Disaster Relief

The situation along the Gulf Coast, in New Orleans, which is now underwater, Mississippi and parts of Alabama is just horrendous. Please keep everyone affected in your thoughts and prayers, and if you are in a position to help out, God bless you for doing so. For those who would like to donate, I found this link from Yahoo! to be rather helpful: Network for Good

For continued updates and relief blogging, I recommend Michelle Malkin.

The latest news off the wires is that President Bush is considering an address to the nation. From Drudge:

BUSH CONSIDERS ADDRESS TO NATION; CALL FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION
Wed Aug 31 2005 10:20:34 ET

President Bush is considering an address to the nation asking citizens to conserve energy, a top White House says.

Bush ordered the release of oil from federal petroleum reserves to help refiners affected by Hurricane Katrina.

Bush returned to Washington on Wednesday to oversee the federal response to the historic disaster. He plans to coordinate federal efforts, across more than a dozen agencies, to assist hurricane victims.

"Still undecided is whether or not to call for a nationwide effort to reduce energy consumption during this emergency," a top Bush source explains. "It is seriously being considered."

Tim Russert tips the media's hand

This Sunday on Meet the Press, Tim Russert, speaking to a group of generals and analysts, let the media's true colors shine through when a general called the media to the carpet for not reporting the good news in Iraq.

Mr. Russert: We're at a critical stage in this war by everyone's estimation. And, General Downing, you raised the role of the media. There was widespread discussion about the role of the media in Vietnam, the media lost the war and so forth, but we're in a situation now where Cindy Sheehan, who lost a son, has encamped herself down in Crawford, Texas, is coming to Washington. There are anti-war demonstrations throughout the country. The reconstruction of the country has not occurred on pace. Money that was supposed to be used for reconstruction is being used to help secure the country. General Meigs, General McCaffrey, everybody, we in the media are covering the reality. Are we not obligated to do that even though it may not, in fact, "encourage," quote, unquote, the American people to support the war effort?

Gen. Meigs: Wrong question, Tim. Look, there is a very complicated phenomenon here, and we in the media tend to go to the extremes. We tend to go to the most controversial, the most exciting event. So the problem is, in an insurgency, progress comes from dogged, hard, sweaty, dangerous work. It's very slow business. And it's hard to get the complexities of this kind of an operation into soundbites and above the full paragraphs. It's very difficult work. That is compounded by the fact that reporters down range have a very difficult time getting out of that Green Zone and getting down into the grass roots of what's going on politically. So the frustration I have as a former soldier is I will talk to people who've just returned from Vietnam. And you saw Chris Matthew's "Hardball" program. There are commanders...

Gen. McCaffrey: Iraq.

Gen. Meigs: ...Iraq--there are commanders who believe very strongly that their soldiers have made tremendous progress on the ground in their sectors. Better human intelligence. Better cooperation from Sunnis. Better hit rates in going around and policing of insurgents. Better use of technology to trump what this very innovative enemy is doing. You don't read about these things in the major newspapers that should have a sophistication to cover them. You generally don't get that in the TV media.

Now, yes, absolutely the fourth estate has to cover the problem. It's got to cover the bad news as well as the good, but a lot of the really constructive stories that are coming out of this war never make it above the fold.

Mr. Russert: Is it because, in your mind, that the notion of weapons of mass destruction or major combat operations are over, of many of those things that the media had been told proved to be incorrect?

Gen. Meigs: I think we are all citizens frustrated by the fact that the precepts upon which this war was ostensibly based proved to be wrong. And I think the historians will tear that apart when the proper documents are finally declassified in a decade or two.

Well, well, well... Sounds like a little projection there Tim, maybe a little media payback mixed in. Read it again. I mean is he actually suggesting that the media is not reporting the good news in Iraq because they've got it in their head that Bush lied about WMD?

I wonder, what did the press say about FDR getting funding and building the atomic bomb because of the intelligence that showed that Hitler was making the bomb? Intelligence that proved to be...wrong. Did the press not report good news after major combat ended? I seem to recall we won that war. But did you know that there were a lot of bitter enders in Germany, who kept fighting? Do you know how many Nazis had to be hunted down and tried? Did you know how much of a shambles Europe was in? Did you know that Douglas MacArthur wrote the Japanese constitution?

Where was the media? Where were the proclamations of failure? One wonders if we could have even won WWII with the reporting standards of today applied. We're winning every battle we fight, and yet the protest of Cindy Sheehan has the media calling the war for the terrorists. The media today is not looking for facts, they're looking for an excuse.

Death and chaos gives them the excuse they need. Bad intelligence gives them the excuse they need. Anti-war protestors give them the excuse they need. Love letters from Osama gives them the excuse they need. Bad reporting, circular reporting, misinformation, and now on several occasions outright lying, gives them the excuse they need. Time...the sheer amount of time, and care, and planning, and effort our troops expend to spread security and good will...in this day and age of instant gratification, 24 hour news channels, music videos and the X-Box, it gives them the excuse they need. And the sooner they can declare the war a failure, the sooner they can applaud themselves for creating another Vietnam (a war we were also winning), the sooner they can feel that rush of power that comes from an act of supreme will...creating something out of nothing.

It is telling and sad that the media reports no good news from Iraq, that they refuse to report on the pro-troop mothers and demonstrations instead of Cindy Sheehan, that they refuse to report the facts truthfully and completely, that they allow the DNC talking points as a matter of faith, that they obfuscate the real links between Iraq and terrorists, that they re-write history (President Bush said, "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?", not "Iraq is an imminent threat", as the media so loves to report), and that they deny our troops and this country any meaningful success because of a partisan grudge and a sadistic desire to see President Bush fail.

Pretty pathetic.

New Orleans

Everyone, please take a moment and say a prayer for the citizens of New Orleans and the other coastal cities about to be blasted by Hurricane Katrina. That city is under sea level anyway, and this is one monster hurricane.

Update: Looks like the worst of it may be over for New Orleans. Some flooding and levee damage reported, but thankfully the nightmare scenario of the entire city flooding did not come to pass.

Update II: The situation has grown much worse in New Orleans. What appeared to be managable damage to the levees is turning out to be much more dire. The city is apparently steadily filling with water. Let's hope they can get this under control quickly.

War

We're at war. Have you noticed? No, I'm not talking about Iraq or Afghanistan. I'm talking about the war for the hearts and minds of the people of America. This is actually the only war being fought right now. Because this is the ultimate battlefield.

See the success of the war in Iraq does not hinge upon the strength of the enemy, or the Iraqis, or our soldiers. The success of the war in Afghanistan does not hinge upon Afghanis, terrorists, or our soldiers. Success depends upon the will of the American people. And that is all. That is the war we are fighting. And that is the only war America can lose.

The reason this has come about is twofold. Democrats, out of power, lacking any moral compass save that of a baby sucking on its bottle, have given over to their wants and are willing to destroy the country to get that power back. And the media, having spread through every aspect of American life, flushed and electrified by its own power after Vietnam, came alive like the ever-driven Skynet system and realized that its creators were a threat.

So now we have total war. We have physical fighting against terrorists--who still want to kill us. We have half-truths, lies and misdirection being proliferated by the media. And we have the never-ending temper tantrums of the Democrats, irresponsible accusations and rhetoric, and unbridled hatred and seething rage. And the thing is, this war seems to be escalating.

With ecstatic glee, the media are now reporting that President Bush's approval ratings are at 40%. They are beside themselves with delight. And they are well within their rights to gloat. They have waged a masterful campaign. For the past few years, all they have reported is body counts from Iraq, the terrible economy, the plight of the Palestinians, the greed of Big Oil and rising gas prices, the puritanical insanity of the religious right, the swaggering arrogance of George Bush, the offended Europeans, the offended Chinese, the offended Russians, the offended terrorists, the flushed Korans, the outed non-covert CIA operatives, the ethics accusations, the army deserters, the terror of Global Warming, the denial of life-saving stem-cell drugs, and the lies about WMD in Iraq. To be honest, I'm amazed anybody supports America at all.

And yet, Americans love their country. Americans still support staying the course in Iraq (60%). Americans are out spending and working and growing the economy. Immigrants still kill themselves to get to this country. And for the past several years, Republicans have been winning elections. But the war is not over.

The Democrats and the media have opened up a few rather successful fronts, the anti-war protests by Cindy Sheehan, and the rising gas price crunch, and they are about to expand them. The good news is, there are methods to fight them. The bad news is, its going to be a tough fight.

The anti-war crowd has John Kerry to thank for their success. He is the father of the modern anti-war protestor. He is the reason for their past success, and the impetus for their renewed vigor and determination. There are always those who oppose war. In fact I think the majority of sane people oppose war. But the trouble is the argument is never that simple. Decisions affecting war and peace should never be made on the basis of opposing war, they are made on the argument of why we fight. Saying that you oppose war, that diplomacy is the only way, is not a strategy, it is a pronouncement that you deem nothing worth fighting for, nothing worth sacrificing for, and nothing worth dying for. It is the position of weakness. And those who are strong, and those willing to die for their cause, will always exploit it to their gain.

Now the reason why anti-war protestors make so much headway, is because the targets of their attack have no relation to the inhuman monsters they purport to oppose. It is compassionate and credulous people who give in to the demands of the anti-war protestors. I was always struck by the ridiculousness of the human-shields who scurried to Iraq, to attempt to stop the U.S. invasion. They were liberal school teachers and professors and anti-war protestors and just good plain people who said their cared. They offered to be placed in schools and hospitals. And Saddam placed them at power stations, military headquarters, and weapons depots. The human-shields expressed surprise and shock, and a good number of them became disillusioned when even the cab drivers who took them around Baghdad gave them dirty looks. See the thing that the human-shields never thought of, is why in the world would evil George Bush, who apparently wanted to bomb schools and kill children, even care one wit about some liberal professor who stuck his butt in a school chair along with the children? Saddam knew the reason.

And that's why he placed human-shields where he did. And that's why the terrorists, fighting alongside the fedayeen in Iraq carried children and babies in their arms, holding them up in front of themselves so the U.S. soldiers would not fire. And that's why the media only shows body counts, and never stories about the mission, or about how soldiers like Casey Sheehan were killed when they volunteered for a rescue mission, or about how soldiers were escorting school children and they were attacked by terrorists. And that is why the anti-war protestors, who have no agenda other than power, use the tactics they use. Because they are fighting against a compassionate and conscience-driven foe, the American people.

The American people are the most good-natured, kind, caring, giving, loving people possibly in all the world. They are generous, compassionate, wanting to help their fellow man. They are religious, God-fearing, family oriented and genuine. And those who seek to influence Americans adjust their message accordingly.

Why is it, do you think, that all the protest signs the Palestinians hold up are written in English? Why have reporters told stories of Palestinians staging bodies in rubble in order for them to take pictures for American newspapers? Why did Saddam suddenly find religion and start wearing suits and being appear to capitulate to the U.N.? Why do those who want something from America suddenly become offended and shocked, and start demanding amends? Why did bin Laden shift from outright attacks on America to attacks on our allies--and issuing tapes appealing to our reason? Why did Michael Moore make a film highlighting half-truths about George Bush, soldier casualties and injuries, conspiracy theories, and corporate greed? Why did the media express outrage over a book flushed down a toilet? Why does the media continue to harp about prisoners? And why do the anti-war protestors scream about saving our troops from harm, saving them from death?

Do they say this because they believe their rhetoric, that the U.S. is a bad bad place, that we are evil and mean and greedy and we want total war and we want to kill innocents and we want to conquer the world and we don't care how many soldiers and civilians die and we'll go it alone because we believe that God is on our side and we'll all be saved if we just kill the non-believers? No. Because if America really believed that, what would it matter that they protested? What would it matter that Saddam put a professor amongst school children? What would it matter that terrorists kill civilians? What would it matter that a Koran was flushed? What would it matter that somebody got offended? What would it matter that Cindy Sheehan lost her son? It wouldn't matter one bit.

But it does. Because those who want to manipulate Americans know what buttons to push. And they know that if they can create enough drama, they might begin to effect change. And they are. And because the media has given over to this goal, the truth has become obscured. And that is why Americans have grown confused, why our soldiers are frustrated, and why Democrats will not stop. Because they see that their tactics are working. And they must win at all costs.

Now the economic conditions have also been good for Democrats. The economy is booming, but you wouldn't know it to hear it reported. And the reason is because of gas prices. Jobs; that story died on them, because they showed up. The deficit; being paid. Cutting taxes; that worked too. Housing bust; not happening yet. Companies; hiring. All that's left are gas prices. And boy are they soaring. And why? Because the economy is booming, all over the world.

It takes a lot to get oil out of the ground. Nobody cares about that, but it's true. And the oil is in some of the harshest regions on earth. The middle east is a hotbed of instability. Africa is a mess of U.N. enabled despots. South America have given over to communism. ANWR, established to provide America with future oil reserves, has suddenly become a linchpin for the health of the entire environment. Russia is sliding back into communism. The North Sea has some of the harshest seas in the world. And the Gulf of Mexico has been plagued by one hurricane after the next. Couple this with a lack of refining capacity and just the sheer growth of the world economies in China and elsewhere, and that means the price of oil is going to go up.

But the media doesn't care about that. All you need to know is Bush has oil buddies in Saudi Arabia, the price of oil is making oil companies rich, we cannot drill in ANWR because it would disturb the sleeping caribou, we must give up our cars entirely, and that because you don't you are destroying the earth with greenhouse gases.

Now the media and Democrats love this issue, because they don't have to do anything but whine. And they want you to whine as well. And to help you along, they've got another little crisis brewing that should be coming to a head soon. Hawaii is about to implement price controls on gasoline. They've delayed the passage of this for a few years now, but it is set to go into effect come September. What does it mean? It means that no one is going to sell gasoline to Hawaii anymore. Get ready for gas lines, riots, and media-orchestrated sob stories, blaming George Bush for not doing something and blaming oil companies for the prices.

But the truth is, it will be a man-made scandal. And a rather brilliant one. A tiny little island, cut off from the world. You can't just truck gas in. Companies have to want to bring it there, and if Hawaii will only pay less money that the rest of the world is will to, well...no gas for you. It's called the free market.

Now the strategy is rather interesting, because Democrats will deny any responsibility and blame George Bush for driving them to this, for forcing them to try to save the people of Hawaii money any way they can. And if only the entire U.S. would give in, would fix prices then Hawaii would be better off. It is a cold and calculated disaster. And one that should further serve to drive the President's poll numbers down. I do not say this to be pessimistic, but merely to prepare my fellow conservatives for the sheer lunacy that will arise from Democrats over this. They smell blood in the water with the recent poll numbers. And they are escalating their attacks.

So this is our war. It is a war for the hearts and minds of the people of the United States. It is a war for your conscience, for your trust, and for your allegiance. Democrats and the media are banking on your good nature and your compassion, to give over to them your trust. The problem is, they don't care about Americans, they only care about themselves and the power they lost, and have continued to lose. Their desperation has driven them to this, and it will continue to drive them--either to political ruin, or on to victory.

Though to paraphrase a line from the king of Epirus, with such a victory we are all undone.

Just read it

While the media, ever willing to bash the President, only focuses on Cindy Sheehan, I sought out more information about her son. Here is what I found. The story of true heroes, who believed in the mission, and who believed in America. Please read it all. (Via Blackfive)

Army Specialist Casey Sheehan - Someone You Should (Have) Know(n)

Casey Sheehan grew up in a devout Catholic home. He served as an altar boy and then as a key member of his church's youth group for years.

When he was old enough, Casey joined the Boy Scouts, becoming the very second Eagle Scout out of his troop.

He enlisted in the Army when he was twenty years old. He decided to be a mechanic. He would undergo Combat Lifesaver training - a class on how to give IVs and treat trauma only second in intense learning to combat medic training. He was also certified to assist with giving communion to soldiers while in the field.

Specialist Sheehan re-enlisted in the Army in 2004 knowing full well that he could be sent into a combat zone.

Casey Sheehan was a Humvee mechanic with the 1st Battalion, 82nd Field Artillery Regiment.

On April 3rd, 2004, forces loyal to Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al'Sadr stormed police stations and government offices in Sadr City (a city of over 2 million). They knew the Americans would come, and they wanted a fight. Muqtada Sadr was working them up into a religious frenzy. And he had his thugs murder anyone who he thought might stand in his way - even other Shi'ite clerics. His forces were known as the Mahdi Army.

American forces quickly surrounded Muqtada al'Sadr's quarters.

On April 4th, 2004, al'Sadr's Mahdi forces blocked roadways and bridges with burning tires, vehicles and trash. Visibility was less than 300 meters anywhere in the city. They began to attack American vehicles on patrol throughout Sadr City - some were protecting Shia worshipers (Holy Arbayeen) while others were escorting city government vehicles.

A battle raged across Sadr City. Insurgents assaulted American troops while looters and mobs formed and stormed through the streets. Word spread quickly across the American FOBs that there was trouble.

Soldiers of the 2nd Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment were ambushed with RPGs and pinned down and dying. While fighting off an attack himself, the Commander of the 2/5th, LTC Volesky, called for help. A Quick Reaction Force (QRF) was formed of volunteers - their mission was to go out and rescue the American troops.

Casey Sheehan's Sergeant asked for volunteers. Sheehan had just returned from Mass. After Sheehan volunteered once, the Sergeant asked Sheehan again if he wanted to go on the mission. According to many reports (and according to his own mother), Casey responded, "Where my Chief goes, I go."

The QRF was launched. Not long after entering the Mahdi area, the QRF was channeled onto a dead-end street where the roofs were lined with snipers, RPGs, and even some militia throwing burning tires onto the vehicles. The Mahdi blocked the exit and let loose with everything they had.

Sheehan's vehicle was hit with multiple RPGs and automatic-weapons fire.

Specialist Casey Sheehan and Corporal Forest J. Jostes were killed.

A second QRF was formed - all volunteers - to go rescue the first. Specialist Ahmed Cason was hit in the second QRF - but kept fighting until he bled to death.

Seven men died with Casey Sheehan on Sunday, April 4th, 2004.

They were Spc. Robert R. Arsiaga, Spc. Ahmed Cason, Sgt. Yihjyh L. "Eddie" Chen, Spc. Stephen D. Hiller, Spc. Israel Garza, Cpl. Forest J. Jostes, and Sgt. Michael W. Mitchell.

It was Palm Sunday.

Palm Sunday commemorates the day that Jesus entered Jerusalem. Back then, the palm frond was a symbol of victory - laid beneath the feet of those of the highest honor and triumph. Some believe it was this honor fit for a king that forced Jesus's enemies to act and crucify him.

In recognition of Casey, the Catholic Chapel at Fort Hood, Texas (where Sheehan was stationed) named the Knights of Columbus chapter the "Casey Austin Sheehan Council".

Casey also received the Bronze Star for his Valor that day.

Palm fronds for the most honored.

I'll believe it when I see it, but...

...it appears that the Minutemen along with a couple border state governors have accomplished something that no one thought possible: prompted the federal government to say it was going to get tough on illegal immigration.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, acknowledging public frustration over illegal immigration, said Tuesday that the federal government's detention and deportation system must be fundamentally restructured.

"We have decided to stand back and take a look at how we address the problem and solve it once and for all," Chertoff said during a breakfast meeting with reporters.

The NEW YORK TIMES is planning a front page placement for the Chertoff comments on Wednesday, newsroom sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

The unusually blunt assessment by the nation's top immigration official comes after governors in New Mexico and Arizona recently declared a border-related "state of emergency," citing a surge in smuggling and violence associated with the steady flow of illegal immigrants.

Now it actually shames me to say that the governors of Texas and California are nowhere near this issue. I believe there have been statements of mild support for the Minutemen from both governor's offices, but no talk about the true emergency facing our country when it comes to illegal immigration.

The problem with immigration in this country is that it has become a political weapon. Both parties see votes, plain and simple. Democrats see current votes from the hispanic community and hispanic special interest groups, and Republicans see future votes from that same hispanic community. And the problem is, the situtation has gotten so out of hand, that now the act of fixing the problem will throw so many votes into contention that Democrats did not even want to broach the subject, and Republicans were too busy trying to count up future votes vs. current votes to see if their current constituents mattered.

But then something amazing happened. The citizens of the United States took matters into their own hands. The Minutemen, a group of regular citizens, who camped out on the border and did nothing more than radio in illegals to the government, attracted a swarm of media attention, and produced amazing results. The media and groups like the ACLU, sounding the siren of violence, racism and bigotry, reported for days that the desert would run red with the blood of poor migrant workers, cut down by semi-automatic rifle fire from Uncle Jed and the Deliverance gang. The sheer number of journalists and ACLU pot-smoking observers (obeserving the Minutemen, not the border), and the hysterical news reports, literally scared the illegals to death. And the border crossings, at least in that vicinity, dried up.

This success brought immigration into the spotlight, but most of Congress and both parties would not touch the issue, as the media and human rights groups still roundly condemned the Minutemen. Even President Bush, I am ashamed to say, stooped to the "vigilante" label. But then, yet another event compounded the interest in the first, the governors of Arizona and New Mexico declared a border emergency. This brought the issue into the mainstream, highlighting it as a serious problem from a security standpoint. And it pains me to say that the Bush Adminstration should have made that point, forcefully, and acted on it, right after 9-11.

Yet...here it is now, late, but at least not never. Are the motives mostly political? Sadly, the answer is probably yes. But right now, I'll take anything that gets the job done. Though it appears that the statement from Secretary Michael Chertoff is only referring to half the problem. He mentions detention and deportation, but nothing about border security. It's a start, though, at least. And conservatives need to keep the pressure on. As Bill O'Reilly would say, the border situation is chaos. And we need to get a handle on this now.

For. Pete's. sake...

Republican Senators...all of you...stop running for President at the expense of the mission and our troops in Iraq. Quit playing patty-cake with the media. They will never like you. Ever. Unless you turn tail and become a Democrat. And the sooner you get this through your head, the sooner we will bury al-Qaeda in the desert sands of Iraq.

Why do I rant? Because of this:

A leading Republican senator and prospective presidential candidate said Sunday that the war in Iraq has destabilized the Middle East and is looking more like the Vietnam conflict from a generation ago.

Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, who received two Purple Hearts and other military honors for his service in Vietnam, reiterated his position that the United States needs to develop a strategy to leave Iraq.

Hagel scoffed at the idea that U.S. troops could be in Iraq four years from now at levels above 100,000, a contingency for which the Pentagon is preparing.

"We should start figuring out how we get out of there," Hagel said on "This Week" on ABC. "But with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur."

Hagel said "stay the course" is not a policy. "By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq ... we're not winning," he said.

First of all, Senator Hagel is not a leading Republican senator. He's a troublemaker and a media-whore. Yeah, I said it. Because here's what else he said.

Hagel, who was among those who advocated sending two to three times as many troops to Iraq when the war began in March 2003, said a stronger military presence by the U.S. is not the solution today.

"We're past that stage now because now we are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam," Hagel said. "The longer we stay, the more problems we're going to have."

Allen said that unlike the communist-guided North Vietnamese who fought the U.S., the insurgents in Iraq have no guiding political philosophy or organization. Still, Hagel argued, the similarities are growing.

"What I think the White House does not yet understand - and some of my colleagues - the dam has broke on this policy," Hagel said. "The longer we stay there, the more similarities (to Vietnam) are going to come together."

This reference to Vietnam has got to stop. It is not Vietnam. It is nowhere remotely even similar to Vietnam. And with Bush as President it is simply impossible for this war to be Vietnam. And why? Because George Bush is not pulling the troops out until the job is done. Because the Iraqi people want to be free. Because the Iraqi people do not like the terrorists. Because even the Bath'ist insurgents--those heroes of Michael Moore--do not like the terrorists. The terrorists are not offering some communist "paradise", they are offering death and destruction, a Taliban government and the oppression of women.

The media, in love with themselves, yearning for the days of yester-year when they took down America, is romanticising the terrorists as "resistance", much as they romanticised Castro or Che. For them it's a power-trip, a fix, a way to stay young. They do not care for American troops, our fight or this country. And Republican senators have got to stop this nonsense where they play along to get good press.

"I don't know where he's going to get these troops," Hagel said. "There won't be any National Guard left ... no Army Reserve left ... there is no way America is going to have 100,000 troops in Iraq, nor should it, in four years."

Hagel added: "It would bog us down, it would further destabilize the Middle East, it would give Iran more influence, it would hurt Israel, it would put our allies over there in Saudi Arabia and Jordan in a terrible position. It won't be four years. We need to be out."

This reads like the DNC talking points. Tell me, Chuck, how was it possible for America to have 200,000 troops in Europe for 50 years? How much did that cost? How many billions? The point isn't the money, the point is getting the job done, and getting it done right. We cannot cut and run. That would be the single most disastrous thing we could ever do. It would undo every gain we've made in the past four years, it would negate every soldier's sacrifice. The terrorists and their enablers, Iran and Syria, would become even more emboldened. Iran would work like mad to destabilize the weak Iraqi government and army, and work night and day to get their nuclear weapons built.

I can understand the desire for the troops to come home. But what in the world are we talking about here? Bring the troops home and condemn ourselves to terrorism forevermore? That is absolutely not an option.

I will say this, though. Several Republican senators, voicing their opposition to the President, are going to be rather surprised when their Presidential support evaporates. Saying what seems popular, because the media says it is, is not how true Republicans should operate. Staying the course and winning the fight is the only option. Marketing a better strategy, analyzing the enemy, calling for even more rapid results in the war--all are appropriate. But this "cut-and-run" stuff is just plain dumb. And I hope Republicans realize that this type of talk is a boon, not only to the media and Democrats, but also to terrorists. And you should be ashamed, Senator Hagel.

That dastardly Bush Economy

So how's the economy doing? Anybody know? Polls are showing consistent softness, as in the average American feels rather uneasy about it. And I guess if I watched the news, I would too. The Wall Street Journal has a new article out about the media's consistent ability to talk down the economy. You know, the same thing they accused George Bush of doing before the 2000 election--back when the economy actually was moving down.

The paradox of the year is why so many Americans tell pollsters they feel bad about an economy that's been so good, with solid job growth and corporate profits, rising wages and home prices, and a huge decline in the budget deficit. Perhaps one reason is because the media keep saying the economy stinks.

That's the conclusion of a study to be released today by the Media Research Center, which finds that so far this year 62% of the news stories on the Big Three TV networks have portrayed the U.S. economy in negative fashion. The "negative full length TV news stories on the economy outnumbered positive stories by an overwhelming ratio of 4 to 1," the MRC reports.

To cite just one example, a CBS Evening News story on July 22 said that the economy is "very tenuous. It could fall apart at any moment. One piece of bad news, one additional terrorist attack, one negative corporate earnings, and it goes right down again." Contrast that funeral dirge with what Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress that same day: "The outlook is one of sustained economic growth." And this was after Dan Rather had departed Planet CBS.

Wow, four to one, that's like asking liberals to report the news on a Republican president. Oh wait...

Media coverage of President Bush's tax cuts has been particularly slanted. During the 2003 tax-cut debate, three of every four major TV network news stories were negative. The favorite criticisms were liberal echoes that it would bust the budget and favor the rich. Earlier this year, a news story on National Public Radio announced that "as everyone knows, the primary cause of the budget deficit was the Bush tax cuts." No word yet on whom NPR is crediting with this year's revenue surge of $262 billion. Robert Rubin?

Gee, where was the media during Clinton's years of the runaway internet bubble? Where were they during all the terrorist attacks of the 90s? I don't remember them talking down the economy after the Oklahoma City bombing, or the first World Trade Center attack, or the embassy bombings--you know when al'Qaeda declared war on America, or the Cole bombing. I remember them bashing talk-radio. I remember Clinton taking polls to see what he should do. I remember him getting lots of credit for all that Republican legislation he signed. Maybe the media was preparing for 9-11, you know, because if Bush was planning for it, and behind it--and of course the media is smarter than Bush--they obviously knew all about it too. What?--too much conspiracy? Hey, if it's good enough for Cynthia McKinney and John Conyers...

The good news though, is that Americans are not stupid. Much to the dismay of the major networks, Americans are still out shopping, buying, working, building and doing--in other words, living the American dream--and not listening to the nay-sayers. And that is the beauty of America. Nothing pushes us down.

Everywhere I go I see new construction, new buildings, "New Hires Wanted" signs, new businesses, more goods and services being offered and a mildly frenetic pace not associated with bad economies. Train yards full, and moving, traffic is a killer during any time of the day, people are on the move, and stores are packed. These are the signs of progress and good times. The market is a little shaky, but that's to be expected with war and terrorism, and the squeeze on the oil supply. But overall, I'd say times are very good. And despite the best efforts of the media, I'm happy to predict that the future will be even brighter.

Pope Benedict speaks about the rise of anti-Semitism

While the U.N., Hamas and other terror groups are celebrating a major victory as Israeli soldiers forcibly remove families from their homes on the Gaza Strip, Pope Benedict traveled to Germany and spoke at a Jewish synagogue. There he remembered Holocaust victims, and spoke about the new rise of anti-Semitism.

Pope Benedict XVI warned Friday of rising anti-Semitism and hostility to foreigners, winning a standing ovation from members of Germany's oldest Jewish community during a visit to a rebuilt synagogue that had been destroyed by the Nazis.

With the shrill sound of a ram's horn and a choir chanting in Hebrew "peace be with you," Benedict became only the second pope to visit a synagogue, praying and remembering Holocaust victims.

"Today, sadly, we are witnessing the rise of new signs of anti-Semitism and various forms of a general hostility toward foreigners," he said.

Benedict said progress had been made, but "much more remains to be done. We must come to know one another much more and much better."
....

The pope underlined his commitment to continue in the path of his predecessor, John Paul II, who made the first papal visit to a synagogue in Rome in 1986 and improved relations between Catholics and Jews.

"Today I, too, wish to reaffirm that I intend to continue on the path toward improved relations and friendship with the Jewish people, following the decisive lead given by John Paul II," said Benedict, who did much of the theological groundwork for John Paul's outreach while serving as a Vatican official in charge of doctrine.

Outreach to Jews and Muslims is one of the themes of Benedict's first foreign trip since his election as pope on April 19 in conjunction with the World Youth Day festival that has drawn over 300,000 young people to Cologne.

A telling statistic, some 11,000 Jews from Cologne were murdered in the Holocaust. And I challenge everyone to stop for a second and think about that number. Those are men, women and children. Families and babies, all murdered by the SS under Hitler's orders. And the numbers don't stop there. The number of soldiers killed in battle is horrendous, in the end it was in the millions, but the sheer thousands, tens of thousands, of Jews murdered every day by the Nazis is sickening. To read about those, both people and countries, sympathetic to the Nazis, vying for Hitler's favor by literally trying to one-up the other in the number of Jews they killed or shipped to the camps...it is a lesson in evil that we should never forget.

And watching the anti-war and the fringe crowd call Bush another Hitler, watching mainline Democrats start to parrot them, it's sick. Meanwhile, Hamas is cheering the Jewish retreat. Yasser Arafat, the Father of modern terrorism, who all the French doctors and all the U.N. couldn't put back together again, idolized Hitler and the Nazis. Terrorist groups today look up to the Nazis as heroes for what they did to the Jewish people. And yet it's Bush they call Hitler.

Saddam, who fawned over the legacy of Stalin, also envied Hitler's secret police. He modeled his power base after these devils, and he aimed to build a more secure empire from which to rule. And yet, Bush is Hitler.

People have forgotten how truly evil Hitler really was. It was a very, very dark time for our world. And one that I'm amazed we came back from.

But yet, as Pope Benedict has driven home, the rise of anti-Semitism is with us once again. For the past few years, all across Europe, the desecration of cemeteries, Synagogues, the harassments, it's all starting again.

The German-born pope did not discuss his own personal experience of World War II--being unwillingly enrolled in the Hitler Youth as a teenager and risking execution by deserting the German army at the end of the war.

Perhaps the first article I've ever read that included the "unwillingly enrolled" part. Pope Benedict did risk certain death by evading the army. But he saw the evil in it and could not be a party to it. And that took great courage.

And before anybody makes the argument of "See! He deserted! Why not celebrate the U.S. soldiers who desert? Why not celebrate Cindy Sheehan who wants to bring the troops home!" My answer to that is, the U.S. military is an all volunteer military. If you don't want to be there, please leave, and Godspeed. All I ask, and all I'm sure our soldiers would ask, is that you do not desert them in battle, or give aid and comfort to the enemy. And Casey Sheehan, who if you read his citation was a true hero, volunteering for a mission he did not have to go on, is someone who stood with his fellow soldiers to the end. And it is a sad irony, that those who say he died in vain, have not a care that Sadr City, where he died, is now perhaps the greatest success story for peace in the entire Iraq war.

The story of the Holocaust, of WWII, is a horrific episode in the history of the world, one which we must never see repeated.

Benedict's remarks focused on the horror of the Holocaust, the common heritage of Christians and Jews, and the need for better relations to prevent such atrocities from ever happening again.

"In the 20th century, in the darkest period of German and European history, an insane racist ideology, born of neo-paganism, gave rise to the attempt, planned and systematically carried out by the regime, to exterminate European Jewry," he said. "The result has passed into history as the Shoah," he said, using the Hebrew term for the Holocaust.

And in the 21st century, the dark times are spawned of yet another insane racist ideology, but this time born of religious fanaticism and terrorism. And these fanatics not only seek to exterminate the Jewish people, but all people who do not bow to their totalitarian law. We cannot and we will not let that come to pass.

Roberts approaching 70 votes?

Word is, Supreme Court nominee John Roberts has close to 70 votes in the Senate. And that is the magic number. As long as no skeletons, or bodies, fall out of the closet, Roberts is probably in.

Democrats have decided that unless there is an unexpected development in the weeks ahead, they will not launch a major fight to block the Supreme Court nomination of John G. Roberts Jr., according to legislators, Senate aides and party strategists.

In a series of interviews in recent days, more than a dozen Democratic senators and aides who are intimately involved in deliberations about strategy said that they see no evidence that most Democratic senators are prepared to expend political capital in what is widely seen as a futile effort to derail the nomination.

Although they expect to subject President Bush's nominee to tough questioning at confirmation hearings next month, members of the minority party said they do not plan to marshal any concerted campaign against Roberts because they have concluded that he is likely to get at least 70 votes -- enough to overrule parliamentary tactics such as a filibuster that could block the nominee.

This is great news. After seeing the NARAL ad I think a lot of conservatives feared the worst, but apparently for some liberals it signified the last straw instead of the opening salvo.

When the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America released an incendiary ad about the nominee last week, a number of prominent liberals joined conservatives in condemning the ad as misleading, and the spot was canceled after elected Democrats offered NARAL no support.

So why the change of heart? Are Democrats finally waking up to smell the stink of their own obstructionism? Maybe.

When Roberts was nominated, the first thing we heard was "reserve judgment." To some, such as NARAL, that was code for "load the cannons," but for others it signified something a bit more sophisticated. The Democrats, remembering he-who-must-not-be-named (Tom Daschle), actually opened their ears for once before opening their mouths. And the party is now making a concerted effort to maintain a dignified, yet feisty front for the voters. This is not to say they still won't torpedo Roberts in a heartbeat if something surfaces. In fact the NARAL ad, timed as it was, follows a similar track to the attack on Clarence Thomas.

...protests of Clarence Thomas in 1991 were slow to build. In early August 1991, a month after President George H.W. Bush nominated Thomas, no senator had yet announced opposition. It was not until the fall that controversy erupted over allegations that he had made sexually inappropriate comments to a subordinate.

And the tactic almost worked. For Roberts the true attacks almost went unnoticed by a majority of the public, because conservative bloggers were on the case almost immediately as the attacks happened. And when some Senators began to question Roberts' religion, and then NARAL released their ad, that is when things got hot. But the desperation of groups like NARAL proved to be the Democrats' undoing. And it elevated Roberts pretty much above the fray. And, it goes without saying that attacking Roberts' wife, her clothes, their children...this sort of thing doesn't fly well with most Americans. But the media will suffer for that, since they perpetrated it, not Democrats. Still, the apparent Democratic retreat is not without strategy.

The Democratic consensus not to mount a major fight comes in part from a calculation that the party would be in a stronger position to oppose a future -- and perhaps more clearly conservative -- nominee if it did not mount a full-scale and likely fruitless assault on Roberts. Also in the calculation, they say, is the lack of outcry about Roberts from liberal interests and a desire to keep the focus on issues such as Iraq and gas prices, where Bush is more vulnerable.

Well, it is a strategy. Fortunately for Republicans, the Democrats have once again chosen the wrong strategy. Beating up President Bush over Iraq and gas prices might be cathartic for Democrats, and ferreting out the documents linking Karl Rove to leaky reporters in the Plame mess might entertain the Kos kidz, but at the end of the day, when they've had all their fun, they'll only be left with memories and a (hopefully very) conservative Supreme Court. And when it comes to future nominations, Democrats also have it backwards.

For now, the aide said, Democratic strategy is to make it clear Roberts is subject to fair scrutiny while avoiding a pointless conflagration that could backfire on the party. "We're going to come out of this looking dignified and will show we took the constitutional process seriously," the aide said.

....

Democratic lawmakers say they are less interested in opposing Roberts than in serving notice to Bush that they would react very differently if a more overtly conservative choice were made for a future Supreme Court vacancy.

This is wonderful for conservatives. And Bush should absolutely nominate a more conservative candidate to the Court. Let the Democrats fight if they want. By that time Roberts will already be on the Court, and conservatives will have nothing to lose and everything to gain. And with Roberts going in without a fight, many conservative groups are going to be awash in cash because of the battle they never fought. It gives them that much more money and confidence to fight for a more conservative nominee.

Granted, all of this could go up in smoke if something damaging comes out. But in this case I'd say that risk is rather small. Jim Manley, spokesperson for Senate Minority leader Harry Reid all but confirms this.

"There's nothing the White House would rather have seen than having us come out reflexively swinging at a nominee in order to accuse us of politicizing the debate," Manley added. "There was a strategic decision to keep our powder dry, to reserve judgment until the committee does its work. We want Democrats to be able to fight on principles, not politics."

Principles and not politics, huh? Maybe. I'll acknowledge it when I see it. But until then, it sounds to me like they've only got one shot left, and they might be afraid to use it.

Howard Dean's party

Historians--and comedians--have been parsing the pontifications of Howard Dean for a while now, but this recent little gem of his, while not scream material, serves to once again shine the light on the plague that's been confronting Democrats for some time. On CBS's "Face the Nation", the former Vermont governor had this to say:

"It looks like today, and this could change, as of today it looks like women will be worse off in Iraq than they were when Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq."

Really? Worse off than Saddam's rape rooms? Worse than living under the threat of Saddam's secret police? Worse than living under the rule of a man who idolized Stalin?--who used chemical weapons on his own people?--who bribed the U.N. and Europe with cash and oil while his people suffered?

No. Obviously, this is not the case. No serious politician believes this. In fact, as I write this, the officials in Iraq are hashing out the details of their new constitution. Problems remain, of course, as noted by the delays, but that's what happens when an entire country gets together to do things democratically (and amidst the threat of terrorist attack) as opposed to one tyrant pointing his finger and enacting his will. Democracy takes time, it takes compromise and it takes patience. Ironically, three things the Democratic leadership does not have all that much of. And why not? Because Dean is presiding over a party that is rapidly splintering, and the damage--self-inflicted damage, that is--is far from done.

Dean's attempts to corral and focus the Democratic machine have been woefully unsuccessful. The interest groups have drawn their swords and gone off to do battle against Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, the Senate Democrats are more interested in posturing and running for President, the Democratic fringe has succumbed to their own propaganda and are caught in an endless do-loop of Bush-Rove world domination plots (currently coalescing around the anti-war crowd and--sadly--the grieving anti-war mom, Cindy Sheehan), and the media...honestly I think liberals in the media, despite serving as the unpaid PR wing of the Democratic party, are rather fed up with the party as well.

And why are they fed up? Because despite all the adulations, the fawning, the fixing, the Bush bashing, the death toll in Iraq, the poll numbers and a general unwillingness to report good news anywhere that might in some direct or indirect way "benefit" George Bush, the Democrats still cannot win elections. And they cannot for the life of them understand why.

But the "why" is not in the mainstream media's power to grasp, nor the Democratic leadership, because they will never admit that they are wrong, that the public objects to their statements, their policies--and worst of all, their ideology. Instead a good portion of the leadership whines, obstructs, objects, throws fits, moves goal posts, insults the voters, sifts for scandals, and last but not least, starts spouting ridiculous statements like Howard Dean's.

Dean didn't say what he said about Iraqi women because he truly believed it. He said it because any success in Iraq gives George Bush a "win". Cindy Sheehan, for all her grief over her deceased son, has not captured the heart of America, she has attracted the hungry parasites who would feed on and distort the memory of her son's service and use her grief for their own political gain. NARAL, with their grossly misleading commercial about John Roberts, did not turn people against Roberts, they turned people against the pro-choice movement.

It is a continuous cycle, one that Democrats seem ripe to keep repeating. And why? Because they're trapped. They are trapped between a reality they cannot face and the world they have invented to contain all of their security-blanket fantasies. And even though the public does not want to go there, it doesn't look like Democrats are capable of breaking this habit any time soon.

Harry Potter and the Prisoners of Guantanamo

So word around the campfire--or Camp Delta, as it were--is that the detainees are going bonkers over Harry Potter. Apparently the fanatical Muslims, who advocate death to America and the West, embrace a Taliban style government and are desperately trying to die for those 72 virgins love the idea of a fantasy story about an outcast boy learning magic at a school. As the prison librarian notes:

"We have Harry Potter in four languages, English, French, Farsi and Russian. We have it on order in Arabic. We do not have books 5 and 6 in the series, at this time. We have had several detainees read the series," Lorie said in a written response to questions from Reuters.

"One prisoner has requested the movies," she said.

How nice. The media is rather concerned about this though. As one reporter for the UK Telegraph puts it:

There are more than 800 books at Camp Delta, Cuba, where the detainees have been held since early 2002. Certain genres, including political thought, are banned.

"We try to keep people calm and not incite riots," Lori said.

It is not clear if the third book in J. K. Rowling's series, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkabhan, which tells of an escape from a top-security prison, is on the banned list.

Yes, obviously that's what worries me too...that the prisoners are going to use magic they learned from the book to escape. Honestly, if they do, we've got a bigger problem than worrying about whose Koran got touched without surgical gloves. And speaking of Korans, don't worry ACLU, they still have them, lightly abridged, but unflushed.

At first the base ordered 1,600 copies of the Koran in different languages and has since ordered 200 more. Versions with hard-line commentaries are not allowed.

"After a time they start to fall apart because they read them constantly," Lori said.

Despite the still apparent religious fanaticism and sheer strangeness of it all, I do find it rather wild that a children's tale has worked to--if not pacify--to certainly entertain the terrorist beast. Now don't think I'm going all Richard Gere on terrorists here. I'm not. I'm not all that thrilled about having to pay for my own copy of Harry Potter while also buying a copy for terrorists either, but I have to admit I do find this situation curious and perhaps a little revealing. Come on--it's Saturday--the glass is half full today okay?

I can't see Osama bin Ladin reading Harry Potter, or there ever being an answer for him and his ilk other than a U.S. cruise missile. But just as George Bush is betting that the powerful vision of democracy will entice and draw in the larger Muslim world, away from the insanity of terrorism, inciting the younger generation to cast off their oppressive regimes, I see this small event as another glimmer of good news.

Freedom, the power of ideas, is a lot like the magic of Harry Potter, where J.K. Rowling's young hero pushes the boundaries of our imaginative minds. And while the book is pure escapism, the mind is where it rings true. Because that's really where it's at, ultimately, in the human mind. That is where terror will be defeated.

Sorry ACLU, scientists do believe in God

Well the numbers are in, and the result? God. And he's winning by quite a margin too.

About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.

The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.

Now the media finds this surprising, and possibly some evolutionist bitter-enders will too, but I really don't. In fact science and God end up meeting where most people rarely expect. And that is, on the cutting edge of science discovery.

Albert Einstein, who revolutionized the whole of physics and how we visualize and describe spacetime, is famously quoted as saying, "God does not play dice with the Universe." What did he mean by this? He meant that he could not understand how God's Universe could be so beautifully precise, yet so insanely random at the same time. The mystery of quantum physics plagues scientists to this day, because they still cannot reconcile it with Einstein's Theory of Relativity. And it is in this realm of physics, on the edge of reality, that scientists become philosophers, where questions become the preferred answers, and where discovery has more to do with the mystery of observation than any cold hard numbers.

Scientists believe in the divine alright, because studying the edge of reality, never before has so much intellect felt so inferior as to be unable to grasp the basic concepts of existence. And these ideas are even giving atheists something to think about.

A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God -- more or less -- based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.

Granted, he does not believe in the Christian God, or even a benevolent god, but still, going from believing nothing to believing in something...that's something, I think. And it's a good sign.

We need to escape this rut the ACLU and evolutionists keep driving everybody into. They are a small band of fearful storytellers, worried that at the first sign of God the entire world will go to church. As nice as that would be, it ain't going to happen. No, for the most part, America, and a good portion of the world does believe in God. We just don't fear Him enough.

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

James 2:19

Abortion is a business

I have been thinking about this new NARAL attack on Supreme Court Justice nominee John Roberts, with an eye towards motive. The attack, for those who don't know about it, is a commercial, aimed at key states with liberal (wobbly) Republican senators, that paints a picture of Judge Roberts as an abortion clinic bomber sympathizer. It is all misdirection, mind you, the claim is patently false, as confirmed by several newspapers, fact checking sites and even a careful reading of Roberts own claims. But it was never about the truth, only about the outcome.

Stunned by the nomination, NARAL and a few other abortion peddling groups have had to re-group for a bit, but the war is on, wholeheartedly now. And I must say, it's a rather crafty stab to the back. Because it's not that NARAL put something that was almost true together, or selectively true, but something aptly timed and (here's the key) very difficult to defend against. They have constructed the argument, they have set the tone. Republicans now have to scramble to explain the truth (how the cases depicted and the actual case are different, how Roberts was speaking for Bush, how he never said "xyz," how he actually said "abc," how the abortion clinic bombings have nothing to do with the case NARAL pulls Roberts' arguments from), but the damage is done. NARAL just threw so much lead, that any attempt by Republicans to counter it will--by the very nature of the topic being explained, and how deep within the minutiae the discrepancies--look weak and evasive.

Is it enough to sink Roberts? No. I doubt it. Roberts is too clean for this to permanently damage him. But it was a direct hit by the opposition. And it makes me wonder what else they've got cooking.

But this also brought me to asking why. Why the desperation? Roberts is not the most extreme judge Bush could have selected. Bush went for bulletproof, and hopefully the armor will work. But still, the opposition is going full bore, lies and all. And why? Money. Because abortion is inexorably becoming the shining beacon atop the Democratic party platform, and the unrivaled cash cow for the special interests of Planned Parenthood and their supporters.

In today's Wall Street Journal Opinion page, Manuel Miranda explains:

Roe v. Wade is not just the source of a right; it's a business license for abortion clinics. This comes best into focus when we consider that in the next term the Supreme Court is likely to hear cases involving not the right to abortion but laws regulating parental consent and notice of abortions for minor girls. These are laws that, according to a Los Angeles Times poll, over 80% of Americans support.

In September 2002, when Democrats first blocked Justice Priscilla Owen from a circuit court nomination over a Texas Supreme Court ruling that upheld a parental notice law, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah put it this way:

I fear the opposition to Justice Owen from the abortion lobby is not at all about abortion rights, because abortion rights are not affected by a mere notice statute. The opposition to Justice Owen is not really about abortion rights, it is about abortion profits. Simply put, the abortion industry is opposed to parental notice laws because parental notice laws place a hurdle between them and the profits from the abortion clients--not the girls who come to them but the adult men who pay for these abortions. These adult men, whose average age rises the younger the girl is, are eager not to be disclosed to parents, sometimes living down the street. . . . At nearly one million abortions per year, the abortion industry is as big as any corporate interest that lobbies in Washington. They not only ignore the rights of parents, they also protect sexual offenders and statutory rapists.

You've never heard this? Surely that is no surprise. Mr. Hatch's statement was reported in only one news story, by Newsday's Tom Brune. He noted that there was an audible gasp among the abortion lobbyists in the back of the Judiciary Committee room. I remember that gasp.

What Mr. Brune did not record is that no Democratic senator responded to Hatch's charge. Something very unusual. Not even Dianne Feinstein of California, who, as she always notes, ran for the U.S. Senate to protect abortion rights. Or was it abortion profits?

I'd say profits. And that is why no Democratic senator responded, they don't want that to become the topic, or the tone. Much better for Democrats if NARAL and others pawn off fiction as fact, and let the real truth die.

Just what the Democrats need, another reinvention

After bottom-feeding since the 2000 election, Howard Dean says its time for Democrats to go on the offensive.

"We have to be out there. We have to be vocal. We have to be pushing our version of the facts because their version of the facts is very unfactual."

Yes, you may break for laughter now if you wish. Continue reading Dean's statements below, but please, refrain from drinking a beverage while doing so.

After visiting 30 states in the first six months as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Dean said Monday he has found "There are Democrats everywhere."

The key to success is making those Democrats proud of their party, Dean said, by taking the offensive and fighting on Democratic turf.

"We need a message. It has to be clear," he said. "The framing of the debate determines who wins the debate.

"Running away from issues is how you lose elections," said Dean, a former Vermont governor.

"We need to position ourselves as the party of change," he said. "I think we have learned that when big changes happen in the House and Senate, they happen because one party nationalizes the race and becomes the change agent."

Okay, I could let the good doctor ramble on, but...no. And why not? Because Democrats are still stuck in their fantasy land. Anyone who "needs a message" and "runs away from issues" is not in a position of strength, let alone offensive capability. And the reason Democrats are losing is because they still just don't get it. It's not about their message. They have a message. They've always had a message. It's just that nobody likes their message. Because all they are preaching is hate, divisiveness, abortion, gay marriage, socialism, communism, anti-Americanism, anti-religious fervor and a self-glorifying intellectualism (as in, we know best). And that is not a message anybody wants to hear.

Dean detailed his 50-state strategy to hire and finance from national coffers organizers in every state, saying that the party is on track to have organizers in every state by the end of the year.

"Vote by vote, precinct by precinct, door by door, year by year and election by election, we will take this country back for the people who built it," he said.

In his speech Dean talked about the growing diversity in America and how well that diversity meshes with the message and membership of the Democratic Party.

"The face of the Democratic Party is such that it looks like all of America will look in 2050," said Dean.

And there it is..."we will take this country back." You hear that a lot from Democrats. Apparently there was a bloodless coup, where George Bush and Halliburton took over the country. Everybody's been chained to their TV sets, with the channel fixed on Fox News, brainwashing them to vote Republican.

It's hysterical really, to think that Democrats actually believe this. I mean the chains came off months ago, once I had the Rove Chip put in my head. Now I can be out and about, anywhere, and tiny little signals just bend my will to buy Republican products, say Republican things, say prayers, tell me to call fetuses babies, support the war against terrorists. It's quite a marvel really. I wish I had one sooner. It would have made it so much easier not to think all the time.

Oh wait...hang on...they're telling me I'm not supposed to be talking about the chip in my head. Okay, forget you read that.

No, but seriously, this concept that the entire country really wants to throw Bush out is pure fantasy, media spin. And the thing is Democrats keep believing the spin, and then they burst a blood vessel when they lose everytime. I don't know, I for one rather enjoy these attempts at reinvention. Because that, not the message, tells me who the Democrats really are. Endless reinventions to try to figure out the winning combination. They think if they buy enough lottery tickets they'll win the jackpot. Problem is, they don't realize they're still buying the same number.

ABC's Peter Jennings has died

ABC News is reporting the death of one of their own, Peter Jennings has died.

ABC News Anchor Peter Jennings died today at his home in New York City. He was 67. On April 5, Jennings announced he had been diagnosed with lung cancer.

He is survived by his wife, Kayce Freed, his two children, Elizabeth, 25, and Christopher, 23, and his sister, Sarah Jennings.

"Peter died with his family around him, without pain and in peace. He knew he'd lived a good life," his wife said.

In announcing Jennings' death to his ABC colleagues, News President David Westin wrote:

"For four decades, Peter has been our colleague, our friend, and our leader in so many ways. None of us will be the same without him.

"As you all know, Peter learned only this spring that the health problem he'd been struggling with was lung cancer. With Kayce, he moved straight into an aggressive chemotherapy treatment. He knew that it was an uphill struggle. But he faced it with realism, courage, and a firm hope that he would be one of the fortunate ones. In the end, he was not.

"We will have many opportunities in the coming hours and days to remember Peter for all that he meant to us all. It cannot be overstated or captured in words alone. But for the moment, the finest tribute we can give is to continue to do the work he loved so much and inspired us to do."

Rest in peace.

Update: As Michelle Malkin notes, within a scant 12 minutes of the announcement the first left-wing exploitation press release appeared, blaming tobacco companies for Mr. Jennings' death. You. Freaks. Need. To. Give. It. A. Rest.

The New York Times hits new low, then digs...

So according to Drudge, contrary to the New York Times protestations and indignance, that their inquiry into the adoption records of John Roberts' children was nothing but the most cursory of glances and only as part of their "standard" procedure of background checks for important public figures, the New York Times was looking for blood. As Drudge reports:

TIMES editors were determined to find any possible legal irregularities in the adoptions, insiders claim.

Ladies and gentlemen, if this is true, this would have to represent the most reprehensible act I've seen out of the news media in a while. I wonder, exactly which other children the Times has investigated. Is it only adopted children? And if so, why? Are Mr. and Mrs. Roberts not allowed to have a family? Perhaps the Times was looking for a way to find the childrens' real birth mothers... Perhaps the Times wanted to stir up controversy about the legality of the adoptions?

I don't know--I'm just throwing crap out there. Why? Well because if the Times is investigating it, oh my gosh it must be very important. I mean this has to be more important than all that talk of Air America stealing money from actual poor children and old people, because the Times hasn't devoted even one article towards that. Not even a snippet on the op-ed page. So goodness...this Roberts adoption thing must be important!

Now...as my view of the Times has dropped even lower than I thought was actually possible, I will end this post here. I don't want to waste one more second of my life tonight blogging about such a pitiful newspaper.

Almost Famous

Mark Steyn calls the new Democratic strategy "Almost Winning", but as my associative powers are rather frenetic, I'll give a respectful nod to Cameron Crowe and borrow his film title "Almost Famous" for a bit. And if you haven't seen the film, this post might not make much sense, but...oh well. Because that's what I really see it as, the Democrats want to be rock stars. And hey, who doesn't? The problem is, the Democrats are more interested in puffing themselves up than actually making music.

Take the recent election in Ohio for example. Here's an excerpt from the Democratic press release:

In nearly the biggest political upset in recent history, Democrat Paul Hackett came within just a few thousand votes of defeating Republican Jean Schmidt in Ohio's Second Congressional District.

I'm sorry, pardon me while I laugh. "Nearly the biggest political upset"...?! The guy lost, to a weak Republican, in an off political year, by a margin very similar to what Kerry lost to Bush. Plus their candidate was a near composite of Kerry, a war veteran who spent most of his time bashing George Bush. Sure, I honor his service, but honoring service does not guarantee my vote.

And see that's the problem with Democrats, they have this fascination with image, how they are perceived by the press, but never in what they're actually saying. I mean really, did you ever see Keith Richards worry about image? And as Sony and Jennifer Lopez are just now figuring out, you can buy fame, but you can't make people like you or respect you if you aren't true to yourself and your own abilities (or what you stand for).

Democrats have been running on false ideas and double-minded candidates since the days of Clinton. Clinton felt our pain while he was off having affairs and lying about it (and if anyone didn't see the entrance he made to the 2000 convention...wannabe rock star). Gore blended in with the world in his earth-toned suits and decried the death of the planet, all the while owning major stock in Occidental Petroleum. Howard Dean...heh. John Edwards enlightened us about the two Americas. And John Kerry...well, one needs only think of his windsurfing to know his mind. And the thing is Democrats have gotten so used to the good press, to the flood of free advertising the media gives them, that they can't understand that they are Jennifer Lopez. Not the Rolling Stones, not Led Zeppelin...Jennifer Lopez. And while I have respect for the struggle Ms. Lopez underwent to make it in the beginning (I mean she went from fly girl to the "it" girl in just a few years), flying high without real talent becomes a lesson in futility. And ten years from now, nobody is going to remember where they misplaced their J-Lo CD...but I'll still have my Led Zeppelin, won't you?

So who are the real rock stars in the public eye? Wildly enough, Pope John Paul II still gets the nod. He's at number three. And our next Supreme Court Justice, John Roberts tops out at...number one. And why? Not because they're larger than life, but because they have become the new radicals of the day. Not in the sense that they appeal to the very few or to those outside the mainstream, or that they are all that exciting, but because they appeal to the public at large in a way that the media will never respect. And that was the beauty of the rock stars of old. Their respect came from the fans, not from the media.

Republicans are doing better with this, obviously, President Bush most of all. But if Republican candidates could just trust in that truth and not get wishy-washy after they win elections we'd be well on our way to even more successes. Nobody wants to listen to liberals anymore, to their cash-before-kids radio stations, to their manic "please, please watch me!" TV channels, or to their patently ridiculous candidates who find it more important to wink at the cameras while they buy a jockstrap and stage Kennedy-esque sporting events instead of oh--I don't know...maybe actually naming and taking a stand against evil in the world. Who can name this speech?

But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will.

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

Liberals think their namesake bestows upon them the enlightenment they so obviously do not have. They are clinging to the ideas of a bygone era, in search of a fame they once had. And as they swoon to the sound of their own voice and imagine their greatness, they simultaneously spit rage at the fruit throwers and the booing audience. It makes them feel better, both the rage and the delusions, but it does nothing to effect their ascendancy. Because while rock and roll sometimes waxed delusional and it occasionally raged, true rock stars know the real power of music is in the muse, in the sounds that inspire and in the words that while not the most elegant, always sought the deeper truth.

And that is why, for people like President Bush, it's all happening.

Seeing God

There has been, since the printing press, a long protracted war between those who see God, and those who do not. And by 1900 the non-God people figured they had just about won. It was just around then that scientists proclaimed that "we have learned all there is to learn" about the universe. Seriously, they did. They thought there were only a few "minor details" to work out about light and matter.

Evolution was hip, we were mastering electricity and magnetism, Newton's laws worked like a champ, medical science was on its way in, and we even thought there were little bits and pieces inside the atom. Who knew?

And then all hell broke loose.

Einstein started it off with his discovery of the photoelectric effect, basically that light was not just a wave, that energy was transfered in packets. This one little discovery turned the whole of physics on its head. Because everyone knew that light was a wave, and now Einstein was showing that it was behaving like a particle. In fact scientists had experiments that showed them that light was a wave and not a particle! But they were wrong...because they were both right. Light is a wave and a particle. And thus began the slow realization that everything was not as appeared. And from that point on, physicists have been discovering things that still perplex them to this day. Because it's not just light, but all matter, that is both a wave and a particle. In fact scientists discovered that not only is matter both a wave and a particle, but that there was no way to know which it was, or where it was, until you looked at it. And this uncertainty, they discovered, was a property of existence. And thus for the very small, for very short time periods, anything and everything happens.

Now for the very large, the picture is even more perplexing. Take the Big Bang for example. Recognized by the Catholic Church as consistent with dogma, the Big Bang is still a bit of a mystery to scientists. Ever since Newton everyone knew what gravity did, but they didn't know what it was. Turns out Einstein had the answer--or at least the best answer so far. Gravity is space, curved space. Curved through both distance and time. And just as space can curve, it can also expand and stretch and flow. And so when scientists saw galaxies flying apart from one another they began to realize that perhaps there was some explosion. And then they saw that everything was expanding away from us! Nah...we couldn't be the center of the universe... Right? Well, sort of right.

We are not the center of the universe...but at the same time we are at the center of the universe. Because the universe expansion is not an expansion of matter, like a bomb, but an expansion of space. The space in between everything is expanding, everywhere, at every moment. Is the distance between you and your computer screen growing?--no. Not yet. Remember, matter creates gravity, it curves space. So your matter is holding the space together. In fact it is only in between galaxies where scientists see the real noticeable space expansion. But it is happening still. In fact, its getting faster. And just as there are now parts of the universe we can no longer--and could never--see, one day the space expansion will become so great that even the atoms in your body (or your future generation's bodies) will pull apart, and space itself might rip itself to shreds. From infinity to infinity, the infinite universe crammed into infinitely small space--to infinitely stretched and torn into the infinitely small. Granted its a few trillion years away, but its coming.

So why this post? Why talk about all this stuff? Because recently there has been a lot of discussion about evolution vs. this new Intelligent Design theory. And the ACLU and rabid evolutionists are having a fit. Well, evolutionists need to just calm down. No one is going back to fire gods and bleeding patients. What's happening is discovery. And people need to learn to look for the truth, wherever it takes them. Even if it leads them towards a Creator, or, heaven forbid...God.

What if?

What if the GOP, back in 1994, had used one of Bill Clinton's McDonald's photo-ops after his morning "jog" to bash him on child obesity, school programs, dereliction of duty and obsessive compulsive behavior? They'd be labeled as crazy.

So what's the story? The Democrats are taking the opportunity of the President's physical to bash Bush because he's in shape! Apparently the President exercises six times a week. And because he's not out there making kids stop playing video games and getting them to run, he's a bad guy. A sample of their ire:

"President Bush's has dropped the ball when it comes to fully funding physical education in public schools and women's athletic programs at the college level," said Democratic National Committee spokesman Josh Earnest. "His personal habits indicate that physical fitness is not just fun and games for him. Don't our kids deserve the same opportunities to be physically fit? President Bush should stop running from his responsibility and make sure that all American children have access to physical fitness programs.

Hello? Personal responsibility? The Democrats never heard of it I guess. I guess it's up to the President, and not parents, to make sure children are exercising. And last I checked President Bush ran and biked, two activities that are well within the reach of every American.

I exercise an hour a day for five days a week, sometimes more if I go on a bike ride. And I wish I am as healthy as President Bush when I'm his age. He has made fitness a part of his life, for his own mental and physical wellbeing, not as a party platform or to score some cheap political points. I admire his discipline.

But if Democrats want to pick nits because the President runs and bikes, I say let them. It's over for them politically when it comes to this. It is a sign of their desperation and lack of focus on the important issues our country faces. Fitness is important, but just because President Bush isn't fat like Bill, or uses his position to grab more tax dollars for pet projects (I mean do we really need to spend tax dollars for a school program on this? Gym class is already on the books. Have kids start running. It's free.) is no reason to deride his exercise schedule. The President is healthy, now leave him alone.