing NASA for $300,000,000 in the aftermath of the crash of "Deep Impact" into the Tempel 1 comet. According to Reuters, Ms. Bai believes that the crash will interfere with her horoscopes. It is not clear whether she believes that all of our eternal destinies have been changed by NASA's meddling with the comet, or merely her ability to accurately predict the future.

I can't wait to see the complaint...

Update--in a related story, Nickie Goomba reports that a Chicago "Beaker" look-alike is also suing NASA for potential love-life damage...

Congress Does the Unthinkable--Its Job!

2005-07-03T08:15:00.000-04:00

Thanks to Vilmar at Ranting Right Wing Howler for the heads-up that Congress is actually moving to do something about the already infamous (as in sure to go down in history with the worst SCOTUS decisions ever) Kelo case. For those of you who were on vacation orbiting Pluto, that was the case in which Justice Stevens stated that a municipality can use the power of eminent domain to take property and give it to another private owner as a "public use" of the land, so long as "[t]he city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue."

Justice O'Connor's dissent summed it up this way: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random...The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Congress is now considering legislation that would hamper if not stop municipalities' efforts to seize private property on behalf of other private interests. Bravo! What interests me is that it takes a real hue and cry by the public to get Congress interested in fighting the Supreme Court, when in fact, this is what Congress's real job is.

We seem to forget that, just because there are only a few of them (as opposed to Congress or the President's administration) and they wear black robes and sit in a nice courtroom and act as though they possess all knowledge and all wisdom, the Supreme Court of the United States is not royalty. They are one part of a system of checks and balances, and it is not incumbent upon or wisefor the other branches of government to roll over and play dead every time the Court lifts its finger in their direction.

The division of authority in the Constitution assumes that mistakes can be made and power can corrupt--that's why we have an executive, a legislative and a judicial branch instead of a sole executive in power. Congress should begin doing its job more often by curbing the Supreme Court's often ludicrous rulings. It's a refreshing change.

UPDATE-- Apparently I made a mistake in my discussion above, so I want to make a correction, forgive me...I said the Supreme Court was not royalty, but one part of a system of checks and balances...Nancy Pelosi has set me straight--she points out that, when the Court rules on a Constitutional issue "It is almost as if God has spoken." Boy, is my face red--here I thought these were just normal humans like you and me, and all along they were deity. Thanks to Jeff at ThinkSink and the Corner at NRO for helping me out on this.

A Blogburst, A Blogburst...My Kingdom For A Blogburst...

2005-06-30T18:28:00.000-04:00

I wish I had a great blogburst today, but I didn't even think about it until 6 pm or so when Republican Vet reminded me that I had been woolgathering and not blogging. Anyway, I thought Joseph Farah summed up my thinking on the ACLU and much of the source of my frustration here:

Let me tell you, there is no threat – no threat at all – that Christians or Jews will, any time soon, successfully impose their own divided faiths on anyone else with the help of the local, state or federal government. It just can't happen, not in the 21st-century, American socio-political climate.

And the ACLU knows this.

The ACLU is on offense, not defense.

The ACLU is not afraid of Christians. It knows they are easy, wimpy targets who don't fight back. (Emphasis supplied).

The ACLU doesn't really care about manger scenes, Ten Commandments monuments and other symbolic targets. Instead, they use these legal assaults to keep their enemies off-guard, on defense and from recognizing what the real agenda is.

What is the real agenda?

Well, I guess you could call it state-imposed, enforced, official atheism.

What really gripes me about the ACLU is the fact that Mr. Farah is right in his observation that Christians are, for the most part, easy, wimpy targets who don't fight back...for every story of a Christian who says "I'm taken all I'm gonna take and and I'm not gonna take it anymore!" there are 100,000 quietly taking it on the cheek and turning the other one. And while there are many times that quietly taking it is right, there are also many times that, like Peter and John when they were ordered not to speak the name of Jesus, we ought to flat out tell the authorities, "No, we're not going to do that, we listen to God, not you."

The ACLU wants to turn the US into an atheist country, period. If you call yourself a Christian (or, for that matter, if you follow any religion that believes in a god), it is time to stand up and be counted.

Cool Stuff That's Not There Anymore...

2005-06-30T17:04:00.000-04:00

I was just listening to some classic rock, and remembering back to some of the best times I ever had...and then I started thinking about cool stuff that isn't around anymore and the 4th of July...

One Fourth of July, I went with a group of friends to watch the fireworks in downtown Pittsburgh. Now, it's almost impossible to get in and out of Pittsburgh when a big event like the 4th of July is happening...most of the ways out of town involve tunnels and/or bridges, so your best bet is to get to town early and find a place to hang out before and after.

We found this little bar on Smithfield Street, Jimmy's...it had the coolest jukebox ever. You put in a quarter and picked up the phone on top of it...a lady came on and she would say, "What youns want, hun?" (Pittsburghese for "What would you like to hear, sir?") You gave her the title and artist, she went and got the record and put your song on in a couple of minutes. I never knew where she was located, but I never asked her for a song she didn't have, including "Roland, the Headless Thompson Gunner" and "Lawyers, Guns and Money" by Warren Zevon.

If you have any recollections of cool stuff that's gone, feel free to comment or post and trackback to here...

Oh suuuurrreee....

2005-06-28T09:03:00.000-04:00

Now it works right just to spite me.

What Do I Have To Do?

2005-06-28T08:59:00.000-04:00

For those of you who are expecting this post to be some expression of conservative, angst, sorry. The question is, "What do I have to do to get this stupid blog to display the date properly?" I posted the UN piece below on Monday, it says Sunday...I set the time zone, I set the display, I set all that stuffon blogger, and it still gets the stupid day and date wrong...I hate that. It'll probably say "Monday" on this post even though it's Tuesday--AArrrgh.

Sixty Years of Irrelevance Is Enough

2005-06-26T22:32:00.000-04:00

June 26th marked the 60th anniversary of the meeting in San Francisco for the United Nations Conference on International Organization. Since that moment, the UN has been an exercise in futility and failed promises.

In the last 30 years, here's what the UN has "accomplished":

In 1975, the UN stood by and did nothing while 21% of Cambodia's population was massacred; however, the UN did pass a bold measure that year, Resolution 3379, which declared that "Zionism is a form of racism."

In 1980, the Iran-Iraq war began. The UN called for an immediate cessation of hostilities. The parties responded by ignoring the UN and the war continued until 1988.

In 1990, the UN authorized the use of force during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Primarily due to the efforts of the US, Kuwait was liberated.

In 1992, the UN dispatched peacekeepers to Somalia to restore order and protect the food supply...the mission failed and the peacekeepers were removed three years later.

In 1994, the UN stood by and did nothing as 800,000 Rwandans were slaughtered in 100 days.

In 1995, the UN passed the Iraqi Oil-for-Food program--Investigation of this fiasco is ongoing.

In 1996, 50 years after passing its first resolution, which had called for a ban on nuclear weapons altogether, the UN adopted the nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Source

Although the UN passed various resolutions condemning Iraq and demanding Saddam Hussein's cooperation, it ultimately chose to do nothing, resulting in the US leading its own coaliition of forces into Iraq in 2003.

Today, thousands of non-combatants are being killed and raped in the Congo while 16,000 UN peacekeepers do nothing. 180,000 non-combatants have been killed in the Sudan without the UN lifting a finger. They have decided to refer the matter to the International Criminal Court for investigation.

Now Kofi Annan, that bold visionary, has come around to the idea that reform may be needed, but, according to his editorial on the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal, but he cautions that a "big stick" approach--taking away US financial support if changes we want aren't implemented--isn't the way to go, and urges negotiation with the other member states.

I say "Why?" We have tried compromise, we have tried negotiation, we have tried patience, we have tried cajoling, we have even tried embarrassing the UN into action and reform...It's about time we try sanctions, at this point 60 years of irrelevance is enough.

It Was His Time?

2005-06-24T12:09:00.000-04:00

I really like my dogs...I have an American Bulldog named Arnie and a Shar Pei named Sassy, and they are two of the sweetest dogs you could meet. But I would never pick my dogs over my kids, as this moonbat apparently did:

Maureen Faibish was arrested and charged with child endangerment after her pit bull killed her son, 12 year-old Nicholas. Her male dog "Rex" was acting possessive because "Ella," the female was in heat.

Mrs. Faibish claims "We were never seeing any kind of violent tendencies" in the dogs, but what did she do? While she went out to run errands, she put little Nicholas in the cellar, "with a shovel on the door" (to lock him in). Even though these dogs had no violent tendencies, she felt the need to physically separate her son from them. "And I told him: 'Stay down there until I come back.' Typical Nicky, he wouldn't listen to me."

You see? This is all that little Nicky's fault...he should have known that his mother only had his best interests at heart in locking him in the cellar. He got out of the cellar, and was found dead when his mother returned. Do you think it might have made more sense to lock the dogs up instead of her son? Do you think maybe she knew this might happen and didn't care enough to protect her own son?

Mrs. Faibish faces up to 10 years in jail (which I doubt she'll ever see), but the saddest part of this, to me, is the fact that this woman has no sense of her own culpability in her son's death. "It's Nicky's time to go...When you're born you're destined to go and this was his time." It was his time? Maybe we should find out if it's "her time" and lock her in a room with a couple of pit bulls. Idiot.

The ACLU--Against Sexual Abstinence

2005-06-24T08:17:00.000-04:00

Thursday the ACLU opened its new website, Take Issue, Take Charge, the purpose of which is "stopping government funding of ineffective and harmful abstinence-only-until-marriage programs and ... promoting responsible sexuality education." In other words, the ACLU has a brand-spankin'-new program and website, designed solely for the purpose of insuring that the only sure way to stop the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies is not taught to young people--in favor of teaching them "responsible sex." Why? In the name of "reproductive freedom."

“Take Issue, Take Charge is for people who believe that the government should stop interfering with the decisions we all make about whether or when to have children, including to deny teens the information they need to prevent pregnancy,” said Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, Louise Melling.

Apparently teaching about the safety of abstinence will not stop pregnancy, but teaching how to put a condom on a banana will. But let's get to the nitty-gritty, shall we? This isn't really about teens and reproductive freedom, this is about the deep-seated ACLU fear that "abstinence" is "too Christian." Look at the reasons they cite for opposing the teaching of abstinence--

"...[M]any of these programs promote gender stereotypes, discriminate against gay and lesbian youth and all too often proselytize on the public’s dime."

How does teaching abstinence promote gender stereotypes and discriminate against homosexuals? What proselytizing? The unspoken assumption is that only Christians are interested in promoting chastity, and then only the "right-wingers," who will certainly promote gender stereotypes and discriminate against homosexuals. The writer doesn't even bother to explain these bald assertions--they are just made as though "everyone knows" they're true...the fallback position of the liberal zealot.

It should also be noted that, following its "initial focus on sexuality education," Take Issue, Take Charge:

"will target other pressing reproductive rights issues, including increasing access to emergency contraception and combating refusals by hospitals, insurance companies, pharmacies and others to provide basic reproductive health services." (Italics added).

First let's get all the kiddies doing it, then we'll move on to making abortion more available and affordable. And we can sue everybody who tries to stop us and make a hefty buck in the process. What a scam.

The Government Can Take Your House--Yeah, That's Right, Your House...

2005-06-23T13:15:00.000-04:00

The Supreme Court today, in a decision that is going to have long-term deleterious effects across this country, said that local governments may use the power of eminent domain to seize private property, not just for public projects, but so that it can be "handed off" to different private ownership the government prefers.

The case involved homeowners in a Connecticut working-class neighborhood whose homes are being taken to develop a hotel, a health club and offices. The Court (the "Fab Five" of Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer and Kennedy) held that (although they seem to think they are the final word on everything else in America) this was a decision better left to the municipality.

John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion of the Court, in which he opined that, if the municipality has a plan that will provide benefit to the community, they can take YOUR house and give it to somebody else, over your objection. Not to build roads or schools, as has been the traditional role of the use of eminent domain, but to put in a casino, to build a mall, or to do anything else they think is in the interest of creating jobs or raising the tax base.

Family farmer? Watch out--if the town can turn a tax buck by subdividing you, you're toast. Own waterfront property? Better hope it doesn't look good to a condo developer. On the bright side? Maybe you're a developer that can't get that last hold out to sell...just grease a couple of palms on the local board and, voila! The benefit to the community outweighs the hardship on the owner and your problem is fixed. See ya', Grandma.

This is the kind of decision that is slowly eroding this country and turning it 180 degrees from where it began...After today, we all know that none of us really "owns" anything...we just have it on loan from the government until the government gives it to somebody else.

Clue-Less Gives It Up

2005-06-23T11:10:00.000-04:00

I see my ol' buddy over at common logic (also known as cl or clue-less) has given up his blogging aspirations. I stopped commenting on his site some time ago, partly because Republican Vet was doing such a nice job of blowing his lack of logic, common or otherwise, away; and partly because he is invincibly ignorant--if he's ever actually studied logic, he's long abandoned anything he learned (although I think it more likely he just thought his blog's name was "cute"). His last post, however, is priceless--he is stepping away from blogging so he can "make a difference."

How? "I'll continue to put in my dues and work up the government ladder to obtain a position where I can truly make a difference." That sentence is a dead giveaway that illustrates the gulf separating me from the clue-less's of the world...they think difference-makers come from within the bureaucracy of government that will somehow transform our society, while I recognize that what has made a "difference" in our society is not the "largesse" of government, but God's blessing on the American spirit and the American people.

Do We Need a "Flag-Burning Amendment"?

2005-06-23T08:50:00.000-04:00

As the Congress mulls over whether the Constitution ought to be amended to ban flag-burning (in Congress-ese, "mull" means to see which way the wind is blowing before voting in your personal best interest with the voters), the StoptheACLU blogburst has been asked to weigh in today on the issue, so here goes.

As most of you probably already know, the ACLU is bitterly opposed to banning flag-burning as a means of expression, and many on the right are equally vehement about putting a stop to what they see as desecration of a near-sacred symbol. Where do I stand? Last week I had this to say about flag-burning: "You probably shouldn't be holding your breath waiting for an invitation to dinner at my house, but as long as you burn flags you purchased and do it away from me, knock yourself out. Flag burning says more about you than it does about anything else, anyway."

That's what I believe...I think if you burn the flag you are demonstrating, for the world to see, that you are pretty much a brainless fool. No one's going to follow you, or run to your"cause", or drink your kool-aid because you're a flag-burner. Maybe you'll get 10 seconds on the news in Poughkeepsie if nothing else is going on, and you might hit the networks if you accidentally burn yourself to death while dumping gas on the flag, but that's it. You're just another fool in a long line of fools.

As you can tell, in general I am not one to get all "whupped up" about flag-burning, any more than I think it is reasonable to start riots or kill people over rumors of "koran desecration." One is a piece of material, one is a book. Somebody asked over at Daisy Cutter awhile back, "would you desecrate a Bible if you knew it would save a life?" My answer? Sure, without a second thought. Hurting a symbol can't change me--destroying my symbols debases you, not me.

So ordinarily, I would not be in favor of a Constitutional amendment to outlaw flag burning, except for this: The ACLU and others of their ilk have turned it into a free-speech issue, and have therefore left those who feel more strongly about it than I do with no other choice.

Don't blame those in favor of an amendment for this turn of events. If the liberals had left well-enough alone, this could easily have been handled by local ordinances, which was originally what was happening. I believe that, if there are sufficient people in a community who find flag-burning offensive, the issue of whether flags can be burned ought to be the peoples' decision, not the ACLU's. You want to burn a flag on Ted Kennedy's front lawn? He's probably OK with that, go ahead. You want to burn a flag in the middle of Parris Island? Probably not such a good idea. It's not as though we don't regulate other acts that are arguably "expressive." You can't expose yourself in public and urinate on something, although that might "express" your feelings.

I don't believe the First Amendment was intended to protect flag burning--but since the courts, with the ACLU's urging, have taken that position, I guess we'll see how the American people really feel about it.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst! If you would like to join, it is very simple.

Go to our new portal at Protest The ACLU , click where it says "sign up now", and fill out a simple form. This will enable us to send you a weekly newsletter with information, and keep your email private. Current members who have not registered, please do so. There are additional advantages and features that will be available for you there...you can opt to use them, or not. Thank you!

"Judge Not" Does Not Mean "Disconnect Thy Brain"

2005-06-22T10:19:00.000-04:00

As a pastor, I have noticed that many people who have absolutely no use for the Bible, and don't ever intend to live one moment of their lives as though they do, know one verse of the Bible verbatim: No, it's not John 3:16, it's Matthew 7:1, "Judge not, that you be not judged."

I find that, almost without exception, any time I express a view on a moral or political issue in public (here on my blog, for instance), someone is ready to say, "you're not acting very Christian, pastor--doesn't the Bible say 'judge not, that you be not judged?'" Usually this is said rather sneeringly, as though by being able to parrot one verse of Scripture, they have shown me to be the fraud and hypocrite that I am.

But what does the whole passage say? Verse 2 says, "For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you." What Jesus is saying is not that Christians are not to use judgment...what He's saying is that we must be careful in being discerning and using judgment, because we are judged in all the areas we judge others.

To think that this means otherwise, or to believe it gives ammunition to those who have the "anything goes" mentality so prevalent in the world today is sheer idiocy. If Jesus literally meant "never judge anything," then Christians would be well-advised to start eating handfuls of dirt instead of food, since we can't judge that one thing is good to eat over another. Or maybe we could just all rise up in anarchy, since I would have no way to "judge" whether laws are good or bad, or apply to me or not.

So to all of you who come here armed with only Matthew 7:1, please don't bother--you just demonstrate your own foolishness every time you try that ploy here. My brain is turned on and working fine, and I still call 'em as I see 'em.

Durbin Recants...Pretty Much

2005-06-21T19:55:00.000-04:00

Dick Durbin, "Tears welling in his eyes," tried to apologize today for his Gitmo remarks, in which he likened US military personnel at Gitmo to Nazis and the Khmer Rouge. The AP reports that Durbin was drawing fire from some Democrats, including Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, who said, "I think it's a disgrace to say that any man or woman in the military would act like that."

As he was finally being pressed by the left as well as the right, Durbin said, "Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line. To them I extend my heartfelt apologies." He also said, "I made reference to Nazis, to Soviets, and other repressive regimes. Mr. President, I've come to understand that's a very poor choice of words."

For myself, the apology is fine...now he should remove himself from the Democrat leadership, just as Trent Lott was forced to do for remarks much less offensive.

Waiting for the UN--An Exercise in Futility

2005-06-21T19:23:00.000-04:00

I know that I have friends on both sides of the Bolton controversy--should he be confirmed or shouldn't he? My answer is and continues to be--Who cares? Even as the nattering nabobs of the Senate argue about whether this guy is "UN material" (what a joke, after Kofi, who isn't?), the UN remains what it has always been--a toilet to throw money into.

In two years, 180,000 people have died in Darfur, Sudan--2,000,000 have been left homeless, and "rape is systematically used as a weapon of warfare," according to UN Under-Secretary General Jan Egeland. The Sudanese do not protect their population and, should a woman become pregnant because of rape, she is treated as a criminal and further brutalized by the police.

In the eastern Congo, 2,000 cases of sexual abuse of women and children are reported each month, a "situation partly attributable to the breakdown of discipline in the regular armed forces." In other words, their own army is raping them. The 16,000 UN "peacekeepers" in the Congo look the other way as armed groups still operate in the east of the country.

What is the UN's answer to the senseless violence? They have asked the International Criminal Court to investigate alleged war crimes. By the time the ICC does anything and anyone is brought to justice, how many more people have to die? How many more have to be raped?

Bolton? You've got to be kidding...He could be a statesman or a sideshow freak, and the UN couldn't possibly do a worse job than it already does...Personally, I think he's a great pick, but let's suppose he alienates the UN...wow, that's even better!!

Abortionist Accused of Eating Fetuses

2005-06-21T10:42:00.000-04:00

No, this isn't the National Enquirer, or the Daily Nutjob, or any other tabloid you just read the headlines of while you're in the grocery store checkout...this is real, unfortunately. VanHelsing (somewhat ironically, I think) reports that abortion "doctor" (I use the term loosely) Krishna Rajanna of Kansas City has been closed down due to his extremely unsanitary and disgusting facilities and the accusation by one employee that he microwaved and snacked on fetuses.

Rajanna apparently had three ways of disposing of babies...he took them home in garbage bags for residential pickup, flushed them down the toilet, or put them in styrofoam cups in the fridge (yes, the fridge where he kept his lunch).

I know many believe in a woman's right to kill her own baby, but this is beyond the pale and it is what we can expect to see when the profession that swears an oath not to do harm is perverted into an assembly line of baby killers.

Byrd's Albatross--The Kleagle and the Klan

2005-06-19T19:52:00.000-04:00

Perhaps now we know why Robert Byrd keeps standing up and ranting for what seems like hours about absolutely nothing of any import on the floor of the Senate...He needs the face time because he has a new book out on Monday!! (Or it could just be that he is as totally senile as he appears, take your pick). I will be neither buying nor reading it, as I hope the West Virginia University Press loses its shirt on this one. This doorstop is 770 pages long, and is entitled, "Robert C. Byrd: Child of the Appalachian Coalfields".

The "Child of the Appalachian Coalfields" is once again trying to explain away his involvement with the Ku Klux Klan--now, to understand how difficult this is for him, let's not forget that the "Child" was not just a hooded nobody on the outskirts of the KKK, a lost babe wandering through the Appalachian coalfields, an ignorant nobody who was recruited under false pretenses...the "Child" was the organizer of his local chapter of the KKK. And far from being taken in by a recruiter, Byrd was an official recruiter for the Klan, a "Kleagle." So as you might expect, his book appears to be another flight into fancy for the "Child," as his remembrances don't seem to have much to do with reality.

In the book, according to MSNBC and the Washington Post:

"Byrd says he viewed the Klan as a useful platform from which to launch his political career. He described it essentially as a fraternal group of elites -- doctors, lawyers, clergy, judges and other 'upstanding people' who at no time engaged in or preached violence against blacks, Jews or Catholics, who historically were targets of the Klan."

Now this is thin enough on its face...there was no Elks club in West Virginia? The boys wanted to make a fashion statement in their oh-so-chic sheets and hoods around the poker table? The "elites" didn't know what the Klan stood for? But that's the "Child's" story and apparently he sticks with it for 770 grueling pages.

Even the Washington Post can't quite swallow this, however--Eric Pianin points out that "the account is not complete. He does not acknowledge the full length of time he spent as a Klan organizer and advocate. Nor does he make any mention of a particularly incendiary letter he wrote in 1945 complaining about efforts to integrate the military." In the letter in question, the "Child" says that he would never fight

“with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

And although the "Child" asserts that he was just a kid with "a jejune and immature outlook," let's not forget the "Child's" later escapades: Into his 40's and beyond he was an outspoken opponent of civil rights, filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (in his mid-40's), and opposing the nomination of Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court on the basis of his race three years later in 1967.

The Kleagle/Child says his affiliation with the KKK is an "albatross around his neck"...maybe somebody should put this book on a string and make him wear it, so he can see what carrying a 770-page albatross feels like.

Tell Durbin What You Think

2005-06-18T19:40:00.000-04:00

Daily Kos posted a link to contact Dick Durbin, so I thought I would do the same...in case your blood isn't already sufficiently boiling, The Trained Ape had this to say: "For strength, truth, and the American way, support Senator Durbin!"

I want to support Senator Durbin to the unemployment line, and I let him know it....you should too.

When Is an Apology Not an Apology?

2005-06-18T16:50:00.000-04:00

It seems like the answer to this question is: When it's an apology by a politician. I'm going to talk about two lefties here, but before you write comments about the fact that BOTH sides do this, let me just say "I agree". These two just happen to be the two most obvious and egregious examples lately of politicians who refuse to really apologize even when they've made an intemperate or even stupid remark.

I keep listening to Howard Dean, and he obviously has no intention of ever saying, "Wow, saying that most Republicans never made an honest living in their lives was certainly not true, and insulting to many hard-working Americans...I'm sorry I said that." Instead, Howard says that the listener misunderstood him--he meant that Republican policies have declared war on hardworking Americans. So it's the policies that are at fault, not hard-working Republicans.

Well, two points about that--First, there are no nebulous Republican policies just floating around in the ether that have declared war and are running around attacking people willy-nilly. There are Republicans who hold certain beliefs and put them into practice...So when Howard blames Republican policies for declaring war on hard-working Americans, he is still saying Republicans have done so.

Second, since he is saying Republicans have declared war on hard-working Americans, the only message I wind up with is the one he started with--Republicans are bums who don't work and prey on the poor hard-working Democrats. Nice apology, HD.

Now we have tricky Dick Durbin trying to backpedal from his comparison of American interrogators at Gitmo with Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or "some mad regime" such as Pol Pot's. Durbin, when initially called on to apologize, defended his remarks, saying:

"This administration should apologize to the American people for abandoning the Geneva Conventions and authorizing torture techniques that put our troops at risk and make Americans less secure,"

Joe Shoemaker, a Durbin spokesman, said Durbin's comments were meant to compare torture at Guantanamo Bay to torture during the Nazi regime, not equate Americans at the base to Nazis and similar groups. Does this remind you of Republican policies declaring war, but not Republicans? The "torture" is "nazi-like" but not the "torturers"?

Dick apparently figured out by Friday that this wasn't going to fly, so he decided to fall back on a phony apology:

"I have learned from my statement that historical parallels can be misused and misunderstood. I sincerely regret if what I said caused anyone to misunderstand my true feelings: Our soldiers around the world and their families at home deserve our respect, admiration and total support."

This smarmy, slippery, smelly piece of offal refuses to recant the statement itself, he's just sorry if you feel bad about what he said...not for one moment does he say he was wrong in what he said; nor does he say he's sorry for saying that American servicemen are comparable to Pol Pot's army of murderers or Hitler's goose-stepping stormtroopers. He just says his use of a historical parallel was "misunderstood."

OK...so we misunderstood you, Dick? Then just tell us what you meant! You can't possibly mean that, when you said that what was being done at Gitmo was being done by people "that had no concern for human beings," we were supposed to understand that you have nothing but "respect, admiration and total support" for those people?

This is absurd. We know what you meant,Dick...be man enough to stand by your words, and then resign.

Your Minute of Fame

2005-06-18T10:40:00.000-04:00

Andy Warhol is credited with saying that everybody gets 15 minutes of fame...I think I had mine when I was about 4 years old, but that's another story...

Anyway, 15 minutes for each and every person seems like an awful lot considering the world population, but there's a new site that is willing to give you one minute-- http://www.onefreeminute.net will let you speak, absolutely live and uncensored, over a 200 watt amp, to an audience in the Columbus, OH area on an "impromptu basis" (I don't know if this means whenever they feel like doing it, or it means they do it until they get asked to move it or go to jail). They call the amp and speaker a "mobile sculpture," so you might as well use it...you probably paid for it through the NEA.

If you e-mail them they will let you know when you can go "live"--if you don't want to be live, you can call their number and leave a taped message for later broadcast. So get it off your chest and get your one minute of fame today!

Thanks to Think Bacon for this little gem.

Books, Books, Books

2005-06-18T08:12:00.000-04:00

Hi Ya'll, welcome to Father's Day weekend, the holiday invented by tie manufacturers to clear inventory...(actually, I have had pretty good luck on Father's Day, tie-wise...I have a cool Tazmanian Devil tie I got on F-Day, not suitable for preaching but cool nonetheless).

Although I was fortunate enough to avoid memes for the first 7 or so weeks of bloglife, I have now been tagged with the infamous "book meme" and I will now dutifully answer the questions to the best of my ability...but could somebody tell me what "meme" means? I have no idea, and I am not one to refrain from asking a question just because the answer might make me appear stupid (well, actually I am, but I want to know anyway). Well, here are the questions and the answers--

Total Number Of Books Owned Ever: I have no idea--starting with "The Hardy Boys" through "Doc" Savage, through all of Heinlein's space operas, Asimov, Zelazny (Amber Series Best Ever), Heinlein's later works, Herbert, Niven, Farmer (Riverworld Series second Best Ever (even though I think he loses track of who all the characters are somewhere around the end of the third book)), Clarke, Piers Anthony (didn't care for Xanth after about 4 but mostly great stuff), on to theology, then law, then back to mostly theology--probably not 100,000 but more than 50,000.

Last Book Bought: Mastering Pastoral Counseling by Hart, Gulbranson and Smith

Last Book I Read: Double Play by Robert Parker (mostly known for Spenser, but this book is a fictionalized account of Jackie Robinson's first year in the majors off the field).

Five Books That Mean A Lot To Me: 1. The Bible; 2. The Tempting of America by the Hon. Robert Bork; 3. Things to Come by Dwight Pentecost; 4. Tie--Atlas Shrugged/The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand (I grew out of buying her philosophy completely, but her books affected me profoundly as a teen); 5. The Supreme Court by the Hon. William H. Rehnquist (Good read, solid history of the Court and Rehnquist's role in shaping the modern Court. Also gives insight into how things really work.)

Bonus: The Way Things Ought to Be by el Rushbo--Even liberals ought to borrow this book from a friend (You don't have to buy it and support the "Evil Rush Empire") and READ it... Rush is funny and reading his stuff should make it possible for you to see that he LOVES to get libs riled up by using hyperbole and satire. I have heard people call his show absolutely foaming at the mouth over stuff he said that every conservative listening knew was a joke--really, read it, you might like it.

OK, that's the meme--I will have to study up on who to pass it on to...(Kevin, look out...)

Ethics According to PETA

2005-06-17T14:41:00.000-04:00

Thanks to Kevin over at the Kevin Show for this heads-up...Those fun-loving folks over at PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) are at it again. This time two PETA employees, Andrew Benjamin Cook, 24, of Virginia Beach, Va., and Adria Joy Hinkle, 27, of Norfolk, Va., got caught dumping 31 dead dogs and cats in a shopping center garbage bin. The police had the bin staked out, as dead animals had been found there for several weeks.

PETA claims they were providing free "euthanasia services" for the animals...PETA supposedly gives the animals painless lethal injections rather than allowing them to be gassed in groups, which they consider less humane.

"But veterinarian Patrick Proctor said that authorities found a female cat and her two 'very adoptable' kittens among the dead animals. He said they were taken from Ahoskie Animal Hospital.

"'These were just kittens we were trying to find homes for,' he said. 'PETA said they would do that, but these cats never made it out of the county.'" Another veterinarian, James Brown, also said that he was told PETA was trying to find homes for animals he put into their care, not that PETA was euthanizing them.

Regardless of whether PETA was supposed to be providing euthanasia services or seeking homes for the animals, what in the world were these two people doing dumping dead animals at a shopping center? Obviously, the animals never made it to PETA headquarters, and since this had been going on for weeks, what were these two telling their superiors? They never picked up any animals? They lost them? They found them all homes on the way back? Or what?

These folks run around telling us that they are morally superior to the rest of us because they don't eat good ol' Colonel Sander's chicken or wear leather or fur, but they are apparently ready to turn a blind eye to this. Hinkle has been suspended, but Cook is still working, and PETA's president doubts this ever happened (I am sure the police just stake out shopping center garbage bins in their spare time).

This isn't an isolated incident, however. PETA kills about 80-85% of the animals it receives, and places only about 15-20% in homes. If you want to save animal life, don't count on PETA's "ethics."

Kiddie Porn...Not Too Disgusting for the ACLU

2005-06-16T10:06:00.000-04:00

I think the fact that this even has to be the subject of a post speaks volumes about why I find the ACLU contemptible...maybe "beneath contempt" would be more apt. After all, I may not agree with your views on evolution, but I can (and did) remove my children from the public school system so they are not indoctrinated with evolutionary theory taught as "fact".

Or, you may support flag burning as "free speech". You probably shouldn't be holding your breath waiting for an invitation to dinner at my house, but as long as you burn flags you purchased and do it away from me, knock yourself out. Flag burning says more about you than it does about anything else, anyway.

You may even hate and fear belief in God so much that you think saying that we live in a nation "under God" is tantamount to forcing Christianity down your throat (even though there's no mention of any particular "god" in the Pledge) and needs to be stopped via legal action. I think the postion is absurd and the motivation of pursuing such a suit is simply to generate attorney's fees, but we live in a foolishly litigious society and the courts are open to you, so have a party...

But I would think that even the most rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth, leftist radical loon would pull up short at the issue of showing minors in pornography, and say to himself (or herself), "Wait a minute, let's think this over...free speech versus children's welfare, free speech versus children's welfare...uh, ok, we protect kids first." Yet the ACLU has a policy that promotes child pornography.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group self-described as "Defending Freedom in the Digital World", has the ACLU position paper posted concerning pornography and the First Amendment. According to the paper, the ACLU is for prosecuting criminal acts against children, but not books or films depicting such acts.

So therefore, according to their own position paper, the ACLU's stance is that it should be OK to view child pornography and own child pornography and peddle child pornography--you just can't make it. This is like saying it's alright to knowingly receive stolen goods...you just can't steal the stuff yourself. Or...it's OK to buy black-market body parts...you just can't actually cut them out of anybody yourself. However you look at it, the ACLU is for subsidized crime against children.

They are beneath contempt.

Crosses aCross America

2005-06-15T15:51:00.000-04:00

If you haven't visited Crosses aCross America yet, you ought to take a look. The premise is pretty simple: Our religious symbols and our right to freely exercise our religious beliefs are being trampled every day...and the ACLU makes hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney's fees which are paid by us, the taxpayers, every time they have another religious symbol or practice eradicated from public life.

So what to do? Simple. We keep fighting for our rights BUT, in the meantime, let's put crosses and copies of the Ten Commandments in plain sight on our private property, where the ACLU has nothing to say about it.

We need to show the ACLU and the fanatical atheists that we are not going away, that we are not going to be silenced and that we are not going to stop fighting for our rights. I would encourage everyone not to stop with putting a flag or a ribbon on your car or truck--add a cross, add the Ten Commandments. Put a cross in your window...let people know where you stand and let's make Crosses visible aCross America.

Americans Are Too Rude!

2005-06-14T15:36:00.000-04:00

If you're sick of talking to people you can't understand on the phone, let it be known that they are also sick of talking to you...Over at Think Bacon, they are reporting that Indian call center workers are increasingly stressed out by having to deal with rude Americans.

In fact, the Observer reports that counselors and psychiatrists have to be employed in the call ceters to help with the stress of talking to us uglo-Americans. "Pooja Chopra, 29, from Delhi, who spent two years fielding calls for BT Cellnet and America Online, faced similar abuse. 'People would say, "You're a Paki, I don't want to talk to you, pass me to someone who can speak my language."'"

Hostility from "clients" ("clients" appears to include victims of unsolicited sales calls) is a major contributing factor to employee turnover.

I'm sorry, but I can't feel too awfully sorry for these folks...I am nice enough to just gently hang up the phone in the middle of their spiel, and I would never call anybody a name, but I don't think it's too much to ask that, if you are going to hire people to call me on the phone, or hire people to help me with a problem on warrantied merchandise you sold me, they should be intelligible.

Aid to Africa--Help or Empowerment of Dictators?

2005-06-13T08:34:00.000-04:00

Tony Blair is on a crusade to "free Africa from debt and poverty...Blair has demanded that poor countries' debts be cancelled and their aid doubled" according to Reuters. Blair also "proposes to jump-start African economic development by boosting access to international markets" according to the Houston Chronicle. Mr Blair is currently doing some arm-twisting of President Bush and other leaders of developed countries to push his program.

Even if I were to assume that this is a good plan with a chance of success, (and I am not at all convinced), I still have a huge problem with this line: "Blair and Bush agreed this week help on debt should be given only to countries ready to tackle corruption." Notice the phrase, "...ready to tackle corruption."

What does this mean? Does this mean that if Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe promises to stop killing his citizens we will give him aid? Do the African countries who routinely turn a blind eye to genocide all around them have to promise to care in the future? In countries where stealing humanitarian aid is considered "business as usual" are we going to accept assurances that "this time will be different"?

I would encourage Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush to look for change before committing our nations' resources to this plan. We don't know what the African peoples can do for themselves because, in large measure, they have never been given the opportunity to try. Force the dictators and the despots out and only then should we intervene economically.

Trouble on the Horizon For Dems?

2005-06-13T08:15:00.000-04:00

Daisy Cutter notes that as many as 11 Democrat Senators may be on the hot seat for the next election if they don't change their ways, including rant-a-holic and kleagle Bob Byrd. DC quotes Dick Morris:

"...Byrd needs beating for a host of other reasons. His defense of the filibuster was natural, since it was he who conducted a lonely 14-hour attempt to kill the 1964 Civil Rights Act by talking until he almost dropped. He stays in office by being a pork-barrel machine who waxes eloquent, at the same time, on the perils of deficit spending."

Amen, Brother Morris!! But in West Virginia, saying Byrd needs a beating is sort of like going to Rome and saying the pope needs one...not too likely...nonetheless, with at least 10 other Democrat Senators in Red states facing some possible stiff opposition, perhaps there is yet hope that even the flaccid Republican leadership can actually accomplish something after the next election...assuming they show a little gumption before the next election.

Mike Tyson--A Sad End to a Sad Career

2005-06-12T07:44:00.000-04:00

Mike Tyson quit in the corner between the sixth and seventh rounds of his fight with, um, hang on a sec...oh yeah, Kevin McBride last night. Tyson announced his retirement after the fight, saying "I'm not going to embarrass the sport." Ok, so it's about 10 years too late for that, but at least maybe Mike will have the good sense to go find a product to shill like Big George Foreman did when he finally quit boxing at the age of 97.

Seriously, I hope Mike Tyson doesn't wind up in the headlines in a couple of months back in jail or worse...bad companions, taking bad advice, bad management and a lack of common sense have put Mike in a bad place. He needs a lot of help, and I hope he gets it. And I hope this retirement announcement is for real...I'll be praying for you, Mike.

"Blogshares"? Uh oh...

2005-06-10T09:27:00.000-04:00

Yesterday I was cruising around and I ran across this "Blogshares" site; I wasn't sure what it was right away, but I thought it looked interesting so I start looking around...it's a game, like playing in the stockmarket...you get $500 blogdollars and off you go, buying and selling blogshares for fun and virtual profit. Cool.

So I decide to sign up...but it tells me "The Pulpit Pounder" is already in the market, which ticked me off until I realized they keep 1000 shares reserved for the "real owner" in case he ever shows up. So I claim my 1000 shares and try to figure out what to do next.

You get 20 trades a day for free, so I figure I'm golden...no way I'll ever make 20 trades in a day...I see Right Decisions is listed, so I spend my whole $500 on 86 shares of Right Decisions, and I leave for awhile...

Right Decisions is going up...in fact, I can sell my 86 shares for 1000% profit...so I sell...then I buy Flight Pundit, TMH's Bacon Bits, Vote Churchill and Angry Republican Mom--several times, and now I'm up to 15 trades...and I'm hooked like a large-mouth bass... by this morning I hit the 20-trade wall and have to upgrade...

And there's only about a zillion things I haven't figured out yet in the game...ideas, artifacts, karma, .... hopefully I'll get bored in a week or so...

STOP the ACLU--START with HR 2679

2005-06-09T10:33:00.000-04:00

WARNING--This is a "Stop the ACLU Blogburst" production...liberals read at your own peril, I cannot be responsible for your blood pressure, nor will I pay for anything you break in a fit of pique.

I am all for civil rights, as I have said here before. I am also for vindicating and protecting those rights. I don't even mind (much) if my tax dollars pay some attorney's fees when someone suffers physical or property damage during an infringement of their civil rights.

But that's about where I would draw the line, which is why I support the Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005, sponsored by Representative John Hostetler. The Act would limit the relief allowed in lawsuits filed under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the injunctive variety, and would not allow the prevailing party to collect attorney's fees. What does that mean? It means you can sue to stop a municipality or school from doing whatever it is that you find offensive, and if you win they have to stop doing it, but there's no payday for the ACLU at the end of the day. Let them pay for their political and anti-Christian agenda through the donations of their loyal camp followers and leave tax dollars out of it.

How much are we talking about? Attorney's fees awards in these cases, in recent years, have sometimes run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. This creates a "chilling effect"--beleaguered municipalities would rather "switch than fight" when the ACLU threatens a lawsuit, even if they believe in their hearts that the challenged activity is constitutional. They can't risk being wrong, and even if they're right, they can't afford the chance that they will run into an activist judge who will rule against them.

The Act would not affect the citizen's right to sue to vindicate a perceived violation of their rights...it would only eliminate a huge incentive the ACLU has to generate cases in order to collect inflated 6-figure attorney's fees, and it would take away a huge hammer that they use to batter defendants into settlement agreements. This is not an amendment to the constitution or a change in constitutional rights or a limit on constitutional freedoms...it simply correct a flaw in an earlier piece of legislation.

Contact your legislator and support this important bill.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst! If you would like to join, it is very simple.

Sites Already on Board:

Stop The ACLU
Freedom Of Thought
Mad Tech
Respublica
The Wide Awakes
Angry Republican Mom
Kender's Musings
American Patriots
What Attitude Problem?
Life Trek
Gribbit's Word
Def Conservative
An American Housewife
A Tic In The Mind's Eye
Cao's Blog
Regular Ron
Freedom Of
Is This Life?
Patriots For Bush
California Conservative 4 Truth
NIF
Obiter Dictum
PBS Watch
Xtreme Right Wing
Daily Inklings
Miss Patriot
Jack Lewis.net
Conservative Dialysis
Conservative Angst
Kill Righty
American Warmonger
Birth Of A Neo-Con
The Nose On Your Face
The View From Firehouse
Ogre's View
Fundamentally right
Conservative Rant
My Political Soap Box
Common Sense Runs Wild
Redstate Rant
Time Hath Found Us
American Dinosaur
Merri Musings
And Rightly So
Sweet Spirits of Ammonia
Smithereen's Files
Pulpit Pounder
Ravings of J.C.B.
Is It Just Me?
Blogtalker
Parrot Check
Stuff You Should Know
Rancher Blog
Christmas Ghost
Vista On Current Events
Musing Minds
Pirate's Cove
Mr. Minority
The Lesser Of Two Evils
RAGE
The Life And Times
TMH's Bacon Bits
Right Decisions
Euphoric Reality
The Right Dominion
Undiscovered country
Steve's Blog
Right On!
It Is What It Is
Kiddsafe
My View
Third World Country
Crosses aCross America

We Thought Terry McAuliffe Was a Nut...

2005-06-09T08:43:00.000-04:00

For years, I really disliked Terry McAuliffe. I don't know about you, but for me, there are just some people who have "punch me" faces...the minute I look at them, I want to give them a left jab right to the schnozolla. Terry McAuliffe was really high on my list of "punch me" face people...and then he would only add fuel to the fire by opening his mouth and telling the Democrat Lie of the Day...whatever the party catchphrase of the moment was, there was Terry, beating the drum and frothing at the mouth.

But one thing you could say for Terry...at least he was usually with the party...Howie Dean, on the other hand, seems to be out doing his own little loony-dance while supposedly acting as the DNC chair. He's getting so irrational that the Democrats find themselves trying to distance themselves from their own chairman. Thanks to Jody over at Steal the Bandwagon for this interesting tidbit--Howard is now defending the statement that the Republican party is for white people and Christians.

Howie originally made the statement on Monday and refuses to back down...when given the opportunity to "clarify" his statement Wednesday, Howie said, “unfortunately, by and large it is. And they have the agenda of the conservative Christians,” Mr. Dean said as he moonwalked across the stage...Did I just type that? Sorry...thinking out loud...

I never though I would say it, but Howard (the Duck) Dean makes Terry Mc-Awful look like the voice of sweet reason.

Improve Education--Bribe a Teen

2005-06-08T13:36:00.000-04:00

A new way to educate our young people has arisen in England...bribe them to go to school. The AP is reporting that Bournemouth and Pool College is offering kids $300 iPods if they take summer courses "aimed at helping them find jobs." Although some officials call this what it is, bribery, others say it's necessary because the youth are:

"predominantly disaffected by education, they have possibly not had a very good experience in the school sector and therefore are not engaged in learning." (For those of you who were "predominantly disaffected by education," this means they don't like school, they don't care about school, and they aren't trying).

Now for those of you who are thinking that this might at least be a way for them to get some readin', 'ritin', and 'rithmatic, think again...although a couple of the courses are at least loosely tied to job skills, the choices include "outdoor pursuits and extreme sports" (play all summer and score an iPod), and "travel tips" (where to hang out with your iPod after "graduation").

Not to be outdone, Glasgow city schools are giving out, among other things, movie tickets, iPods, and Xboxes for eating "healthy meals"at school. What's next, a DVD player for changing your underwear?

"Judy" Christ? I Think Not...

2005-06-08T01:10:00.000-04:00

WorldNet Daily reported on June 3 that a new version of the Gospels has recently been released, in which Jesus is replaced by "Judith" Christ. I found this to be very strange, but it's a strange world, so I just figured it was weirdness as usual. I did want to verify the story for myself, however, so I started to look around a bit...here's some interesting info that inclines me to think this is some kind of an elaborate hoax:

Amazon.com lists this book as being authored by "LBI," the Law & Business Institute...WorldNet confirms this and says they tried to contact Stephen Glazier of LBI without success...now, I don't know everything about LBI, but Mr. Glazier is an intellectual property attorney who has written such thrilling theology books as "e-Patent Strategies for Software, e-Commerce, the Internet, Telecom Services, Financial Services, and Business Methods (with Case Studies and Forecasts)";

LBI's VP is said to be named "Billie Shakespeare"--right, nothing strange there...;

Although the book is said to be "new", the copyright listed by Amazon is 2003, and the book is "out-of-print";

Further, although the book is "out-of-print", it oddly has 67 reviews, 65 of which were posted in the last week...the reviews are uniformly terrible, which means all these people bought a book they knew in advance they would hate, or they never read the book and are just reacting to the news story, or a bit of both.

So...a company that focuses on patents and e-business printed a twisted set of gospels 2 years ago, and is now suddenly promoting them on WND through "Billie Shakespeare", but the books aren't available anyway, yet Amazon is flooded with reviews of the book...I dunno what the agenda is here, but it looks like a hoax. If anybody has more info, I would love to hear it.

Thanks to Dane Bramage for alerting me to this...and the Anchoress has a different take.

The Cotillion

2005-06-07T11:47:00.000-04:00

If you haven't stopped off to enjoy the ladies' company yet, I would encourage you to try the Cotillion today for some refreshing viewpoints! Beth, Janette and Jody are doing a great job as hosts...

Update...Just to clarify, I guess Beth, Janette and Jody are the "web mistresses" while your hosts today are Merri Musings, The American Princess and an American Housewife...enjoy...

The Kerry Form-180...Anticlimax?

2005-06-07T09:54:00.000-04:00

After stating that he refused to sign the Form 180 for so long because, "the call for me to sign a 180 form came from the same partisan operatives who were lying about my record on a daily basis on the Web and in the right-wing media," Kerry has finally released his info to the Boston Globe today. He didn't mention the fact that the "partisan operatives" were simply demanding that a candidate for President keep his word.

Although the documents are not reprinted on the Globe's website, this about sums it up: "The lack of any substantive new material about Kerry's military career in the documents raises the question of why Kerry refused for so long to waive privacy restrictions....By signing Form 180 now, Kerry may hope to achieve several goals: settle the question of whether there is an explosive document in the file; put pressure on critics to release their military records; and try to put to rest an issue that dogged his 2004 campaign and would probably come up again if he seeks the presidency in 2008."

I'd just like to point out that the issue would never have come up in the first place if he hadn't made his whole campaign about his heroic service in Vietnam and then refused to provide the details of said service. I, for one, am happy to put it to rest, with or without a smoking gun...

Hillary's Nightmares

2005-06-07T08:32:00.000-04:00

According to the Washington Post, Hillary Clinton has trouble sleeping at night because of ... well, you'll see. Anyway, I have taken a page from TJ over at NIF and interspersed Mrs. Clinton's comments with some subliminal messages...

"'There has never been an administration Clinton, I don't think in our history Clinton, more intent on consolidating and abusing power Clinton to further their own agenda William Jefferson Clinton,' said Clinton"

"'I stay awake at night thinking about all the mistakes Clinton and the wrong direction Clinton and all the bad decisions Clinton being made in Washington,' Clinton said at the fund-raiser. 'It's very hard to stop people who have no shame Clinton Clinton , Hillary Clinton, William Clinton. Clinton clan about what they're doing. It's very hard to stop people who have never been acquainted with the truth Holy Clinton, Batman!!.'"

We now return you to your regularly scheduled Democrat looniness...

Blogging, Religious and Political...

2005-06-06T20:20:00.000-04:00

I'm not much for thoughtful introspection here in this public forum, mainly because I don't think most people in the blogosphere care what I think about me, my wife, my kids, my dogs, my truck, my self-esteem, my yadda yadda yadda.

I know some people think we want to know all this stuff about them, but I just don't think I'm that fascinating--I did, however, want to address one comment I received earlier in the week--it basically said, "This is supposed to be a religious blog, so why do you talk about politics so much?" Although I think the person making the comment intended his remark to be offensive to me, I think it raises a good point, and I want to take a minute to answer it...

First--I appear to comment on politics a lot because my life is not "disconnected"--there's not "religion" and "everything else"--My Christian beliefs and worldview impact on every part of my life, and I don't see my commentary as religious or non-religious...it all reflects my beliefs. So the distinction between political blogging and religious blogging is a false one, in my view.

Second--Before I was a pastor, I was an attorney, and before that I managed several businesses, and I have always been interested in the law and politics...becoming a preacher doesn't take away your natural interests or turn you into a cloistered monk. I still like a little debate on the issues of the day from time to time.

Third, and lastly--Blogging is just an opportunity to develop my thinking on issues that might be presented to me by folks in my congregation...people are often interested in what the pastor thinks on an issue and why--and they would prefer not to receive a blank look and an "I dunno, never heard of that." So following topics of the day and reading different views and commenting on them is one way to stay on top of things...

It may not look "religious," since I don't post a "verse for the day" or trumpet hellfire and brimstone every day, but what I write reflects my faith in Jesus Christ and my understanding of God's Word to man, the Bible.

Let's Talk "Shreddergate"

2005-06-06T08:32:00.000-04:00

This strikes me as a total witchhunt--You can all come back later and tell me what a dunce I am if I'm wrong, but I don't see why everybody's in hysteria over the New York Times story about shredding at the ACLU. I don't know if anybody calls it "Shreddergate" yet, but no doubt by the time I finish this post, somebody will have...I'm asking myself, what's really going on at the ACLU with regard to its shredders, and even as I do so I feel a little silly, because I think that, for the most part, if you want to shred documents that you generated or collected, that ought to be up to you. Within the boundaries of document retention required by law, if you want to shred, shred, if you want to save, save...and sometimes you may have a difference of opinion about what to save or what to shred--you need to sort that out internally, it's none of my business.

And so far, all I can see in this little soap opera is that's what's going on at the ACLU...let's just look at the facts for a second...Until last month, Janet Linde was the "records manager" at the ACLU...basically, Ms. Linde is an archivist...it's was her job to see papers chronicling the work of the ACLU are preserved. To that end, the ACLU has, historically, had strict document retention policies. Anything being destroyed was to be put in a locked bin to be approved for destruction before it was actually destroyed. Point 1: It's not as though documents weren't already being shredded, the only potential issue is whether an office policy was violated.

2001: Enter Anthony Romero, executive director...Director Romero brings his shredder with him, and mentions the fact to some employees in 2002...the employees are dutifully shocked, but no action is taken, other than that Mr. Romero was reminded of the policy. Point 2: Sombody's in violation of the policy...nothing illegal so far, but Ms. Linde's toes are feeling tramped on.

So where are we? So far I see an archivist, whose entire job and function and importance in an organization revolves around having control over documents (read, "she might be a tad obsessive") versus "the Boss" who isn't so concerned with the details. So what happens next?

In 2003, the ACLU hires Richard Smith, an expert in computer security, to offer suggestions regarding protection of info on the computers. Mr Smith recommends more shredding of documents and that document disposal be more convenient. In 2003, shredders were place in more convenient areas adjacent to copiers. Gee, do you thnk Ms. Linde was pleased? No...Ms Linde started complaining, stating in one memo that, "if...the means for unauthorized shredding is present in the office we cannot say that we have made a good faith effort to monitor and document our records disposal process."

Point 3: There's a difference of opinion as to what the policy ought to be...apparently somebody above Ms. Linde decides computer security trumps document retention."

The bottom line is, the Director kept his shredder, and the Director of Administration and Finance, Alma Montclair, and her associate, David Baird kept theirs as well. Ms. Linde continued to complain, especially when some bags of shredded documents from Administration and Finance showed up near a freight elevator, and I think the atmosphere in the office can be summed up in this tidbit from Mr. Baird to Ms. Linde--"It is not clear to either Alma or I the specific reasons why shredding these clearly confidential documents needs to be reported to you." In other words, Ms. Linde is pretty much just being a pain about this, and why doesn't she find something else to do. So now she has quit her job and suddenly, an "unknown person" leaks Ms. Linde's gripes to the NYT and she is dutifully "disturbed" about it...hmm

Point 4: Ms. Linde has lost the battle, and wants to leave the ACLU with a little something to remember her by.

That's it? For this we should sign petitions, call out the Marines, the Special Prosecutor, the CIA, and the Man From U.N.C.L.E.? I'll get upset when there's actually a fact, ANY fact, that indicates there's something nefarious going on here...I still don't see anythig more than a little potential embarrassment and bad pub for the ACLU over violating their own policies while whining about "big business" and government doing excessive shredding.

For a totally different view of this issue, you can check out Stop the ACLU and most of the members of the Stop the ACLU Blogburst (just not me)...

Take Off Your Tie--It's Environmental!!

2005-06-05T17:56:00.000-04:00

In case you missed it (I did), Sunday was "World Environment Day"--fittingly, the meeting of mayors from more than 50 cities, marking this year's event, was held in the home of American flakes, San Francisco. As usual, lots of terrific-sounding enviromental goals that these people have no long-term control over were set, and they agreed to rank cities with one to four stars based on the cities meeting 21 environmental targets (I'm not sure whether AAA members will get special discounts for visiting "four star" cities as opposed to "one-star" cities).

They also agreed to lower CO2 emissions by 25% before 2030, even though the Kyoto protocols only require cutting emissions by less than 6% before 2012. (And even though nobody cares what they set as a goal).

But one really important thing came out of World Environment Day...a fashion show. Japan is encouraging workers to go less formal to save on air conditioning costs--Sanyo Electric Chairman Satoshi Iue modeled a suit and white shirt without a tie...tres chic, and oh so environmental. "By trying on these clothes, it helps ... raise awareness of environmental issues and help realize how we need to revolutionise our ways," says Chairman Iue, showing us once again that "consciousness-raising" is what it is all about.

Gitmo a Gulag? Maybe, Maybe Not Says Amnesty International Director

2005-06-05T17:17:00.000-04:00

Amnesty International must have gotten all the splashy headlines they require for the present moment--William Schulz, the Director of AI who called Donald Rumsfeld a "high-level architect of torture" and Guantanamo Bay a "gulag," now says, according to Reuters, that he does not know whether Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld approved severe torture methods such as beatings and starvation. "It would be fascinating to find out. I have no idea," says Schulz. How can one be accused of being the "architect of torture," while at the same time the accuser admits he has no idea?

Schulz says "We don't know for sure what all is happening at Guantanamo and our whole point is that the United States ought to allow independent human rights organizations to investigate." On the one hand, we don't know what is going on, yet on the other, the US is running a gulag...is this William Schulz or Sergeant Schultz? He also said he has "absolutely no idea" whether the Red Cross has been given access to all the Guantanamo prisoners...

The ICRC says this:

"Geneva (ICRC) - The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has been regularly visiting the US detention facility at Guantanamo Bay since early 2002 for the purpose of monitoring that persons held there are treated in accordance with applicable international laws and standards.
It also enables those detained at Guantanamo Bay to remain in contact with their families by means of Red Cross messages. " (Bold supplied).

But Schulz has "no idea." Yet even though his phrase of the day seems to be "I Know Nothing!" he continues to say there are a few things he does know--"The United States is maintaining an archipelago of prisons around the world, many of them secret prisons into which people are being literally disappeared ... And in some cases, at least, we know that they are being mistreated, abused, tortured and even killed."

If the pattern continues, next week Mr. Schulz will be asked how he knows that, and he will reply, "I have no idea..."

More "Kew-Ran" Shenanigans

2005-06-04T17:46:00.000-04:00

Amidst all the yadda yadda concerning the Koran and the Gitmo detainees, I think Nickie Goomba has the most cogent and clear take on the whole affair...clearly more executions of scofflaw guards at the facility are in order...

Update on Howard...

2005-06-04T16:27:00.000-04:00

According to William Teach over at Pirate's Cove, Ellen Ratner says that Howard Dean is just "playing to the democratic base" when he says that Republicans are crooks and dishonest bums (see below for his exact quote). In other words, Howard's opinion of his own constituency is that they want red meat and lots of it, and aren't too concerned with fact--something of course that I have long known.

2005-06-03T17:58:00.000-04:00

I really am beginning to like Howard Dean...he can't possibly be accomplishing anything for the Democrat Party, because he spends all of his time trying to explain that he didn't really mean what he said, or it was taken out of context or that you may have heard what you thought he said, but what you heard was not what he meant....

Anyway, today we find Howard trying to explain what he meant when he said, while discussing the hardships of working all day and then going to vote, that it's easier for Republicans. Why is it easier for Republicans? Because "Republicans, I guess, can do that because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives." Like Republicans Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton, for instance...

Now his explanation for this is that in context, "The point I was making is clear: Republican policies have declared war on hardworking Americans." Well, if that's the point he was trying to make, and it is as "clear" as he says, why didn't anybody understand that to be what he was saying?

My reading of that statement is that, "if you are a registered Republican, there is a good chance that you are a crook, or at least a leech on society." If that's what he believes, why doesn't he stand by his statement? After all, he is the "face" of the Democrats, the head of the DNC. And if that's NOT what he meant, then Democrats had better recognize that this guy is going to alienate the right AND the left if he keeps shooting his mouth off without thinking about what he is saying.

But if that's what they want their "leader" to do, that's fine with me...like I said, I'm starting to like Ole Howard.

The Heck With Balance--Give Us Truth Says Foley?!!

2005-06-03T10:30:00.000-04:00

Linda Foley, the President of the Newspaper Guild, has recently been in the news for her insane rant that the US military is targeting journalists...but wait, it gets better. According to Conservative Friends she now also calls for doing away with "balance" in the news in favor of reporting "the truth" (her version, one assumes). She complains that, when there's only one side of a story to be told, trying to "balance" it is "kind of crazy." In other words, we all KNOW that Bush is a lying right-wing tyrant, so "balance" is really just not needed here.

I think what she is getting at is that it is OK to make wild accusations against the government as long as it is "true," even if there is no proof of the truth of what you say, as long as YOU KNOW it's true--and once YOU KNOW it's true, it's OK tell FoxNews and anybody else who disagrees with you to shut up with their stupid balance...

So Long Jennifer...We Never Knew Ye

2005-06-03T08:32:00.000-04:00

Jennifer Wilbanks today completed her 15 minutes of fame by pleading No Contest to charges of faking her own abduction. As expected, she got a slap on the wrist in spite of having a previous criminal record...so long, Jennifer, good luck John Mason...and don't forget, it's "I Do", not "Nolo Contendere" at the wedding...Complete story here...

I'm Going To Pummel You Until You Have Puppies, And Dip You In Uranium!

2005-06-02T22:23:00.000-04:00

According to the Battle Cry Generator (bottom right column) this, alas, is my Battle Cry..."I'm going to pummel you until you have puppies, and dip you in uranium!" ?? Sigh...I was hoping for, "It's Clobberin' Time!!"

My wife's was even worse--I'm going to contort you until the cops have to tear me off your wraithly spirit!

My daughter's was much better...I'm going to punch you until you're a Dungeons & Dragons statistic!! That has some panache!

But my boy, my boy got the coolest of all...I'm going to forcibly reverse your gender!!!

Now That's a Battle Cry...

Thanks to NIF

Why The Acrimony Toward The ACLU?

2005-06-02T09:13:00.000-04:00

The "American Civil Liberties Union" is a great name.

It has "American" in it, which almost automatically produces a patriotic response in me...(I usually "well up" while singing "America," although I stop short of Dan Rather meltdown).

It has "Civil Liberties" in it--I like Civil Liberties-- I am rather fond of free speech, the fact that there is no state religion and my right to practice my religion as I choose; I like having the right to own a gun (in case Michael Moore ever threatens to visit); I haven't had to stop the government from quartering troops in my home, but I guess I'm pretty happy about that; I'm satisfied that I'm free from unreasonable searches; I enjoy the protection a Grand Jury, Due Process and the right to avoid self-incrimination afford; I'm sure I would appreciate a speedy trial if I were ever to be accused of breaking the law; I'm happy my right to a jury trial exists, and that there's no double jeopardy in our great land; I'm glad there's no cruel and unusual punishment (like forcing me to listen to Janeane Garofalo) allowed...I'm also glad that the Bill of Rights simply tells me what the government can't do to me and doesn't in any way limit my rights.

It has "Union" in it--I think of Americans, working together, creating a more perfect Union, shaping and building an amazing country unlike any ever seen before, the greatest country on earth. Not perfect, no...but striving and moving to become better, to reach an ideal that we, being finite and of limited vision, cannot even fully comprehend and can never reach, because the human spirit will always aspire to be more than we are.

It's a great name--but when you put it all together, what do you get?

American--Might as well change this to "Victims"--The ACLU is only interested in Americans who can cast themselves as victims...

Civil Liberties--"Distorting Liberties" is more like it--the ACLU wants to curtail religious freedom, tell you how and where you can express yourself, stop you from gun ownership, allow pedophilia and prostitution, legalize drug use, legalize homosexual marriage, legalize kiddie porn and kill babies in the name of "liberties"...

Union--This group isn't interested in a "union" or "unity"--its desire is to tear down, to splinter, to divide...it creates societal rifts by always seeking its own agenda without any regard for morality or the beliefs of those who aren't in lockstep with that agenda...

So I guess I decode "ACLU" and get "Victims Distorting Liberties for a Political Agenda."

Why the acrimony toward the ACLU? Start with the name...work from there.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst!

If you would like to join, it is very simple.

Go to our new portal at Protest The ACLU , click where it says "sign up now", and fill out a simple form. This will enable us to send you a weekly newsletter with information, and keep your email private. Current members who have not registered, please do so. There are additonal advantages and features that will be available for you there...you can opt to use them, or not. Thank you!
Sites Already on Board:

Stop The ACLU
Freedom Of Thought
Mad Tech Respublica
The Wide Awakes
Angry Republican Mom
Kender's Musings
American Patriots
What Attitude Problem?
Life Trek
Gribbit's Word
Def Conservative
An American Housewife
A Tic In The Mind's Eye
Cao's Blog
Regular Ron
Freedom Of
Is This Life?
Patriots For Bush
California Conservative 4 Truth
NIF
Obiter Dictum
PBS Watch
Xtreme Right Wing
Daily Inklings
Miss Patriot
Jack Lewis.net
Conservative Dialysis
Conservative Angst
Kill Righty
American Warmonger
Birth Of A Neo-Con
The Nose On Your Face
The View From Firehouse
Ogre's View
Fundamentally right
Conservative Rant
My Political Soap Box
Redstate Rant
Time Hath Found Us
American Dinosaur
Merri Musings
And Rightly So
Sweet Spirits of Ammonia
Smithereen's Files
Pulpit Pounder
Ravings of J.C.B.
Is It Just Me?
Blogtalker
Parrot Check
Stuff You Should Know
Rancher Blog
Christmas Ghost
Vista On Current Events
Musing Minds
Pirate's Cove
Mr . Minority
The Lesser Of Two Evils
RAGE
The Life And Times

To Not Pron or Not to Not Pron--That Is The Question?

2005-06-02T08:29:00.000-04:00

I discovered something yesterday (and when I say "discovered" I mean I found something that I, the not-super-computer-literate-lawyer-cum-pastor, had not seen before)...I think it is the internet equivalent of "TEGWAR," The Exciting Game Without Any Rules, from Bang the Drum Slowly.

It's called Not Pron--I guess you could call it a game or a puzzle, the object of which is to find your way through over 130 levels (and growing). On each screen there is a photo and a title for the photo...you have to figure out how to get from that screen to the next. You can (and must) Google for clues, you can (and must) read the Source Code for each page--you can do anything you want to, so long as you don't outright go asking for the answer to the level...there is a forum with moderators to give "hints," and so far my expertise in candy bars and The Beatles has been helpful...

It is terribly absorbing...I made it to level 12 after several hours last night, and I felt like I just sat down. But, I am giving up Not Pron...if I blog AND play Not Pron I will soon be homeless...and I don't have a notebook computer.

So What's "Blogging Part Deux"?

2005-06-01T09:55:00.000-04:00

Here's something I welcome as much input on as possible, so please feel free to unload your $.02...as I am surfing, I am of course seeing sites just like my site because my site is a cookie-cutter blogger template...I also have been attempting to put photos and so forth on the page, usually with the result that everything on the right of the site disappears to the bottom because the stuff doesn't fit....

I want to change the look, and I want to find an easier way to work with content...which brings me to the question...do I want software to design my own site, and if so, WHAT would you recommend, OR do I need somebody to do this stuff for me and make it simple, and if so WHO would you recommend? Pretend I don't know anything about all this...never mind, there's no pretending about it...

Putting the "Free" Back in "Free Exercise"

2005-05-31T19:10:00.000-04:00

I posted this a couple of weeks ago (May 8, actually), but I think with the introduction of the Bill in the House of Representatives on May 26 it probably needs to go up again:

We all know the ACLU loves suing to "vindicate the religious rights" of those who feel "offended" when they see the Ten Commandments on public property or hear a prayer at a high-school football game. What you may not know is that, under the current law, if the ACLU wins these suits they are entitled, under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, to collect, "a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs..." Well, that doesn't sound so bad, until you start to look at what the ACLU actually collects in "reasonable attorney's fees" to vindicate somebody's hurt feelings! According to News With Views, Alabama got soaked for $540,000 for Judge Moore and the Ten Commandments case. When they stopped the Boy Scouts from using Balboa Park in San Diego for a summer camp, the taxpayers got hammered for $790,000 in "reasonable fees."

Every time the ACLU takes on a municipality, the municipality is forced to ask itself whether displaying the Ten Commandments, or a cross, or saying a public prayer is worth going to court for when the gamble is not just that they will have to remove the "offending" item or cease the "offending" practice. They have to look down the barrel of the ACLU's attorney's fee gun and ask themselves how lucky they feel. Obviously, this creates a huge "chilling effect;" it is easier to cave to the ACLU's demands than risk getting a liberal judge who might find saying "bless you!" after a sneeze an unconscionable display of religion.

Hopefully Representative John Hostettler will be successful in curbing the ACLU's out of control litigiousness when he introduces an amendment to the Attorney's Fees Act that would remove establishment of religion cases from its purview. Such an amendment would make bringing these actions much less attractive to the ACLU as well as giving it less leverage against financially beleaguered school districts and municipalities.

The reasoning for amending the attorney's fees law in cases involving religious liberty is relatively simple--"Every other civil right case, there is some injury to somebody," American Legion attorney Rees Lloyd of Banning, California, told a Thursday rally in front of ACLU's Los Angeles offices. "Somebody lost their job ... somebody got beat up by authorities – they have some physical, mental, economic injury. But in an Establishment Clause case, it is someone who says, 'I take offense,' and the offense is based on religions, politics, philosophy, but there is no injury." World Net Daily

In other words, there should no longer be a bonanza for the ACLU every time somebody's feelings get hurt.

The Pulpit Pounder encourages readers to contact their elected officials and voice support for this legislation. We need to stop allowing the ACLU to use the threat of attorney's fees as a lever to destroy our religious freedoms. For additional info, go to Stop the ACLU.

This Just In--I'm a Fundamentalist!!

2005-05-31T10:08:00.000-04:00

I just took a test at QuizFarm and, to my shock and amazement, I am a Fundamentalist...who'd a thunk it? I am also proud to say that I scored 0% Modernist, Materialist or Idealist...How did you score? Thanks to Digger!

You scored as Fundamentalist. Fundamentalism represents a movement in opposition to Modernism, stressing the highest importance on foundational religious tradition. Science has brought on corruption of society. God is real and is watching. Scripture leaves little room for interpretation; man is God’s creation. About a quarter of the population in the U.S. is classified as Fundamentalist.

Fundamentalist

81%

Cultural Creative

75%

Romanticist

63%

Existentialist

38%

Postmodernist

38%

Modernist

Materialist

Idealist

What is Your World View? (updated)
created with QuizFarm.com

It's Kerry Time--John, We're Still Waiting

2005-05-31T09:32:00.000-04:00

Holy cow, it's been a week since we were all abuzz with the news..."bzzz, bzzz, Kerry signed the Form-180...bzzz, bzzz, finally, Francois is finally going to make good on his promise....bzzz, bzzz, I wonder why he waited so long to show us his glorious military records, replete with decorations for his heroism...bzzz, bzzz...did you know John Kerry was in VietNam, by the way?"

Well, so far it hasn't quite worked out...I dunno whether JK signed the form or not, but if he did, he apparently immediately misplaced it (probably with files from the Rose law firm, that stuff vanishes mysteriously all the time), simply failed to file it, or decided that since he just agreed to sign it, that was sufficient. Whatever the case I, for one, am now more curious than ever to see the record...what is so bad that it can't be brought forth into the light of day, John?

Anyway, you can e-mail Mr K. at http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/contact/email.html. If you would like to join the Tuesday Blogburst requesting that John actually make good on his promise and make his military records public you can go to Cao's Blog and click on the link there to sign up. I believe there are now over 50 bloggers in the Tuesday Blogburst!! It's not just a Blogburst, it's a Movement!

Amnesty International--More Looniness

2005-05-30T08:48:00.000-04:00

Amnesty International is reported as calling the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay "the gulag of our time." Naturally, this is disputed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Richard Myers, who called the remarks "absolutely irresponsible." But did you know--

Not one of these illegal enemy combatant detainee's who came from Afghanistan had a Qur'an in his possession when captured.

A brand new Qur'an in the specific, native language of each individual was provided to each "enemy combatant".

Furthermore:

Each illegal enemy combatant detained at Guantanamo is given three nutritious halal meals (culturally-appropriate and in accordance with Islamic dietary law) per day. The meals include all optional condiments.

Each illegal enemy combatant detainee receives Muslim feast meals at special times in accordance with Muslim feasts and holy periods during the year.

Each illegal enemy combatant detainee has unrestricted access to Muslim Imams and religious instruction.

Each illegal enemy combatant detainee has a Quibla, a large green and white sign in his cell which points toward Mecca.

Each illegal enemy combatant detainee hears Islamic loudspeaker calls to prayer five times daily.

Each illegal enemy combatant detainee received a brand new Muslim prayer cap.

Each illegal enemy combatant detainee received a brand new prayer rug.

Each illegal enemy combatant detainee received brand new Islamic prayer beads. Each illegal enemy combatant detainee received Islamic holy oil.

Each illegal enemy combatant had ALL of this done and paid for him at US taxpayer expense and this is far, far in excess of requirements delineated by Geneva Convention Cat. III protocols on the treatment of Prisoners of War.

Source

So maybe Amnesty International ought to go whine about some real atrocities...maybe those occurring every day in dictatorships around the world?

Happy Installation To Me!!

2005-05-29T07:30:00.000-04:00

I think I have mentioned before that I am new to New Jersey...Up until April, I pastored a very small, rural church in western New York--and I mean rural--A post office, a church, and a handful of houses. Now we're in the 'burbs, and this morning I am being formally "installed" as the pastor of my new church.

If the word "installed" brings to mind microwaves and dishwashers, you're not alone--but that's what it's called. The purpose is twofold...to remind the pastor and the church of why they are here and what they need to be doing, and to announce to the community that, as one of my elders put it, "there's a new 'shurruf' in town."

Anyway, it is a fairly solemn occasion, and I thought I would share my thoughts--this isn't everything I think about being a pastor (I have a few minutes to speak, not a few weeks), but it gives you an idea:

"As I accept the charge and the challenge of being the pastor here this morning, I want you to know that I do so mindful of the Scriptures—The Apostle Paul said this, “for I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith.” To me, this means that the pastor needs to recognize that he is just one of many in the body of Christ; that all of us who know Jesus as savior have received God’s grace and God’s gifts; and so the pastor should exercise his gifts with humility, not pride.

"The Book of James says this, “My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.” If a pastor needs anything to remind him to be humble, James reminds us that those who teach are asking to be judged by a higher standard, because what we say influences the spiritual life of others. And so the pastor, in his teaching, should be scriptural, accurate and careful to control his speech.

"The Apostle Peter reminds us that the Pastor should also bring a passion to his work, saying, “The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly, not as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock…” A pastor should be happy in his work, and excited about getting up every morning to serve the Lord and His flock.

"So a pastor should exercise the gifts God has given to him, stay humble, be scriptural, be accurate, be careful in speech, be excited about his work, be passionate for the Lord, serve cheerfully and recognize that he will be judged by a stricter judgment based on how he does these things…That sounds like a tall order, but the Pastor also knows he is not alone in this, because Paul also says, in 2 Corinthians 3, “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being of ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit…”

"So I accept the charge and the challenge of being the pastor of this Church today, not because I am sufficient to the task, but because God has promised to make each of us sufficient to the tasks He has prepared for us…let’s pray.

"'Now may the God of Peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that Great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you complete in every good work to do His will, working in you what is well pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever.'" Amen.

Almost Whoville... West Virginia

2005-05-28T11:08:00.000-04:00

Apparently Dr. Seuss fans had better watch their step in Wheeling, WV...Norman Gray was arrested last Tuesday morning for refusing to
remove his Grinch mask at the request of the police. It is illegal for anyone over 16 to wear a mask in public. Norman is 42.

Hmmm...On the one hand, I would almost like to come down on Norm's side here...it seems sort of petty to arrest a guy for wearing a Grinch
mask on a city street without something more...say, indecent
exposure--or a gun? On the other hand...what is a grown man doing
wearing a Grinch mask on a city street? Norm, buddy, you're 42...I
would even defend your right to wear the mask up to the point the police explained the law to you...but for a 42 year-old man to defy the police so he can wear a Grinch mask seems a little straaaaange to me.

If I was wearing my Yoda outfit, and the police...uh, um, never
mind...that's another story.

"Keep Your Religion Away From Your Kids!!"

2005-05-27T20:21:00.000-04:00

Interesting report on FoxNews -- Not only is it bad to smoke around your kids, you can now be ordered not to practice your "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals" around your kids as well...OK, here's some credit where credit is due...when a court ordered two "Wiccan" parents going through a divorce not to practice their religion around their kids, both the Indiana Civil Liberties Union AND the conservative Christians have come out against the court's nonsense ruling. Let's hope somebody wakes the judge up and explains that you can't dictate religious beliefs to parents.

Jellybeans...Ya Gotta Love Jellybeans

2005-05-27T17:00:00.000-04:00

I am sitting here scarfing down a few Jolly Rancher jelly beans, which are my current beans of choice...I have to tell you, I think Jelly Bellies are way overpriced and I will take a bag of Jolly Ranchers over the 10 or 12 jellybeans Jelly Belly gives you for the same price...

I mean, come on...$6.99 or $7.99 a pond for jelly beans? I resist paying that much for steak (which I only buy on sale, and usually when there's a red tag on it saying "Special Today Only," which means they have to throw it out if they don't sell it that day...yum), so I'm sure not going to pay that much for jelly beans...

Any other candy lovers out there? What's the candy of choice for you?

Watch Out...Or We'll Get Mad Again!!

2005-05-27T09:51:00.000-04:00

Bill ("Limp") Frist is apparently trying to rehabilitate his image with his constituency after the recent "compromise" debacle. Jeff has a copy of a letter purportedly issued by Limpy over at Thinksink, in which he says he won't hesitate to call the "Constitutional Option" to a vote..."Not for a second" he avers. (Earlier in the paragraph he put NOT in capitals, so we would know he really means it this time.)

I would love to give this some credence, but common sense tells me this is just more of the same...Republicans make some statements about how mad they are, Democrats tell them to get lost, and the Republicans say..."Well, we're REALLY mad now...and if you don't cooperate...well, we'll even get madder! So there!!"

"Limp" Frist needs to put up or shut up.

Media Bias...It Doesn't End With the Reporters

2005-05-27T08:55:00.000-04:00

In case you haven't seen this, you ought to check out Media Slander's story on Linda Foley. Linda Foley is the President of the Newspaper Guild, a 34,000 member union. According to Ms. Foley, US soldiers "target and kill journalists from other countries, particularly Arab countries." Now, notice the phraseology here...this isn't accidental, according to Ms. Foley...our troops are "targeting" journalists. Ms. Foley has no basis or foundation for these claims.

It's interesting to note that Ms. Foley has also said the reporting coming out of Iraq is too "positive" has expressed her feeling that the fall of Saddam Hussein and the coverage of Iraqi elections has been "orchestrated" by our government to paint an inaccurate picture of what is going on in Iraq. I don't know what media Ms. Foley reads, but apparently it's not the newspapers where her members work.

Is Being A Murderer REALLY So Bad?

2005-05-26T11:15:00.000-04:00

Apparently not, according to Justice Stephen Breyer. In 2003, Carman Deck was convicted of robbing and murdering an elderly couple, execution-style, in their home. The Supreme Court has overturned the conviction because, during the penalty phase of the trial (after he had been convicted, when the penalty for the crime he committed was to be imposed), he appeared before the jury in manacles.

"The 7-2 majority opinion was written by Justice Stephen Breyer, who said shackling implies to jurors that the defendant is "a danger to the community" - thus affecting their perception of him as they decide his fate."

Uh-huh...we wouldn't want the jury to think that a guy who killed two old folks "execution-style" so he could avoid going to jail for his theft poses a danger to the community. It was good to hear that the prosecutor plans to re-try this sicko and have him sentenced to death yet again, sans handcuffs...let's hope he doesn't kill anybody in the courtroom while we're protecting his civil rights.

Osama Awadallah, Possible Accomplice to 9/11 Terrorists, May Go Free on Monday

2005-05-26T10:32:00.000-04:00

Osama Awadallah, a student at a San Diego college, has been under investigation since just after the 9/11 attacks for his possible role in the attacks. Allegedly, his name and phone number were found in one of the terrorist's vehicles after the attack, he lived in the same building as one of the terrorists, he was a known associate of two of the terrorists, and he also was identified as being with the terrorists on September 10th, 2001--at that time, he was allegedly heard to say “'it is finally going to happen' as the others celebrated by giving each other high fives.”

Once again, it appears that the justice system, in its misguided attempts to bend over backwards to appear "fair" to the people who killed thousands on September 11, 2001, is going to participate in a miscarriage of justice by allowing Osama Awadallah to walk. Judge Shira Scheindlin has scheduled a special hearing for Monday to decide whether the charges against Osama should be dismissed...why? Because he was handcuffed during the grand jury proceedings.

Handcuffing suspected criminals, in other words, is now too prejudicial to their "civil rights." Perhaps we could have District Attorneys braid daisy chains for their hair, instead.

Selective Civil Rights

2005-05-26T09:45:00.000-04:00

Cross-Posted from Stop the ACLU with thanks to Jay:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it

."-Voltaire

The right to express unpopular opinions, advocate despised ideas(NAMBLA) and display graphic images is something the ACLU has steadfastly defended for all of its history. Exception: in the case for pro-lifers.

The ACLU's Reproductive Rights Project has a lot to do with why the ACLU is so reluctnat to defend the rights of anti-abortion protesters.

"With a $2 million dollar budget and a staff of 17 employees, Janet Benshoof was the Union's most devoted activist for abortion rights.....she became so overextended in her approach that she advocated mob pressure on the judiciary; she pushed for "pro-choice" activists to march on court rooms where abortion cases were being heard."Twilight of Liberty

To the ACLU, anti-abortion protesters are not seen in the same light as civil rights demonstrators in the 60's, but as lunatic fascists out to destroy freedom.

"Hence, the reluctance of the ACLU to defend principle, that is, the excersize of First Ammendment rights by anti-abortion activists. Ironically, real facists-like the American Nazis and Klansmen-have had thier rights protected more often and with greater vigor by the ACLU than anti-abortion demonstrators.Twilight of Liberty

Of course there are loonies in the anti-abortion movement, but that was true of the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement of the 60's, and even today in the "pro-choice" demonstrators. Every movement has it's fringe element. But while the ACLU was right on top in defending any violations of the law for all of these movements, when it comes to the opponents of abortion having their First Amendment rights violated by the authorities, the ACLU is completely absent.

Not even having the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act(RICO) thrown at anti-abortion protesters moved the ACLU into action.

The ACLU is nominally opposed to the RICO statute, and there are some senior members, like Washington official Antonio Califa, who are truly opposed to the invocation of RICO against any protesters, including opponents of abortion. However, due largely to the influence of Benshoof, the ACLU's record is grievously stained in this area.Twilight of Liberty

It was actually her suggestion in a booklet titled, "Preserving the Right to Choose: How to Cope with Violence and Disruption at Abortion Clinics." The ACLU would not tolerate the use of RICO against nuclear weapons dissedents, but in the case of anti-abortion protesters the matter is quite different. In fact, the ACLU has actually used the RICO against them. When pro-life demonstrators were sued under RICO in Philadelphia, the local chapter of the ACLU filed an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs, the Northeast Women's Center.

The ACLU missed another opportunity to defend civil liberties in 1989 in West Harford, Connecticut. It was on June 17 that 261 persons were arrested, and then physically abused by police, for staging a sit-in.

The police used "come-a-long" holds, or "pain compliance holds", with a result that many claimed permanent nerve damage. Some were denied medical care, and others were not allowed phone calls for over two days. One woman had to have surgery after the police damaged her uterus. The ACLU did nothing.

When John Spear, a publisher of a small New York newspaper, wrote an editorial against police brutality, he too was slapped with a RICO suit. He was charged with extortion. The ACLU did nothing.

"Why do they still call it a civil liberties union?" commented ACLU member and nemesis Nat Hentoff. When pressed about cases like the West Hartford one, the ACLU typically responds that it can't get involved with the defense of antiabortion protesters because it is already committed ot the ise of the abortion clinics. When John Leo asked Alan Dershowitz, "Can it be that the affiliates sometimes deliberately involve themselves early on one side so they will have an excuse not to help victims on the other?" the Harvard Law professor replied, "Absolutely. They go to the pro-choice people and say, "Get us in right away, "thereby giving them the excuse of conflict of interest in the event they are contacted by the anti-abortion side. And what does the ACLU say when asked specifically about its duplicity regarding RICO? Lynn Paltrow, who worked for Benshoof, explained the Union's attitude: "Its ACLU policy to oppose application of RICO, but there are those on staff who feel that as long as RICO exists, this kind of behavior (Operation Rescue tactics) does fit." "In other words," as John Leo puts it, "RICO is totally bad, but sort of useful."Twilight of Liberty,

It looks pretty clear to me. In the eyes of the ACLU you the First Amendment protects child molesters, perverts, and facists, but not Pro-lifers! Quite hypocritical in my opinion.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst! If you would like to join, it is very simple.

Go to our new portal at Protest The ACLU , click where it says "sign up now", and fill out a simple form. This will enable us to send you a weekly newsletter with information, and keep your email private. Current members who have not registered, please do so. There are additonal advantages and features that will be available for you there...you can opt to use them, or not. Thank you!

Sites Already on Board:

Stop The ACLU
Freedom Of Thought
Mad Tech
Respublica
The Wide Awakes
Angry Republican Mom
Kender's Musings
American Patriots
What Attitude Problem?
Life Trek
Gribbit's Word
Def Conservative
An American Housewife
A Tic In The Mind's Eye
Cao's Blog
Regular Ron
Freedom Of
Is This Life?
Patriots For Bush
California Conservative 4 Truth
NIF
Obiter Dictum
PBS Watch
Xtreme Right Wing
Daily Inklings
Miss Patriot
Jack Lewis.net
Conservative Dialysis
Conservative Angst
Kill Righty
American Warmonger
Birth Of A Neo-Con
The Nose On Your Face
The View From Firehouse
Ogre's View
Fundamentally right
Conservative Rant
My Political Soap Box
Common Sense Runs Wild
Redstate Rant
Time Hath Found Us
American Dinosaur
Merri Musings
And Rightly So
Sweet Spirits of Ammonia
Smithereen's Files
Pulpit Pounder
Ravings of J.C.B.
Is It Just Me?
Blogtalker
Parrot Check
Stuff You Should Know
Rancher Blog
Christmas Ghost
Vista On Current Events
Musing Minds
Pirate's Cove
Mr . Minority
The Lesser Of Two Evils
RAGE
The Life And Times

An Extremist?--I Don't Think So...

2005-05-25T17:20:00.000-04:00

Since I get a little weary of being called an extremist every time I espouse an opinion slightly to the right of center, I especially enjoyed this from Keith Thompson about Jerry Falwell, one of my brethren...

"If Falwell is an extremist, what does that make Al Qaeda? Bin Laden and his henchmen stone women for adultery and beat them for showing an ankle; they throw homosexuals to their deaths from the tops of towers; they murder thousands of civilians by flying airplanes into skyscrapers. A sedentary Baptist minister from Lynchburg, Virginia, is somehow a greater threat? I don’t think so."

Thank you, Mr. Thompson...

Islam in the Public Schools Part 4--Endorsement of Islam

2005-05-25T11:00:00.000-04:00

Ok, this is the final installment in my humble analysis of Eklund v. Byron Union School District, a decision in which the court ruled that it was permissible for California schools to use an "interactive educational module" to teach seventh graders about Islam. In the first three installments we reviewed the facts of the case and the first prong of a two-prong analysis the court did regarding the possible violation of the Establishment Clause. The court concluded, in the first section of its analysis, that the Eklund children were not "coerced into participating in religious activity" because, in the court's view, learning portions of the Koran, reciting portions of muslim prayers, doing symbolic fasting to simulate Ramadan, etc. did not rise to the level of actually participating in religious activity. See Part 3, below, for the complete discussion.

Today, the court turns to the second prong of its analysis...Did the Excelsior School "endorse" Islam through its use of the module? Again, the court concludes that, from the objective standpoint of a reasonable observer (a hypothetical "reasonable" seventh grader at Excelsior) and the "larger context of the challenged activity" that endorsement did not occur.

I have to say that there is very little to analyze regarding the court's findings in this regard. Rather than applying the legal standards at issue to the specific facts of the module (for instance the documented admission by the teacher that the students were required to learn portions of muslim prayers, or the fact that the module repeatedly stated that Muhammad was a prophet of Allah and received special revelation from God, without any qualifying language whatsoever) The court simply states that "a reasonable Excelsior student would not have believed that it [the module] represented an endorsement of religion..." (brackets supplied). The sum total of the legal reasoning applied to this aspect of the Establishment Clause analysis is about half a page of a 22 page opinion.

Again, the judge's conclusion is unsupported by the facts...she never makes mention at all of the fact that the final exam was required to be a "critique" of Islam so long as the student didn't say anything negative, that elements of Islam were presented as "truth," or that the student guide handed out to the students stated that "you and your classmates will become Muslims."

This is intellectual dishonesty and judicial activism at its worst...The ACLU and organizations like it are using the willing accomplices of the federal bench to do their dirtywork.

Just for the record, for those of you who don't think that the "compromise" agreed to by the Senate Republicans on GWB's judicial nominees is a big deal, for instance Beth at My Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, remember that judges like Phyllis Hamilton are what you are going to get every time you concede a point to the liberals.

Dean: Blacks "Annoyed" With Democrats

2005-05-24T17:31:00.000-04:00

I mentioned here last week, in "Are Dems Losing a Loyal Constituency?" that many African-Americans, including Al Sharpton, are pretty upset that Howard Dean, for all his "inclusiveness" chatter, hasn't made good on his promises to put blacks in positions of authority at the DNC. Sharpton's comments indicated his unhappiness with the lack of return blacks were getting for their support of Democrats--including his opinion that Republicans are running more blacks for office than the Democrats and that Dean has left blacks out of the highest echelons of the Democrat party.

Apparently in an attempt to deflect criticism from himself, Dean announced today that the fault really lies with the party as a whole..."African-Americans are annoyed with the Democratic Party because we ask them for their votes four weeks before the election instead of being in the community now and that's a mistake I'm trying to fix," he said.

Really? Is this the same Howard Dean who wants "to be the candidate for the guys with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks"? The same one who said the Republican party could attract more blacks by summoning "the hotel staff"? The best way Howard Dean could take the lead in healing the growing rift between Democrats and African-Americans would be to step down.