Romney Comes to Jesus

Mitt Romney, the candidate I've backed throughout this presidential campaign season, gave his much-anticipated "religion" speech today in Texas, complete with introduction by Bush 41 (it was at his library). I have heard excerpts, and have read the transcript. I was very impressed with it; I thought the speech was well-written and tried to point out the fact that we elect presidents based on their stated policies and personal values, not necessarily on their religious beliefs. A transcript of the speech is here.

Trying to recruit some more support for Romney, I sent out a link to the transcript to my dad, who follows politics; my best friend, a former Catholic-turned-Lutheran; and a friend/former co-worker who is an evangelical Christian. My pitch was that the speech was great and should convince them that it's okay to vote for a Mormon for president.

My dad was impressed and said it looked like Romney was really going to get the nomination at this point (I'm hopeful but not convinced). Other conservative voices we both respect agreed that Romney hit it out of the park: Charles Krauthammer; Pat Buchanan; Michael Medved, to name just a few.

My one buddy who responded so far, the Lutheran, who has been very hostile to the Romney candidacy from the beginning specifically because of his Mormonism, was totally unimpressed and made the same comment he always has: He's a member of a cult that believes some wacked-out things and he has no business being president. Words to that effect, anyway.

Then on my way home I listened to Frank Pastore, a local evangelical talk-show host here in L.A. as he dissected the speech. I also read comments on Michelle Malkin's blog and found a link there to my favorite Catholic apologist, Jimmy Akin, who also commented on it on his own blog. The two apologists, Akin and Pastore, predictably had serious issues with several things Mitt said in the speech. Jimmy sounds like he wouldn't vote for Mitt if it came down to it because he feels, as does my Lutheran friend, that some items of Mormon doctrine are troublesome enough to warrant serious concern about a candidate. For example, the Mormon church is less aggressive on abortion than Christian churches are; is this a problem?

Frank's issues were more along the lines of "he said this, but that's misleading because his church actually believes this..." Frank's point was that a Christian can feel fine about voting for Romney, and that he himself will vote for Romney if he becomes the GOP's nominee. However, he is worried about the mainstreaming of Mormonism and of people believing what they are told by the media: that Mormonism is just another Christian denomination. This is patently untrue. Mormonism, just for starters, is polytheistic; is not trinitarian; and believes that Jesus was a created being and a polygamist.

I respect Frank and Jimmy's perspectives on this issue because it's important for Christians to truly understand what Mormonism preaches, and to remember that it is vastly different from what Christianity teaches, at least in terms of questions like "Who is God," "Who was Jesus," and "How can I be saved / go to Heaven?" However, when the subject is a presidential race, questions like these are inappropriate.

We only have to understand the candidate's faith insofar as it affects how they perform in office. For example, it might be fair to ask a Mormon his position on the definition of marriage, given all the troubles the LDS church has had since its inception with polygamy. Having a president who supported redefining marriage in any way, including to define it from a polygamist view, would be a real problem for me and other Christians. We might also ask whether race might play a role in selecting cabinet members, since the Mormons denied many rights to blacks until fairly recently. These types of questions are relevant because they address how a candidate's faith might affect his performance as president of a secular government.

Mormonism is not a Christian denomination, despite what Mormons claim. But does this disqualify Mitt Romney from being president? No. To vote against a candidate simply because of his religion is bigoted. One must evaluate the candidate and his values and ideas, and these are largely informed by his faith, so to that extent it is fair to evaluate. Mitt has been making this point for months, and made it clear again in his speech, along with many other comments about how much he respects other faiths (including Islam). Christians who don't have as open a mind as Romney does should take a lesson from him and consider supporting him for president.

My Thanksgiving Prayer

I'll have about 20 people at my house for Thanksgiving dinner tomorrow evening, so need to come up with "the blessing" between now and then. I don't claim to be particularly good at this sort of thing, but people have come to expect it from me at these big gatherings. Here are my thoughts this year...

Dear Lord, we thank you for the blessings you've given us this past year: Good health, loving families, reliable friendships, and talents that enable us to have careers that support all of the above. We especially thank you, Lord, for bringing us Mr. and Mrs. Bond all the way from Utah to be with us at this Thanksgiving dinner. We're honored by their presence here and we wish them a happy visit this week. Above all, Lord, we thank you for placing us here, in the greatest country ever forged, at a pivotal time in history where we have the chance to do so much good in the world. We are unworthy of these gifts but with your help we will make the most of them all.

Lord, we ask you to please bless this house and this feast today, and to bless our time together and everyone here. We also ask you, Lord, for a special blessing for our soldiers in the Middle East and their families here in this country who want them to come home safely and soon. Grant them all peace and strength and keep them safe.

Finally, Lord, we ask you to please send your grace down upon those poor souls throughout the world who struggle to survive in difficult conditions, who don't have nearly what we are so fortunate to have in this country. Give them strength and send them help.

We ask this, Lord, in the name of Jesus Christ, your son. Amen.

Democrats Get Nothing But Planted Questions

Maybe I'm naive, but my jaw about hit the floor when I watched this piece on HotAir.com (hat tip: Michelle Malkin) about the most recent Democratic presidential debate, hosted by CNN's Wolf Blitzer. It seems they took many questions from the audience, people purporting to be "undecided" voters, and these people turned out to be liberal activists out to further their own agenda. Far from undecided. The most amazing one was by Barack Obama, who appeared to know his questioner even though they had never met?

It turns out that CNN televised little more than a Republican bash-fest, not a debate. All the questions were based on liberal talking points while the viewing audience was told these were "undecided" voters who had visited (i.e. been vetted) for several minutes with CNN's floor correspondent (who spells her name "Suzanne" yet apparently pronounces it "Sue-zAHn". What's up with that?)

So either the activists lied about who they were, which taints the Dem party, or Suzanne did a pathetic job of vetting these people beforehand, in which case CNN is either biased or incompetent.

To me the big question is, will voters really be stupid enough next Fall to actually elect one of these fools to the presidency? Will the GOP allow this kind of nonsense to go on during the general election unchallenged?

Congressman Knows Why Iraq Violence is Down

BlackFive has a priceless post up today about a truly clueless Congressman, David Obey (Democrat, surprise surprise) and his rationale for why violence is down in Iraq. Read it here, and follow his links, too, for some good articles on specific recent successes.

I predict that as violence continues to decrease in Iraq, as it becomes more and more obvious that we are actually winning there, Democrats will have to get more creative, like Obey, to avoid looking the complete morons they actually are.

More Global Warming Hysteria

I don't watch much TV; mainly because I'm too busy. But partly because there's not a lot on that I think is worth watching. Tonight, a Sunday evening, I was flipping through the channels and ran across an old favorite, the History Channel. Everybody loves the History Channel. I stopped to see what was on and they were running some show called "Last Days on Earth".

This was a show hosted by Elizabeth Vargas, who I last saw years ago doing news, I think, for the Today show. So, an ostensibly unbiased reporter (as though that actually exists). The show was about all kinds of disasters that might befall us on Earth and wipe out all life: Super-volcanoes, asteroid hits, gamma ray bursts, and our old friend Global Warming, aka "Global Climate Change." I also noticed, looking at the guide for that channel over the next few hours, that several other shows, one called "Mega-Disasters," reported on roughly the same stuff.

Back in my liberal days I used to enjoy shows like these. Now I look at them differently. I see them now as propaganda machines for the Left. They clearly carry an agenda, and they focus on disastrous situations that, in most cases, mankind is utterly powerless to prevent. Knowing this I found myself wondering, "why show this stuff at all? How can we prevent a gamma ray burst?" In other words, what is the agenda? Is there money to be made? Power to be gotten? If people are made better aware, can these things be headed off? It does not make sense that there is no agenda, so what is it?

Ms Vargas was so obviously biased in this show that it just got disgusting. As if to address the claims of the Right that Global Warming is, at worst, a hoax, they had running interviews with various global warming advocates, cutting from one to another every few seconds, spliced with really grainy TV footage -- in every case with the "Fox News" icon at the bottom of the screen -- of various scientists being interviewed and saying that "it's a hoax" or "I don't believe it's happening, I don't believe it's real," this kind of stuff. At the end of all this they had Vargas, seemingly very concerned and serious, ask the question to an off-camera interviewee, "Is there, in fact, any credible debate about whether global warming is real?" At which point the interviewee is revealed to be ..... Al Gore! Now there's an unbiased guy we can ask that question to!

Al, of course, Mr. Nobel Laureate himself, very calm, cool, and collected, pontificates about how there really is no credible debate at all, and that in fact those big bad oil companies have spent millions of dollars to buy off a half-dozen scientists to cook up opposition to, and create confusion about, whether global warming is real. As if that weren't enough, Vargas obliges this by equating it to -- and showing video of -- the tobacco company presidents going up onto Capitol Hill all those years ago and denying, one after another, that nicotine is addictive. And of course because those guys were so obviously lying, global warming "denyers" are also lying! Don't you see the connection?? They even followed that by having one of their other global warming authors (unbiased, right?) equate "global warming denyers" with Holocaust denyers. He flat-out says this!

At that point they cut to commercial and I decided I had seen enough of this tripe. This is just one more example of the arrogance of the Left ("there is no debate!") and why I just don't trust them. This distrust underpins everything I understand about global warming. That is, it's one of the main reasons I don't take it seriously: I don't trust the sources.

I would also point out that, at no time during this barrage of propaganda was there any attempt at all to actually interview any of the global warming dissenters or even engage any of the credible points they have made about why the whole thing is suspect. Instead it was just the standard liberal ad-hominem attack followed by arrogant attitude. Almost as if to say, "there is no persuasive or valid argument to be made against what I am saying, thus anyone who does not agree with me is a fool and fools should be ignored." This is what passes for science from the Left.

Until the Left begins to show some respect for those who disagree with them, they're going to get no traction beyond those who already agree with them. When will they learn this?

Michael Yon Captures the Moment in Iraq

Michael Yon, the independent mil-blogger who embeds with our troops in Iraq, has captured another iconic photograph there. This one illustrates the re-opening of a Christian church and the raising of its steeple cross. You can view it and a paragraph-long story of its setup on Michael's website (which I support and so should you).

Things really are getting better in Iraq, despite what the mainstream media continues to spoon-feed to its audience.

Michelle Malkin, my favorite blogger, has a few more links to others who are also covering the new photo. And a good comment:

"Yes, Christian persecution remains rampant in the Muslim world and apostasy is still punishable by death. But there are glimmers of good news, and they won’t be broadcast on the nightly news or the front page of the NYTimes. Thanks to the
lens of Michael Yon, we can see a fuller, truer picture of Iraq than the 'grim
milestone'-driven legacy media lens allows us to see. That deserves thanks and
praise, too."

Lots of Questions Before I Buy Global Warming

At my office we have a guy who has bought into the Global Warming idea hook, line, and sinker. He is not rabid about it, like most liberals, but he does think I am the stereotypical conservative march-in-lockstep fool who just wants to make more money and doesn't care about the environment. This I found out when we disagreed about a local politician, "Light Bulb" Lloyd Levine, who wants to outlaw the incandescent light bulb in the state of California. My colleague thought that was a fine idea because we need to combat global warming.

I don't know whether all lefties believe that conservatives don't buy global warming on rational reasons or not. The dogma of global warming is so pervasive in our culture any more that I think they just scratch their heads and look at us like loon's for even considering questioning it. Everywhere you turn, you see statements about steps we need to take, not "in case global warming is going on," but rather "because global warming is happening and this will help stop it." It is bizarre how something so controversial is treated as fact. Here, then, are my thoughts on global warming. I'm willing to take it seriously, but here is why I don't today.

1) Who is pushing the agenda? All my life the Left has been pushing out various stories about how humankind is ruining the earth, whether it be from overpopulation; a hole in the ozone layer; global cooling; or fossil fuels and global warming. None of the problems they've described in my lifetime has ever turned out to be any kind of real threat, and all have caused people I know to take dramatic and costly actions to prevent them. In the case of overpopulation, I myself bought into it and did not consider having more than two children until after I learned to distrust the left. Overpopulation has never been a problem, it turns out. So right out of the gate, I distrust the sources.

2) Is the globe really warming at all? Most scientists seem to think "yes". Not all do. And of course many bought into the whole "global cooling / coming ice age" propaganda a decade ago. So I'm just not sure.


3) How much is it warming? I'm no scientist, but I am skeptical that scientists can accurately determine the exact average temperatures from tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago, as they would need to do for accurate comparisons to today's temperatures. And the global warming propaganda has been so forcefully (and successfully) pushed onto the public that the average guy seems to think the average global temperatures will rise 10 degrees or much more in the next decade or two. Scientists I've read about, on the other hand, have speculated that it could be close to one degree over the next century.


4) Is the warming (assuming it's real) a problem? What will be the damage caused by global warming if it's real? Depending on who you listen to, the seas may rise 20 feet and wipe out the entire eastern seaboard within 20 years, or they might rise a few inches in the next century. So how real is the threat that the coastal cities of the U.S. would be submerged? With convincing evidence that this was imminent, it would obviously make sense to take steps to either protect the cities, relocate the citizens, or prevent the flooding. No one would disagree with this in light of such evidence. Today, however, this evidence is not clear.

5) Assuming the warming is real and a problem, what are the causes? If global warming is happening but will have no impact, then who really cares what causes it? In other words, up until this point if we can answer "no" to any of the first four questions, then further discussion of any kind is pointless. If, however, it is happening and is going to become a serious problem, then we obviously must ask, "how can we stop it?" And to answer that question we must know what its causes are. Is it happening because of something humankind is doing? Or is it a natural cycle the planet is going through? Global warming evangelists claim that there is irrefutable evidence that CO2 gases (you know, what comes out of your mouth whenever you exhale) are the prime cause of global warming, and that the prime source of said gases are the Industrial Revolution. Our penchant for burning fossil fuels and other unclean natural resources is putting all kinds of CO2 into the atmosphere, and this is creating a greenhouse effect that is trapping more heat close to the earth. Now there is no doubt that we have increased emissions into the atmosphere in the past hundred years. The question is, what have the effects of that been, and can they be conclusively linked to global warming (assuming it's real)?

6) Assuming we know the cause(s), is there anything we can do to stop it? If the answer is definitely "yes" to #5 (and that answer is far from clear today), then we have to turn toward planning ahead. These plans could involve adapting coastal cities to higher sea levels; moving people out of those areas; or working to reverse the warming conditions and thus head off the catastrophe.

The interesting thing to me is that, in all of this evangelism that has gone on in the past couple of years, no one is suggesting cities take steps to begin relocating people, or change building codes to keep new construction away from coastal areas, etc. All anyone ever talks about is reducing auto emissions and using less electricity or electricity from cleaner sources. Why? To me it proves the point that the agenda, here, really is to cut back on industrial pollution, and global warming is a cannard that enviromental activists are using to get that agenda pushed through. In fact, given the hypocrisy so rampant by so many of the activists (e.g. flying to events on chartered jets instead of on commercial flights), you could make the case that the real agenda is even more insidious than that (e.g. Communism).

In any event, one thing everyone seems to agree on but that no one ever talks about is that even if we were to do all the things environmental activists are proposing, tomorrow, the impact against global warming would be less than a half a degree 100 years from now. To me you might as well say "it's unstoppable."

7) Assuming we could stop it, what are the costs of doing so? Environmental activists complain about virtually every aspect of American life, from driving in cars to turning on too many lights in our homes. They seem to think we'd be better off living in 19th century conditions. Since no one believes that is reasonable, we instead are pushed to spend money on "cleaner" or more efficient items in our lives, such as electric/hybrid cars and flourescent light bulbs; and government is pushed to increase regulations in most industries (read: liberal / big government) to make heavier use of clean energy sources such as wind power, solar, hydro, etc. instead of coal and fossil fuels. Interestingly, nuclear power has always been safe and extremely effective at producing electricity cleanly, yet is still not embraced by the environmental activists who protested against it two decades ago. Why is that? Getting back to point #1, I don't trust them or their stated agenda.

Encouraging people to make use of cleaner technologies is certainly positive for the environment, and we all want that. The problem arises when people and companies weigh the costs of implementing such technologies versus the return and decide against it. Because this happens all the time, the environmental activists press for the government regulation that forces them to comply with these ideas. "Light Bulb Lloyd" Levine, for example, in his defense of the proposed law to ban incandescent light bulbs in California, was confronted with the fact that these new flourescent light bulbs have been available for years by Doug Macintyre, a radio talk show host. Levine acknowledged this and said that since we have not had the new bulbs being embraced as readily as we need to (because they cost much more than regular bulbs), we needed to make it a law. This, ladies and gentlemen, is textbook liberal philosophy.

8) Is the problem big enough, and are the costs reasonable enough, to justify spending the necessary money to stop it? The costs will obviously be huge to convert power plants; phase out regular light bulbs; phase out gasoline-driven automobiles; etc. (there are many more areas that would also need to be addressed). So would it be worth it? Who knows? Fighting the battle would without question consume vast resources of this country. We have a large and well-established economy that might be able to survive the hit. But remember that there are a large number of third-world countries that are just beginning their own industrial revolutions, and they certainly aren't going to risk the progress they are beginning to have by adopting all these environmental protections. So where would that leave us? We make all these big, expensive changes and we're still nowhere.


Summary
The bottom line is not that I am against making any of these changes. As a Christian I agree that we have a duty to be good stewards of God's handiwork, and that means taking care of our environment. However, as far as I can tell, there are still way too many questions lying out there unanswered to say so conclusively that we ought to be making such changes that are so risky for our economy and may have very little, if any, impact on the problem (if it exists and if we're the cause of it).

As far as I can tell, the only thing that 99% of scientists agree on is point #1, that the earth is, in fact, warming. Beyond that (i.e. how much, how fast), everyone argues. Given that that question is just the first in more than a half-dozen that I think we need to answer in the affirmative before we take serious action, and that I haven't been convinced of the left's answers to those questions yet, there's a long way to go before I hop onto the global warming bandwagon.

Finally Someone Lays a Glove on Hillary

Even if I were not a staunch conservative, I would still think that Hillary Clinton is a truly disgusting candidate for the U.S. Presidency. The only democratic candidacy worse than hers is that of John Edwards. The other candidates I can at least respectfully listen to.

This is a harsh comment, so I'll clarify: I cannot stand Hillary because I rarely believe that she believes what comes out of her mouth (i.e. it's all-pandering-all-the-time), and when I do believe it, she's usually saying nothing. That is, she is a master at saying nothing (something her husband was also accused of), but using a lot of words to do so. Both of these activities are dishonest. The fact that she not only is a viable candidate for the presidency, but the leading candidate, makes this 10 times worse. The only saving grace is that the Republicans will likely (I pray) put forth a worthy challenger and keep her from winning the election next year.

Republicans have always known this about Hillary, but until now, the Left has never acknowledged it. Now, other leftists want to beat Hillary in the democratic primary, and since she has a commanding lead at the moment, the gloves have come off. This became obvious in the most recent debate.

In this debate, (transcript here) Hillary was asked a question by moderator Tim Russert about a controversial (overwhelmingly unpopular) idea of Eliot Spitzer, the New York governor, to give illegal aliens driver's licenses. Russert asked her if she agreed with it. Hillary answered that she empathized with the governor and tried to leave it at that; but Russert followed up with her to get clarification. After that, Chris Dodd, John Edwards and Barack Obama all challenged her answer, recognizing it as a non-answer that just sounded good. They both wanted to know where she stood, and she tried to waffle, as she always does. In the end, she got hammered by fellow Democrats and looked extremely uncomfortable in the process.

Why does Hillary do this? I believe it's because she wants to play both sides of every issue, waiting as long as possible to commit to one side or the other and look good for it. Pundit Dick Morris, who used to work for the Clinton's, has a slightly different take. In his email bulletin on the matter he said this:

"she has come to believe, probably correctly, that if we knew what she really
wants to do as president, we would never vote for her. So on Social Security
(where she plans to raise taxes), Iran (where she will take military action if
need be), Iraq (where she will keep the troops), the Alternative Minimum Tax
(which she will only repeal if it can be used to hide massive tax increases) and
drivers licenses (which she will give to illegals as soon as she can), Hillary
resists telling the truth. And, under the scrutiny of opponents like Edwards and
Dodd, and the questioning of Tim Russert, it is becoming obvious even to
demented Democrats."

Either way, Democrats challenging her is good for the country. People ought to understand what a presidential candidate's positions on the important issues are. Then, and only then, they can make an informed decision about whether to vote for him/her. I dislike Hillary Clinton as a candidate partly for what she believes in. But I dislike her mostly because she is slippery and won't tell us what she really thinks about the issues.

Aftermath
In the days since that debate, Hillary has been trying to do damage control. Her latest ploy has been to try and garner sympathy by whining that she was "attacked" because she's a woman. This is an amazingly stupid idea. She was challenged because 1) She is the frontrunner by a long way; and 2) she gave a lengthy non-answer about a very unpopular issue in her own state, showing that she couldn't commit to a position even when 70+% of her constituents oppose it. Her opponents were completely correct to go after her on that. Right now they are trying to pull her back down in the rankings before she runs away with the nomination.

Barack Obama, in particular, has been very vocal about Hillary's non-positions, adding another non-answer about Social Security reform to the list. He put it succinctly: "You’re not ready to lead if you can’t tell us where you’re going."

If Hillary can't give a real answer to a simple question like illegal immigration and can't stand the heat of a real fight among other Democrat elites, how can she expect to win the general election, when the gloves will really come off, much less to lead the world if she wins?

Another Reason for Happiness: The Eagles' New Album

Don Henley, a lead singer of one of my favorite bands, the Eagles, said two decades ago when the band broke up that they'd get back together "when Hell freezes over" in response to constant badgering about it. So a few years ago, when they finally did get back together, they named their album, which was a live album with four new songs on it, "Hell Freezes Over," along with a tour and $100+ seats. Fans were ecstatic. Still, no new studio album.

That changed last weekend, when I read that the band had a new album coming out called "Long Road Out of Eden". I raced to Wal-Mart, which has an exclusive distribution deal with them, to buy it but discovered it wouldn't be out until Tuesday the 30th. Dejected, I left but accepted my wife's offer to stop by on Tuesday and pick it up for me.

I have been far from disappointed. The Eagles have lost nothing in the 20 years since their last big album came out. The new album is a double-CD, 11 songs on one and 9 on the other. Nearly every track is fantastic. Every member is showcased in various songs, and the boys are all there, except for guitarist Don Felder.

For me the best part, besides the catchy tunes themselves, has been savoring the classic Eagles harmonic sounds. This is showcased from the very first song, largely a capella, "No More Walks in the Wood". But it really shines in the chorus of the second track, "How Long" (which you can listen to on their website), as well as "Do Something," track 10. After the band broke up, members Glenn Frey, Joe Walsh, Don Henley, and Timothy B. Schmidt (okay, maybe not Timothy) went on to successful solo careers, as they're all quality singers and songwriters. And together their sound is just magical.

In a time when there's so much junk out there calling itself music, it's truly refreshing to hear brand new music from one of the best bands of the 70's and 80's. It's fresh music from "old school" musicians: Just singing, piano, Hammond organ, drums and lots of guitar.

Here's hoping and praying it doesn't stop with this phenomenal album.

Public Ire Worries Ex-Hostages

Just a few days ago, 19 South Korean Christian missionaries were released by their Taliban kidnappers after six weeks in captivity. During that time, two of their number were killed by the captors. You would think that with their release, they would be ecstatic; but you would be wrong. Instead the headline in the newspaper this morning reads, "Public Ire Worries Ex-Hostages."

Yes, they are worried. They are worried because much of the world seems to be against them. They have been under intense criticism in their home country because people say the government has been saying all along that Afghanistan is a dangerous place and that they shouldn't go there. The fact that they did anyway means that, apparently, they're worthy of no respect.

Secondly, as a direct result of their kidnapping, people say, the South Korean government was "forced to negotiate directly with the Taliban" for their release. This is obviously a bad thing because the Taliban is no longer the recognized government of that country. In fact you could refer to them as an insurgency, a group of Islamic extremists, or terrorist group.

The article goes on to mention that in their first media interviews since their release, the hostages "apologized for causing trouble".

This story interested me, firstly, because it seemed to me right away that ex-hostages of a terrorist group should not need to worry about any reactions by the public upon their safe return. Secondly, this was a group of suburban Christians who had volunteered to go to the country as a group, and were on their way to give aid in Kandahar when they were abducted. This was their crime, helping poor and displaced Muslims in a foreign country.


Backward Thinking
As to the first point, their government said this was a dangerous country, and it is. They recommended the group should not go there, as they should. The U.S. State Department, I'm sure, says the same thing. However, this group's motives were pure and holy. They obviously believed they had an obligation as Christians to help others in need, and believed so strongly in this duty that they had to make the trip. May God bless them for it. Come to think of it, the fact that we aren't reading a story about 21 (instead of 2) Christian martyrs today indicates to me that God already has blessed them for it. If more Christians around the world acted as strongly as this group did, it would change the world. Whether you or I would be willing to do what they did or not, we should not criticize their decision to go because it was love for their fellow human beings that compelled them to do so. Their decision was righteous.

As to the government being "forced" to negotiate with the Taliban, this is a bunch of garbage. What this whole episode shows us so obviously is that the Taliban are, in fact, a bunch of thugs and nothing more. Governments have no business negotiating with thugs. Instead they should seek out and kill the thugs as they free their citizens from illegal captivity. This is why the U.S. military is still in Iraq: there are too many thugs running around over there killing and terrorizing innocent, peace-loving people, and they must be stopped. You don't negotiate with terrorists; you kill them.

One other aspect of this story that I haven't heard reported anywhere is the fact that it is still illegal in some Muslim countries to proselytize Christianity, or even to convert from Islam to Christianity. In fact, I posted a blog entry last year about a Christian convert who was brought into court on just these charges, convicted, and sentenced to death, despite being given the opportunity during his trial to renounce his Christian beliefs and "revert" to Islam. Only a letter-writing campaign by Christians in the U.S., followed by quick diplomacy and a flight out of the country, essentially into exile, saved this man's life. No articles I have read remind readers of this fact, nor question why it was that a group of 21 Christians, as opposed to some other group, were targeted by these Islamists. Forget about outrage for the missionaries; where is the outrage in that?

Why Does Geraldo Rivera Get an Ounce of Respect?

To all those liberals who ignore or otherwise disparage the Fox News Channel for being a right-wing channel unworthy of any respect, I would simply ask them why, if this were true (it isn't), Fox goes out of its way to hire liberal commentators to balance their admittedly right-wing ones? Case in point: Alan Colmes, co-host of the popular nightly "Hannity & Colmes" show. This guy is extreme left-wing, although pretty coherent. I disagree with 90% of what comes out of his mouth, but at least what comes out is worth hearing.

Another case in point: Geraldo Rivera. This guy has been widely considered just a fool for almost as long as I can remember, but now he's really being perceived as a left-wing bomb-thrower, as well. When I was a kid, his reputation was as this great investigative journalist. It was because of this reputation that everyone paid attention when he found Al Capone's personal safe and opened it on live television. This was a big drama at the time (I want to say early 80's), yet the safe contained -- absolutely nothing. Geraldo was disgraced and his detractors still cite this television moment when they insult the guy. The safe became Geraldo's Chappaquidick; something people mention whenever the guy starts getting some good press.

Lately, though, he has been very vocal in his support of amnesty for illegal aliens, and equally vocal in his disdain for those who oppose such things. In the process, he has proven conservatives' point (for the millionth time) that liberals are rarely thoughtful about their positions, and immature in their debates with conservatives. Their "arguments" are post-modern "stories" designed to evoke certain emotions rather than make a logical point. Their methods are rarely to debate an idea, but to demonize its messenger(s). These arguments frequently also involve lying when describing the conservative opposition in order to create a straw man to tear down. Everywhere you turn in the liberal world, you find this to be the case.

With Geraldo in particular, the guy who Fox has put out there the last several years as a serious journalist has really started to get "unhinged", to use a term Michelle Malkin coined a few years ago to describe out-of-control fanatical liberals. Michelle posted on her blog this morning an excerpt from a Boston Globe piece on Geraldo, in which he comments about her specifically. I have read of him doing this several times in the past few weeks. The rhetoric has been getting worse. Keep in mind this is a colleague, as Michelle frequently appears and guest-hosts on Fox for Bill O'Reilly. Here is what he says in the article:

“Michelle Malkin is the most vile, hateful commentator I’ve ever met in my
life,” he says. “She actually believes that neighbors should start snitching out
neighbors, and we should be deporting people."

“It’s good she’s in D.C. and I’m in New York,” Rivera sneers. “I’d spit on her if I saw her.”

Now I don't care whether you're conservative or liberal or whatever. This kind of vitriol is totally inappropriate, especially for a colleague. It's unprofessional, to start with. Can you imagine saying this about someone you worked with? Secondly, his description of Michelle's beliefs is over-simplified and, as usual, designed to make people despise her. Thirdly, this ridiculous comment about spitting on her is juvenile at best. That a 64-year-old man would make such a comment about someone other than perhaps a Nazi or serial murderer, on the record in a newspaper, is just despicable. Why we pay attention to this guy is beyond me.

Hard-core liberals are slippery. They argue on emotion, rarely facts, and personally attack the people who disagree with them in order to make them stop commenting. This is what makes them so aggravating, because they are often able to get traction in public debates using such ridiculous tactics. People like Geraldo should not be listened-to. They should be ignored and other, thoughtful people should be found to make better arguments in a more civil discourse.

Leftist Lies...Again

Yesterday I made the point that liberals argue by mis-characterizing conservative positions to make them seem horrible when they are not; and by using "softened" language to describe their own ridiculous positions and make them seem more palatable. My point was also that this is done routinely.

The most prominent example of this behavior is the liberal Congress's attempts to backstab the American military by dragging them out of Iraq before their work is done. If successful, this act would be disastrous for for Iraqis, who would be terrorized and killed in huge numbers almost immediately. It would also hurt our nation tremendously, as we would completely lose credibility with our allies with whom we would claim to stand next to in a fight. Who would trust us again, and why? After the fall of Saigon and our rapid exit from Somalia after the "Blackhawk Down" incident, leaving Iraq after 5 years of hard work would simply send a confirmation that America doesn't have the wherewithall to get "the jobs" done any more.

And the causes of all of these pullouts are the same: the Liberal Left. Senator Ted Kennedy, for one, is proud of being instrumental in cutting the funding of the troops in Vietnam in the mid 70's. That pullout has been a dark stain on our country's honor ever since. And yet he also helps lead the charge to get out of Iraq today. He, at least, didn't learn from his mistakes. Bottom line: The Left has no stomach for a fight.

One of the red herrings the Leftist congressmen and women put out there as the supposed rationale for wanting to "redeploy" our troops is their overriding concern for the troops' welfare. However I don't buy this at all. One reason is that, besides the Left always wanting to pull the troops out of combat zones, thus losing those battles/wars, the Left also is the source of anti-military protests on campuses and for the widespread banning of military recruiters on college campuses. Many leftists also want military recruiters to be kicked out of high schools in America. They give ridiculous reasons for this belief that recruiters don't belong in such places, recruiting our kids, but I believe the real reason is hatred for the military machine and what it is for.

Case in point: The New Republic magazine (left-leaning), recently recuperating from a similar scandal in 1998, just published a column written, allegedly, by a member of the military serving in Iraq, in which all kinds of horrific behavior is described being perpetrated by our troops. This behavior included laughing and making jokes about a female civilian contractor there whose face was horribly burned; finding a mass child gravesite and wearing a child's skull like a toy; and intentionally running over dogs in a Bradley Fighting Vehicle, among others. The author uses a phony name, and the editors are standing behind the story. The Weekly Standard began investigating the story, and asked milbloggers to help out, which many of them are doing.

Milbloggers starting finding problems with the story almost immediately (just as other bloggers did a few years ago with the Dan Rather fiasco) and began posting these problems online, attacking the N.R.'s credibility. Republic editors, who haven't come out for any interviews at all yet, have started backtracking and investigating the claims made in the story.

There are several places to read about this developing story: The Weekly Standard's website has a good overview, and there are a number of good milbloggers all over this investigation, including Mudville Gazette; BlackFive; and American Thinker. All these blogs are dissecting bits and pieces of the narrative in the New Republic column, and finding all kinds of signs that it was a) made up, and b) done so by a known perpetrator of this kind of fraud. If things keep going in this direction, N.R. editors will have some apologizing to do -- again. Then the question will be, did they know and try to get away with something, or did they not know but publish the whole column without fact-checking because it so readily fits their worldview?

The blog at Mudville Gazette also includes a good number of left-leaning blog quotes on the content of the article. His point is that these kinds of columns need to be combatted because lefties want to believe them and are thus drawn to them, without any checking at all. And the comments he posts from them really show how the Left feels about the military: they hate them and think of them as barbaric killers.

So enough with the b.s. that the Left cares about the military. By and large, it just is not true. John Kerry was dissing the troops in the 70's when he accused them of committing all kinds of heinous crimes. And he still does it today. Late last year, he made a comment about how the U.S. military members were breaking into houses, terrorizing women and children. And there are many, many more who make the same kinds of wild comments and betray their real feelings about out military.

Liberals Argue By Lying

A report from the A.P. today describes a memo that Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman sent to the Senate, rebuking senator Hilary Clinton for asking the Pentagon questions about how they planned to pull out of Iraq. In the memo, Edelman pointed out that lines of questioning like this, in public, encourage the enemy and provide propaganda. He wrote, "Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia." Pretty frank stuff for a political appointee.

Clinton responded not by addressing Edelman's point, but by blasting Edelman personally and taking shots at President Bush in the process. It was the usual pathetic defense we've seen so many times before by countless liberals who are incapable of defending their ridiculous and illogical positions.

Here is what Clinton's aide said: "Redeploying out of Iraq with the same combination of arrogance and incompetence with which the Bush administration deployed our young men and women into Iraq is completely unacceptable, and our troops deserve far better," and that military leaders should offer a withdrawal plan rather than "a political plan to attack those who question them."

The way the statement is written speaks volumes. First, the whole idea of "redeployment" is completely idiotic. Liberals know that the public doesn't broadly support outright withdrawal from Iraq, so they try and soften it by calling it "redeployment". Calling it something it isn't is dishonest and intended to mislead. This is, I've observed, a common characteristic of liberals' arguments: They won't admit to what they truly believe, and when criticizing conservatives, they intentionally mis-characterize the conservative position.

Second, the idea that President Bush "arrogantly and incompetently" dragged us into Iraq is ludicrous, as he could not have done so without Congress's approval. He made a compelling case at the time, Congress bought it and voted it in, and off we went. So to try and lay this whole thing at the feet of the President is unfair and, again, dishonest.

Third: "Our troops deserve better". This is stupid because no one in their right mind believes that liberals care more about the men and women in our military than conservatives do. The idea that the Left -- from which come colleges that ban military recruiters and allow students to disrupt public events when a conservative tries to speak; from which withdrawals from major combat always come -- wants what's best for the military and the Right does not, is beyond stupid.

Finally, the notion that our military leaders should not be fighting America's enemies in Iraq any more, but instead should be working out withdrawal plans, is cowardly and pathetic. But at least it's finally honest. That really is what they want. However, it's not what the public at large wants, and it's not the right or moral thing to do, in any case. Americans want the war to end, but not for America to lose. If we withdraw, or "redeploy" out of Iraq, the consequences would be disastrous. Liberals claim President Bush alienated our allies by going into Iraq. I don't believe that's true, but if you want to see alienation, pull out of Iraq now, before the job is done, and see what that produces. Bottom line: We should leave when we're finished, and not before. I don't care how long it takes. If it's worth doing, it must be won. Period.

Dennis Prager, the brilliant radio talk show host who I've listened to for decades, has a great motto: "I prefer clarity to agreement" Liberals don't care about clarity, apparently, they act on emotion and just want to win the argument at that moment. If they have to distort their own position to make it seem more palatable, or distort their opponent's position to make it seem more disgusting, they seem to be fine with that. Any way you slice it, it's dishonest and does not at all contribute to arriving at the "most correct" conclusions.

NBC Slanting Stories? Imagine That!

Liberals who disagree that the mainstream media is not overwhelmingly biased to the "left" are either blind/ignorant, or dishonest. It doesn't take 5 minutes out of any given day, looking through websites or TV news channels, to encounter slanted stories. Lib's who cannot see that simply see their own worldview represented in the media and agree with it, so think, "hey, no bias!" Conservatives see the same trash and get outraged, write emails - and make blog postings.


NBC News ran a story in the middle of May suggesting that the U.S. Army knew the body armor it supplies to troops is inferior. They compared what the troops get, "Interceptor", with another type of armor called "Dragon Skin" and had an "expert" who supposedly designed Interceptor testify on camera that he now believed Dragon Skin was superior. They ran tests in a lab that appeared to support this assertion.


Now the "Hot Air" blog has put up a video that details how the NBC case was not only fabricated, but that they willfully ignored the evidence supplied to them by the Army that proved Interceptor was the best choice. Watch the video and be amazed at how fraudulent Lisa Myers and NBC is in their piece. It is chilling, the extent to which media people will go to discredit the Bush administration and the military.


The only question is, will the public let this story go unanswered, as so often happens? Will NBC have to pay any kind of price for putting this garbage out in the mainstream? They've already caused significant damage.


As I went to the NBC site to lodge a complaint, I needed to go no further than the front page to see bias:

The headline is "Destruction Everywhere" about a bomb that went off today in a marketplace in Iraq, killing 100. The subhead next to it (conveniently), which is actually a separate story, says "Bush strategy losing support". This is the drum of the media these days - the president is wrong and losing support, and we're doomed in Iraq. Nevermind the progress our troops have been making since "the surge" and the new strategy over there. The fact that Iraqis everywhere are trusting us more and more, and turning on Al Qaeda in ever-larger numbers. No reporting about any of that. No, NBC wants us to lose in Iraq -- in fact, at this point they need us to lose in Iraq in order to vindicate them -- and so they push a negative slant on every Iraq story. It is truly disgusting, dishonest, and un-American.

While they're at it on that website, they have a link to another article that is anti-Catholic. Pope Benedict just announced he has removed the prohibition on the old Latin Rite of the Mass. MSNBC's headline reports the one negative aspect they could dredge out of this very positive report - "Pope's Latin Decree sparks Jewish concerns". This from a report that the ADL, which sees anti-Semitic messages absolutely everywhere, thinks Benedict's decree sets back Catholic-Jewish relations. Unbelievable.

If I ever watch NBC News again it will be too soon. And they wonder why more people watch Fox...

Gonzalez Supreme Court Decision Not So Great

A week or so ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in favor of a law outlawing the disgusting and evil partial-birth abortion procedure. Pro-life advocates rejoiced, and headlines declared a victory for our cause.

However, writing for RealClearPolitics.com in an editorial posted at FoxNews here, Stephen Warshawsky gives more detail about the opinion authored by liberal justice Anthony Kennedy. There are four (out of nine) conservative justices on the Supreme Court and Kennedy is among the most liberal. He is very pro-choice. Yet he sided with the four conservatives in this case (not that one's opinion on the morality of such a procedure should matter). Why? Warshawsky explains.

What we learn is that Kennedy took the time to outline a large number of situations in which a partial birth abortion really could still be performed, and done so legally. He gives specific details, almost as though he is making suggestions to doctors. The whole thing is disgusting to read. Here is a taste of just one of those examples:

* "The Act excludes most D&Es in which the fetus is removed in pieces, not intact. If the doctor intends to remove the fetus in parts from the outset, the doctor will not have the requisite intent to incur criminal liability." (Slip. Op. at 20-21.) Hence, late term abortions in which the fetus is "disarticulated" — i.e., cut or torn into pieces as it is being removed from the mother's body — do not violate the statute. Even if the prohibited form of partial birth abortion happens to occur during this process, no criminal liability can be imposed because such an outcome was not intended by the doctor. (See Slip. Op. at 24.)

As I said, there are many examples of this kind of thing in the editorial. The conclusion is that the fact that these kinds of gigantic loopholes exist in the law is because it was the only kind of abortion bill that conservatives could get the liberals to help them pass. Liberals won because it's basically a toothless law; conservatives won because they could go back to their constituents and claim success in passing an anti-partial birth abortion law. Our tax dollars at work.

The closing quote of Warshawsky's piece is true and should motivate every conservative in the country -- at a time when we have two very old justices about to retire -- to get out and work hard to get whoever the Republican nominee is, elected:

Unless and until one of the four dissenting justices in Gonzales is replaced by
a reliable conservative judge — which will never happen if the Republican Party
does not win the presidency in 2008 — the Supreme Court "counter-revolution"
long hoped for by political and religious conservatives in this country will not
occur.

Brit Sailors Lambasted

The 15 British Navy and Marine sailors who were nabbed in international waters a few weeks ago by the Iranian Navy have returned home, and have been speaking to the press about their ordeal. It's about what you would expect: they were mistreated and forced to give "confessions" of actually having been in Iranian waters, on camera and under threat of execution.

All that is expected, and by the way is against the Geneva Convention. Has the Left mentioned this?

Mostly sitting out the discussion, though (why I do not know), has been criticism of the British Navy in general, and of these sailors in particular, for having been picked up in the first place.

The setup is that they were in international waters and had just finished inspecting a cargo vessel on its way into Iraq. They were in a couple of inflatable boats, 15 sailors in all. They were preparing to return to their "mother" ship when several Iranian gunboats pulled up and surrounded them, demanding their surrender. They then took the sailors back to Iran and used them as political puppets for two weeks, before finally releasing them - while patting themselves on their back for their magnanimous gesture.

The first thing I thought of at the time was, "how in the world did their support vessels allow them to be taken? Where was the commanding officer of the ship from which these inflatables had launched? Did they not see the Iranian vessels approaching on radar?? If not, why not? and if so, why did they not intercept? I thought I heard one British Navy officer indicate that they had, in fact, seen the blips on the radar and warned the boarding party. Outside of that, they obviously took no action.

Now, surrounding and capturing two military boat crews in international waters is technically an act of war, is it not? Does not this kind of a provocation demand a military response at that moment? Why would the smaller-but-capable British Navy (for centuries the greatest navy in the world), even at the risk of 15 of its sailors, not show up to support the boarding parties with overwhelming firepower? They certainly are militarily capable of doing so.

If this had been the U.S. Navy, those sailors would not have been captured, period. In fact, the Iranian boats would likely have been sunk before they reached those crews. There can be no doubt about this.

Now the criticism is focusing on the comments of the young Brit Captain who was presumably in charge of the crew at that time. His comments were fairly pathetic. Basically he/they decided that to fight back against greater numbers of Iranians would have been suicide, so they surrendered. Colonel Jack Jacobs, a military analyst for MSNBC, was incredibly blunt about this:

"Disgusting". He is right.

As it happens, there are two footnotes to this sordid story. The first is that the Brit's have temporarily suspended cargo vessel inspections in that area. That is at least as pathetic as the whole above story. The second footnote is that a new weapon has started being used successfully against coalition tanks and armored carriers. This weapon is called an "EFP" (Explosively Formed Projectile) and it is manufactured in -- Iran. What a coincidence that this new weapon arrives on the scene right after the Iranians successfully shame Britain into stopping cargo vessel searches. "Disgusting" is right; the resolve of the British?

By the way, an article here discusses the behind-the-scenes wrangling in Iran over this event. In the end, the article suggests that many in the Iranian hierarchy heard that the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (and its entourage) was steaming toward the Persian Gulf to join the USS Dwight D Eisenhower and the USS John C. Stennis, bring the total of Carrier Strike Groups in the area to 3, and that they pressured Khatamei to release the British prisoners to ward off an American invasion. If true it would prove, once again, that the only thing rogue regimes like this one understand is force. Big surprise.

Disney Now Condones Gay Marriages

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but just read here how Disney will now be permitting gay couples to get "married" in its theme parks, just like heterosexual couples. Complete with Cinderella pumpkin carriage ride. One has to wonder: Is Walt turning over in his grave?

Apparently someone requested to be able to do this and though it was not permitted, the request made its way up the chain of command and some secular genius appears to have agreed that our society is repressive against gays because we still support the 5,000-year-plus traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. This at Disney, which prides itself on family-friendly entertainment.

The article I read is here. It's fairly stupifying. The money quote from Disney's spokesman is this: "We are not in the business of making judgments about the lifestyle of our guests. We are in the hospitality business and our parks and resorts are open to everyone."

You don't have to necessarily make judgements about a guest's lifestyle, but you also do your society a disservice by actively promoting aberrant lifestyles inside your theme parks for all the world to see. Why is it a good thing for little children to be walking around the Magic Kingdom and come across a gay "commitment ceremony" with two men or two women saying vows to each other? When did this become okay to do? Are you not taking "tolerance" a BIT too far? What exactly is the point of such a ceremony? And what statement are you making about such lifestyles?

This idea that "we don't make judgements" is simply ludicrous. The Left always likes to paint itself as the all-accepting side of the equation, but the reality is that the Left makes harsh judgements about Christians, upon whom this country was built and continues to prosper, every moment. By hosting these kinds of ceremonies, Disney is making a public judgement that Christians and the Judeo-Christian traditions of this country are morally wrong. They are saying that Christians are wrong to oppose homosexuality and, it follows, homosexual marriage ceremonies. They are offending Christians, Jews, and Muslims at a minimum who might happen by such a ceremony in the park. Apparently they do not care. Why such a large and public-relations-driven company would not care about offending the vast majority of its customers is completely beyond me.

My family is a 3-time Disneyland annual passholder family, living 20 minutes from the park in Anaheim. We will not be renewing our passes this year.

Cursing, Post-Modernism and the Left's Idiocy

4/6 UPDATE: A great example of the Left cursing at and threatening people who disagree with their positions (as usual) is here. The target of their hatred this go-around is actually a non-partisan group that disagrees with Al Gore's assertions on global warming.

Big Surprise: Lefties Curse -- A Lot More than We Do

Patrick Ishmael published this interesting piece on his blog about foul language used in arguments online. He did a bunch of Google searches based on George Carlin's infamous "Seven Dirty Words" to see which side, left or right, in fact uses them more (if either). The result, that foul language is present WAY more often in leftist arguments than on the right, is no surprise to conservatives as we've been complaining about it for years. The left has always alternately denied it and ignored it.

Ishmael found that the Daily Kos, the leading left blog, had 146,000 pages containing one or more of the words, and the Huffington Post, #2 on the left, had 109,000 pages. The #1 conservative site, Ace of Spades, had less than 10,000. And even that was high for the conservative blogs: The next highest was Dean's World at 2,550. The vast majority were under 1,000.

I don't collect lists or stats on the subject; I just encounter it regularly when I peruse left-leaning blogs or hear/see lefties arguing in public events. I actually want to hear the liberal positions on important subjects of the day. I used to try to listen to Air America during my morning drive and I have tried to read liberal blogs.

I've pretty much given up on these attempts because I've found the Left has very little, if anything, honest to say about any of the subjects I care about. Every time I turn around I hear some leftie saying some outrageous thing about conservatives that just makes my blood boil. This morning Dennis Prager played a quote from Joy Behar, a nut-job leftie on "The View" on ABC television, where she basically said that not only did she hope Vice President Cheney did, in fact, have a blood clot in his leg, but that he deserved it, too, because he's such a liar. Now, this is a despicable comment no matter how you slice it. No human being should be saying things like this about another human being, period. Secondly, she just threw this out there with no attribution whatsoever. He's a liar? Care to back that up?? Of course not. This is par for the course in liberal ideology.

Conservatives (myself included) often accuse Liberals of not bringing intelligent conversation to the arguments of the day. Liberals never seem to actually counter that assertion, they just do what they always do: throw out more chaff - change the subject.

Post-Modernism is Partly to Blame

The major reason for this, in my opinion, is that the left today is a post-modern group through and through. Hillary Clinton even admits this when she refers to the world in which we live as a "post-modern" world. If you know anything about post-modernism, you immediately recognize what a dangerous idea this is, not to mention how ridiculous. But most people have no idea what post-modernism is and so they don't see the threat, and they also don't understand what drives leftist arguments.

In a nutshell, post-modernists do not believe in any objective truth, or "reality". No one and no idea can be "judged" because all ideas are "correct" in the culture they were created in. Hard to imagine that people think like this, but the more you learn about post-modernism, the more you see it all around us in this country today. Because no one can legitimately be criticized, the idea of arguing based on reason goes right out the window. Reason is irrelevant because there is no objective truth. Is it wrong to enslave women? Well, not necessarily. It'd be wrong for Americans but not in other countries. Without an objective truth, everything is permissible in some context.

When you cannot argue from reason, you instead argue using "rhetoric" or "stories". Instead of making an intelligent point based on facts ("facts" don't exist for a post-modernist, remember), you tell an emotional story that is intended to sway your listener to your point of view. Listen to radio and television debates with that understanding and you will see that this is how it is done. Leftists cannot and do not counter conservative arguments by debunking the assertions the conservative used in making the argument. They instead lob ad-hominem attacks against the person, calling them a xenophobe or racist, etc. Or they will tell sad stories about supposed victims of the conservative's ideas. Or they will change the subject by asking a question, often an unrelated one. They do not see this tactic as unfair or dishonest. In fact, this is the proper way to argue based on their worldview.

When you understand that leftists see the world in an entirely different -- and I would say, unrealistic and foolish -- way than the "modernists" have for the past 2,000+ years, you can start to understand their tactics and maybe even the danger they pose.

Libby Found Guilty - So What?

Scooter Libby was found guilty the other day of perjury in the Valerie Plame case that has been a liberal rallying cry (one of many) against the Bush administration. For some reason he had told FBI investigators that he didn't disclose her name to, I think, Robert Novak during an interview, when he actually had. This was after her name was already public, and many years after she had been a spy for the CIA. But because he neglected to tell this to the investigators, a jury concluded he hadn't forgotten it but actually had lied to them. So he's guilty of perjury. Not guilty of disclosing a spy's name and blowing her cover, mind you, which was the point of the investigation. Guilty of lying about it to investigators.

I can't help but see this whole farcical trial as an excuse for the lead investigator, Patrick Fitzgerald, to look he was actually accomplishing something in his investigation. I mean, how much of a threat, even supposing it is true, is Scooter Libby to the country? How big a problem was this lie? Was it material to even that case?

I read yesterday that some jurors polled stated that they believed Libby was the "fall guy" for the administration. That news is troubling for a few different reasons. First, it indicates that the jurors are left-leaning Bush-haters that may just be "out to get" the administration. These are people who would not have approached the trial with an open mind but just were looking for someone to hang. Second, it indicates that the jurors also do not know, or more likely do not care, that the real "leaker" of Plame's identity to the media has already been proven, almost a year ago, to be Richard Armitage, a leftie State Department employee who everyone knows is anti-Bush. So again, it was proven that the Bush administration had nothing to do with leaking her name, ergo there is no "fall guy." And we're back to BDS ("Bush Derangement Syndrome") to explain the jury's actions in convicting Libby.

Even if the disclosure of Plame's identity were a crime, and this is really questionable to begin with for a whole variety of reasons, why is Patrick Fitzgerald not spending his time putting Armitage on trial instead of Libby? If it was wrong, it was wrong. All the time the Left believed Karl Rove was the leaker, you couldn't flip through the news channels without hearing some leftie scream about the evil Bush administration's cover-up and all the harm supposedly done to Plame and her idiot husband, Joe Wilson. The right argued that no matter who it was, it didn't amount to a crime. As soon as the leaker was discovered to be Armitage, the left quieted down (without apologizing even once) and the right maintained its consistent position that it hadn't been a crime to begin with. If the right had been the left, we would have seized the moment and crucified Armitage. But the left is inherently dishonest and the right is not. This is just further proof of that.

Meeting the Doolittle Raiders

I was lucky enough yesterday to have attended the Chino Air Museum's monthly lecture, which this month was about aerial gunners. I became a member of the museum during my dad's visit in December, mainly because I wanted to be able to attend these lectures each month; they're always on some aspect of air power history that is interesting.

The first half-hour of the presentation, a sergeant from the Army Air Corps who volunteers at the museum as they work to fix up their B-17, gave a talk about what it was like to be a ball turret gunner on said plane. Sgt Wilbur told an audience of perhaps 200+ about four of his 30 missions flown during WW2, including his last mission, during which he was wounded. Fascinating stories, and thank God people have begun realizing in the past several years that these stories need to be taped or written down. As one presenter put it, "write them down so that we have them, otherwise Hollywood will write them for us." How true that is (and how awful that today we have to worry about the leftists in Hollywood).

After the aerial gunnery presentation, which was worth the price of admission already, the audience sat with rapt attention as two very old men, Colonel Richard Cole and Major Thomas Griffin, described their time as members of the world famous "Doolittle Raiders". Most everyone has heard of the American bombing raid on Tokyo, Japan in February 1942, just a couple of months after Pearl Harbor. Then-Colonel Jimmy Doolittle planned it out and led 15 planes, 80 crew members, on the raid. Ever since, it has been the stuff of legend; immortalized on film with Spencer Tracy in the lead in "30 Seconds Over Tokyo", and it even made it into the recent "Pearl Harbor" movie, this time with Doolittle played by Alec Baldwin.

The two members of the raiders, sitting alongside an "honorary Raider", Jimmy Doolittle's son John, discussed the preparation and execution of the raid, and fielded questions from the large audience packed standing-room only into the hangar that houses the Museum's Navy planes exhibits. It was riveting, and a couple of the people I spoke to while there had the same star-struck feeling that I did: "These are the actual guys who were there. This one guy was Doolittle's co-pilot. What a treat to be able to listen to these men give first-hand accounts of this very famous event, answer our questions afterward, and shake our hands and greet us individually after that. What a blessing that we still have these men with us, in their 90's (they were born in 1915 and 1916), as well as Sgt Wilbur, to tell us their stories and remind us not to forget the contributions of this great generation 60+ years ago.

In this age of liberal hatred of our military, all of us at the presentation went out of our way to thank these fine men for their contributions to our country. One young man, in his Army uniform, took the microphone during Q&A to do nothing more than thank them explicitly, and salute them. He stood there in salute, rock-rigid, as those around the raiders leaned over to them quickly and explained (they are hard of hearing) what the young man had said, and they then happily returned his salute. One volunteer at the museum, a custom airplane model-builder, presented them with replicas of each of their planes that he had made just for them, mounted and painted with the proper insignias, etc. It seemed we couldn't do enough to thank them. One older man remarked to his friend with a smile, "they're just as popular today as they were in the 40's."

On Religion

I've been thinking for the last month or so about how to write about how profoundly my religious beliefs have enlightened my worldview over the past few years. I haven't written anything about it yet because I can't quite get my arms around the entirety of what I want to say. Since "reverting" to Catholicism several years ago, I've been on an insatiable quest to learn all about Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. Along the way I've continued to stay abreast of world events and have noticed that my strong political views have changed dramatically. As a result, I can clearly see both sides, now, and understand the perspectives of so many of those around me sometimes more clearly than they themselves do. It's enormous to take in, like a flash flood of information and new understanding. Trying to put all that into words to explain outwardly is daunting.

One thing I can say at least, at the bottom line, is that I am more convinced than ever that Catholic faith is the key to seeing things in the world for what they really are, and for also understanding how to approach them. This one religion has started with the Word of God and has worked within a single established framework for adding to its official body of knowledge over the last 2,000 years. Today, it remains true to its understanding of specific rules of morality that were established hundreds of years ago, and it's the only Christian religion to have done so. And while people may call the Church and its teachings "old-fashioned" or "out of step" in 2007, I and other devout Catholics would argue that it is those critics who are out-of-step. Morality does not evolve. It just IS. The Catholic Church has always understood that, and uniquely so.

Once I figure out just what I want to say, I'll break it down into pieces and post it here. I hope you'll stay tuned.

L.A. Times Again Bashes Conservatives

Here is an email I sent to Rosa Brooks, who contributed an op-ed to the L.A. Times this morning. You can find this piece of trash here.

I just read your pathetic excuse for an op-ed in today's online L.A.
Times and I have to wonder just what you idiots on the left are
smoking over there at the Times. No wonder the LAT circulation is
dropping like a stone.

I struggle to find a single sentence of this piece of garbage that's
even true, much less compelling. The Swifties were debunked? When did
that happen? Michelle Malkin is inaccurate and unfair? Where? The
conservative PAC is being run by fringe elements? Who? The troops are
deeply critical of the president's Iraq strategies? Which troops? The
U.S. military is getting its back broken? Where on earth did you hear
that nonsense? I suspect the honest answer to all these is, "in
liberals' dreams."

Liberals are so devoid of anything intelligent to bring to the
conversation that they can't even refer to themselves honestly.
"Progressives"? What's progressive about the Democratic party? That
they want to turn the U.S. into an atheist, socialist welfare state?
Why not save yourself some time and energy and just move to China?

The Swifties were effective because Kerry was so obviously an
anti-American nut-job that he couldn't counter their attacks
effectively. Like so many other liberals, yourself included, he comes
off as an America-hater who just can't stand the fact that we're the
most successful nation in history. Why? Who knows.

Part and parcel of that is hatred of the military. You say, "all the
old myths revived: The antiwar left spits on returning troops and
gives aid and comfort to the enemy." Funny thing is, all that
actually HAPPENED. The antiwar left DID and DOES spit on returning
U.S. troops. CNN really DID run footage on national television of a
terrorist sniper killing an American soldier. There's nothing
mythological about any of it. The left in this country is despicable
and dishonest. John Murtha is particularly so. "Redeploy" the
troops? To Okinawa? What a buffoon. If he's so proud of his
strategy, why doesn't he call it what it really is? Withdrawal.
Retreat. Defeat. Any one of those would be more accurate than
"redeployment".

Ridiculous, inaccurate, America-bashing columns and "news" articles
like yours are the reason I cancelled my Times subscription and will
never go back. Reading this online just reinforces to me that I did
the right thing.

Michael Kellogg

A Scary Day

Today, January 4th, marks the day that the GOP finally relinquishes its control of Congress - which it has held since 1994 - and turns it over to the Democrats. The Dem's won a majority in both the Senate and the House in the last election. Everyone seems to have a considered opinion on why this happened, but few people agree. Liberals, of course, say that it was a referendum on President Bush's "lies" and "failed strategy" in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. Some have also referred to "corruption". Conservative politicians seem bewildered by the whole thing.

The truth, as is often the case, is probably nearer the middle. Assertions of the president's lies are no more than despicable insults, thrown out by juveniles, against a man with far too much class to respond. Has the president, however, made mistakes? Serious ones? Without a doubt. If you want to argue that his management of the "War on Terrorism" has been incompetent, I can agree to a certain extent. But that's far different than insulting the man and calling him a liar - or worse.

Yet that is what we've had to endure since practically the day Mr. Bush took office back in 2000. It started with complaints that he had somehow stolen the election (ridiculous) from Al Gore, and it has never died down. Liberals have not just disagreed with this president, they have truly hated the man. And this hatred has produced some of the most disgusting political rhetoric I've ever witnessed.

Today is a scary day because these very same people who have called our president "corrupt", "incompetent", "a liar", etc., in public, are now taking over the Legislative Branch. That means that they will actually have a degree of power that they have not had in recent years; and that they will actually have to be listened-to.

Listening to these kooks is scary because of the times we live in and particularly because of the seriousness of the threats to our country and to our combat troops engaged in the Middle East. Make no mistake -- we are at war with Islamic Fundamentalism, and we must win. They started the war against us in 1979 in Iran, and we simply never responded seriously until after 9/11/2001. Yet the Democrats have difficulty acknowledging this at all. That fundamental "disconnect" between them and reality is frightening because it means they will back us away from the steps we've been taking to fight the war.

Predictions
There are 5 very serious issues that I see right away as direct threats from the incoming congress. Watch the news and see if these don't come to pass within the next two years:

I. Killing the War on Terror
This Democratic congress believes we are not at war with Islamic fundamentalism, and that we face no real threats right now domestically. This means that our current war in Afghanistan and Iraq is a war of aggression and is unjust. They want us out. They dress this desire up as concern for the troops and wanting to get them out of harm's way, but do not be fooled. They are pacifist, isolationist post-modernists and they want us out of the Middle East altogether. They will de-stabilize our mission there by de-funding the war, as they did in the 70's in Vietnam. The results would truly be disastrous for our country and for the world.

II. Amnesty for all Illegal Aliens
The American people seem to be the only people in the country who recognize the threat and the injustice that illegal immigration has wrought. President Bush, who should know better having governed a border state, has done ZERO to address the problem, and the Republican congress made some inroads but didn't solve the serious problems (part of why they got abandoned by conservatives). With the Dem's now controlling Congress, there is nothing stopping them -- truly, nothing at all -- from passing amnesty legislation legalizing all 12-15 million illegal aliens currently in the country.

III. No More Conservative Federal Judges
It has been hard enough for President Bush to get conservative, "originalist" judges appointed to lifetime positions on the Federal Circuit, Appeals, and Supreme courts with a Republican majority. The Dem's, aided by left-leaning Republicans, have effectively stopped up the appointment process. With them in full control, you can forget about getting good judges installed in the high courts.

IV. Higher Federal Taxes
On this point the Democrats don't even try to disguise their position. Many have said openly that they will not renew the president's existing tax cuts, which are temporary and must be renewed every few years. Democrats don't believe that your money is yours and that taxes are what you offer up to run the government. They believe that your money is really theirs, and that they should choose how much or little of it to allow you to keep, based on what they feel like spending it on. Higher taxes are on the way.

V. Endless Hearings
With the majority in Congress comes the authority to conduct investigations and hearings. The Democrats have been spoiling for a fight with the president all along, but have been held down by the Republican majority. Now that they are in power, and with a presidential election looming in two years, look for an immediate creation of panels and investigative committees with the one unifying purpose of going after President Bush. The investigations and hearings will be very expensive and go on forever, and in the end will accomplish exactly nothing, providing just one more example of just how incompetent and irresponsible these Democrats are with our - yours and mine - money.

Watch and see. Other bad things will also happen, but these 5 are the biggies. I honestly believe all 5 will happen, and in pretty short order. What I don't know, or can't bring myself to imagine, is what the net effect on our country will be. Can we sustain all these hits? And assuming we do, what will the country look like when the 2008 election rolls around? And if by some scary stretch of imagination a liberal makes it into the White House in '08, how will the country look in 4 or 8 more years? It truly is scary, and it all begins today.