Saturday, December 30, 2006

The End...

UPDATE: Actual video here.

Read more, here, and here.

Thursday, December 28, 2006

Interesting Interview with Robert Spencer

I just ran across this interview with Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch, on the Catholic Report. It's a very interesting read. I was unaware that he is a practicing Melkite Catholic so it gave a different perspective of his views than my previous notions of him.

Want a scary story about how whacked out Iran's president is? Check out this one from several months back.

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Disinvest Terror

One of the best ideas I've seen to help combat terrorism comes from Frank Gaffney, a Reagan-era Pentagon official, who, through his website,, is leading the way to curb the funding of businesses and organizations that do business with known terrorists and terror harboring states. Here is the mission statement from their website.

Throughout our history, Americans have risen to the challenge of defending our beloved country and our liberty. Following the 9/11 attacks, however, most Americans felt powerless. Powerless to respond to the tragic attacks in New York and Washington, DC. Powerless to express meaningfully their outrage. And powerless to help defeat terrorism. What we did not realize -- until now -- was that each and every one of us actually can play a pivotal role in winning the War on Terror. How? By demanding that our public and private pensions plans, college endowments, individual retirement account managers, 401(k) plans, and other investment vehicles exploit the leverage represented by investments in publicly traded companies that operate in terrorist-sponsoring states. In a unified front, we should all be saying "This is my money and it will not go to support terror." is a nationwide campaign aimed at some 400 public companies worldwide that are providing revenues, technology and moral cover to governments that sponsor terrorism.

The primary objective of this campaign is to force governments to choose between their sponsorship of terrorism and critical partnerships with publicly traded firms. To illustrate how such a campaign can achieve this objective, please review our synopsis of the South African model of the 1980's that succeeded in ending apartheid. provides the empirical analysis and architecture that can enable such a campaign. Its success, however, can be assured only if you and other Americans enlist. Doing so will allow each and every one of us to help wage the war on Terror by opening new divestment fronts through our universities, local communities and states, individual retirement accounts, churches and unions. provides the tools. Now, patriotic Americans can once again do their part to counter the threat confronting our country. Join us and help ensure that dangerous terrorist organizations - and those that sponsor them - will not continue to flourish with our money.

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

Just How Bad is Obama?

Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL
by Amanda B. Carpenter
Posted Dec 26, 2006

Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) portrays himself as a thoughtful Democrat who carefully considers both sides of controversial issues, but his radical stance on abortion puts him further left on that issue than even NARAL Pro-Choice America.

In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.

When the federal bill was being debated, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a statement that said, “Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act ... floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”

But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”

The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote.

Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies’ being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Stanek told me her testimony “did not faze” Obama.

In the second hearing, Stanek said, “I brought pictures in and presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted!”

“And those pictures didn’t faze him [Obama] at all,” she said.

At the end of the hearing, according to the official records of the Illinois State senate, Obama thanked Stanek for being “very clear and forthright,” but said his concern was that Stanek had suggested “doctors really don’t care about children who are being born with a reasonable prospect of life because they are so locked into their pro-abortion views that they would watch an infant that is viable die.” He told her, “That may be your assessment, and I don’t see any evidence of that. What we are doing here is to create one more burden on a woman and I can’t support that.”

As a senator, Obama has opposed measures to criminalize those who transport minors across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.

At a townhall meeting in Ottawa, Ill., Joanne Resendiz, a teacher and mother of five, asked him: “How are you going to vote on this, keeping in mind that 10, 15 years down the line your daughters, God forbid, could be transported across state lines?”

Obama said: “The decision generally is one that a woman should make.”

Just Because These Are Too Funny Not To Watch!

These video interviews with Borat are from the Opie and Anthony Show. They are too funny not to post!

Number 1.

Number 2.

Sunday, December 24, 2006

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas to all on this most holiest of nights, Christmas eve. As we celebrate this holiday with our family and friends, let us pause for a moment and reflect on why this day is so special. Not because we have a day off work; not because it's an excuse to eat drink and be merry; not because we get to think of others as we purchase many gifts for them; and not even because it represents peace and good will to all men. No, the reason for this day is that it is the birthday of the Christ child, Jesus of Nazareth. He who would die for all of our sins so that we might live. Happy birthday Jesus, and God bless us all, every one!

Thursday, December 21, 2006

The Obama Christmas Carol

Thanks to the Curt Jester for this one!

Restoring Congressional Integrity

I just picked up on this great article by John H. Armstrong from The Action Institute. Talk about a REAL idea for congressional integrity. The original can be found here.

There can be little doubt that one of the greatest political and economic problems in the US is the way that our Congress “earmarks” billions of dollars for special projects that benefit lawmakers in their bid for personal security and re-election.

The system works in a very straightforward way. Congress can pass massive spending bills and all the while representatives can add “earmarks” that benefit projects and people in their district or state. It is a form, quite often, of legal payback for favors rendered to the elected official. President Bush asked Congress, in his last State of the Union address, to give him a line-item veto. Don’t expect it to happen soon. The idea makes perfect sense really, and it has been done in several states, so why am I so pessimistic about the prospects? The simple answer is plain to see—both parties have found that it pays to spend money in this less accountable way. Incumbents use it to gain favor and to stay in power. Everyone knows that over 95% of the incumbents in the US House are re-elected every two years. Why fix a system that benefits those who are being asked to fix it? Supposedly smaller-government Republicans should favor this idea but many are just as adept at this “earmark” business as the most liberal Democrats.

All the recent talk we’ve heard about reforming the system is really not very impressive when you look at what really happens in Washington. But there have always been a few leaders who have risen above this type of spending and shown themselves to be consistent in their service of the common good of all the people. Michael Reagan recently told the story of how a wealthy businessman in California came to see his late father one day when he was running his first campaign for governor in the 1960s. The man left a paper bag with $40,000 on Reagan’s desk saying, “This is for you.” Reagan took the bag and threw it at his friend and walked out of the room. Later Reagan told this man that if he wanted to make a contribution to his campaign he should send the gift to his campaign committee. And he warned his friend to never try this stunt again, telling him that if he were elected governor the man should never expect to get a single favor from Reagan.

One could wish for more people like Ronald Reagan in public leadership. I think we call this integrity. The lack of such integrity is frankly harming all of us. Everyone knows that this growing practice of budget “earmarks” is called “pork.” Frankly, calling it pork is a disgrace to pigs, who have higher standards that many of those who spend public money to secure their spot in Congress. In a very real sense I call it “legalized bribery.” I pray for the day when the public has had enough of this and pressures Congress to clean up this mess. Changing parties in the last election cycle will not likely change the culture in Washington. We need something much bigger and stronger to do that. I would suggest that what we really need is leadership with courage and vision.

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Keith Ferrazzi's Dream Maker Formula

Got a Dream? Here's how to make it happen.
By Keith Ferrazzi
From Reader's Digest
January 2007

The Power of Relationships

A few years ago, I was in New York City to advise two large banks on the secret to success in business. On the way in from the airport, I struck up a conversation with my taxi driver.
Tony was from India. He had studied to be a marine biologist but could not get a decent job in that field here. He was doing okay driving a cab, he said, "but in coming all this way, I had hoped to do better than just get by."

The more we talked, the more I realized that the counseling I provide to corporate executives also applies to average people like Tony. Like too many of us, Tony thought that being self-reliant meant never asking for help. But we need to nurture relationships in order to achieve our goals.

Tony liked to chat with his customers, yet he didn't want to bother them. I urged him to give it a try.

And he did. Not only did his customers ask that he take them to the airport at the end of their trip, they recommended him to their friends. Soon he had a long list of regulars and was able to buy his own Town Car, then a second. He had to hire a friend to help with the overflow.

Each of us contains seeds of greatness, which can be expressed in myriad ways, from starting a business to giving back to our community to raising the next generation of leaders. Life is all about finding that seed and nurturing it to its full growth. I know it's possible, because I'm living proof.

I am the son of a steelworker and a cleaning woman. My dad would come home, his hands scraped and dirty, and say, "I don't want this for you, Keith. You need a great education."

Although my father didn't know the CEO of his company, he wasn't afraid to introduce himself and ask for his advice. The CEO liked my dad's moxie and used his influence to get me a scholarship at one of the best private schools in the country. I went on to Yale University and Harvard Business School. Soon I was the youngest chief marketing officer in the Fortune 500.

I learned at a young age that the secret to success lies in the power of relationships. Consider the people who've helped you along the way as coaches. Corporate execs, celebrities and athletic aces routinely hire "life coaches" to help them reach their goals or solve their problems.

But you don't need to hire a life coach. You can become your own. It won't cost you a penny, and it's easier than you think.


What do I really want?

Jennifer was about to give birth to her first child and had decided to turn her home office into a nursery. A self- employed Web designer, she was delighted about the baby but afraid of being isolated and losing the self-esteem that came with having built her own business. "I know I should be happy, and I am -- but I'm not," she confided. "I'm excited about starting a family, but I want my life too, and I want the community that has come with working."

What do I want? It's a simple question, yet many of us aren't sure. But -- surprise! -- it doesn't have to be all that difficult to answer. It's a matter of focus.

Have you ever looked through a telescope at something? You find a reference point to home in on, then fiddle with the settings. At first, it's too close, then it's too far away, finally it's just right. The point is, it takes many adjustments to bring the subject into focus. If you want to look at something else, the process starts again.

Goal-setting is the same way. Don't worry if at first you don't know exactly what you want to do. Just don't make the mistake of never committing to anything. Sometimes the answer is very simple: Just pick something!

Dr. Mark Goulston, author of Get Out of Your Own Way at Work, suggests you "look back in order to look forward." Examine your calendar at day's end during a typical week and grade each appointment or listing on a scale of -3 to +3, where -3 means "If I never do this again, it will be too soon" and +3 means "I could do this all day long, and I can't wait to do it again." Once you identify the recurring themes, you'll be able to better focus your dreams.

If you're still stumped, ask yourself two questions: What would I truly regret if I did not achieve it? What would I do if I knew I could not fail?

Don't be afraid to dream big -- or small. And don't let others define your success. Once you know what you want, just follow the next three steps to achieve it.


Get out of your own way

Everyone has a habit that once served us well but is now just dragging us down. It might not be drink or drugs, but it's an addiction nonetheless. Procrastination is an addiction. So is being defensive. Or refusing to accept responsibility for your mistakes.

My addiction was conflict avoidance. When I was growing up, I learned to give people (Mom, Dad, teachers, coaches) what they wanted, and I was rewarded -- pats on the back, good grades, team captain. But the flip side was that I didn't learn to ask what I, Keith, wanted for myself.

I was unable to say to a friend, "I'd rather not." Or to someone I was dating, "We should end this already." Or to an employee, "John, your performance is not acceptable."

It was only after I diagnosed this behavior that I could enlist friends and supporters to help me change it. They practiced with me on what to say to John and how to say it, paving the way for a productive, and easier, conversation. As a result, John altered his behavior and became a more effective member of the team.

Just as you may not know the negative behavior holding you back, you may be missing the positive trait that can propel you forward. Identifying your strengths is as important as naming your weaknesses because, like it or not, you're guided by these opposing forces.

I always joke that if you can't think of a behavior you want to change, I'm sure your spouse or a trusted friend will have a few ideas. Likewise, they're also the ones who'll tell you what they most admire about you.

What's the point of all this? There are few things that will make you feel as bad as blowing an opportunity because of a self-defeating behavior. Conversely, few things will make you feel as good -- and will gain you the respect of others -- as identifying and overcoming one of them.


Help others, help yourself

Kim (not her real name) was in danger of being fired from her job at a small marketing firm. She was a whiz at Internet research but was such a perfectionist that she'd try to cover up her mistakes. She'd ask her boss for advice, then argue with him if she disagreed. With a pink slip almost guaranteed, Kim knew she needed help to save herself from herself. It was time to create her own dream team of advisors.

The most dramatic and enduring life changes often occur through community-based initiatives, like Weight Watchers and Alcoholics Anonymous, where there are multiple people invested in your success and to whom you feel accountable. It makes sense to apply the same principles that have been so successful in dealing with self-destructive habits when creating your own self-guided community for personal growth.

Your "dream team" works best with about five people, all of whom care enough about you to be ruthlessly honest. Select people with diverse backgrounds -- your softball buddy, maybe your accountant and someone whose behavior you admire or whose position you aspire to. Not only will a diverse group come up with creative solutions, they are more likely to be plugged in to networks and resources you may not have access to yourself. Kim, for example, invited both a trusted colleague and her boss to join her team.

The trick is to listen to their critiques, and that's not always easy to do. Kim argued with her team so much that one member finally said, "Look, if you're going to ask for my advice and always disagree with it, it's not worth my making the effort to give it."

Of course, you can ask clarifying questions: "What do you mean by that?" or "What did you think when you saw me doing this?" But do not contradict them, even if you feel a team member has levied a terrible misjudgment. This is his "gift" to you. And if four out of five people are giving you the same gift, then chances are they're onto something.

Now, I bet you're thinking, Why would these folks do this? What do I have to offer that could possibly induce people, some of whom I barely know, to help me in this way?

In a word, you have your own generosity, and that is the fuel making this entire engine run. By reaching out to others with generosity, whether it's to recommend a new yoga class or to seek their counsel, you're laying the foundation for a long-term relationship. And I guarantee you'll be rewarded with a positive response.


Plan it!

My friend Dr. Dean Ornish tells me that, in his experience, most people who survive a heart attack will eventually backslide to the same bad habits that put them on the operating table in the first place. Even fear of death, he says, is not a strong enough motivation to change ingrained habits.

But once people realize that they can have a better sex life, will dance at their child's wedding and see their grandchildren grow up, they start to exercise and eat right. They "get" the connection between aspiring to succeed and positive goal-driven activities.

It's a well-known saying in business that "what gets measured gets managed." That's why Weight Watchers insists on a weekly weigh-in.

Choose one of your goals and ask yourself, What do I need to do in the next 60 days to feel that I am on my way to success? If you want to be spiritually grounded, set up a series of meetings with a clergyman to talk about a study program. If you want that promotion, talk to your boss about what it will take to get it.

Next, determine your milestones, and take the pulse of your progress at prescribed checkpoints. At the beginning, talk to your dream team weekly about your progress. As you gain more confidence, extend the time between checkups to 30 days, then 60, then 90.

Don't be surprised if your focus shifts over time. That's normal. Every three to six months, reassess your goals and rethink your plan. You may even need to reach out and include new people in your support community. With her boss's encouragement and support, Kim left her old firm and started her own Internet marketing business. She is building a portfolio of satisfied clients and says she's happier than she's ever been.

Remember Jennifer? She worked through her conflicting emotions about having a baby and decided that this was actually an opportunity to help other pregnant women. She started a website that has grown into a vibrant interactive online community, Suburban CEO.

My dad always used to say, "Don't ever look back and wonder 'what if.'" You've got a dream, right? And now you've got the plan, so what are you waiting for?

Are you standing in the way of your own success? Find out now!

Keith Ferrazzi is CEO of Ferrazzi Greenlight and author of Never Eat Alone

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Happy Birthday - I Made a Mistake

Thanks to ProLife Blogs and National Pro Life Radio for turning me on to this great video by Flipsyde. This is powerful, I've included the lyrics below.

Happy Birthday

Please accept my apologies, wonder what would have been
would you have been a little angel? or an angel of sin?
tom-boy running around, hanging with all the guys?
or a little tough boy with beautiful brown eyes?
paid for the murder befor they had determined the sex
choosing our life over your life meant your death
and you never got a chance to even open your eyes
sometimes I wonder as a fetus if you fought for your life?
Would you have been a little genius, in love with math?
Would you have played in your school clothes and made me mad?
would you have been a little rapper like your poppa the piper?
would you have made me quit smoking by finding one of my lighters?
I wonder about your skintone and shape of your nose
and the way you would have laughed and talked fast or slow
I think about it every year, so I picked up a pen
Happy birthday, I love you whoever you would have been

[Chorus x 2]
Happy birthday
What I thought was a dream
make a wish
was as real as it seemed

I made a mistake

[Verse 2]
I got a million excuses, as to why you died
and other people got their own reasons for homocide
who’s to say it would have worked
and who’s to say it wouldn’t have
I was young and struggling, but old enough to be a dad
the fear of being my father has never disappeared
I ponder it frequently while I’m sipping on my beer
my vision of a family was artificial and fake
so when it came time to create I made a mistake
now you got a little brother, maybe it’s really you
maybe you really forgave us knowing we was confused
maybe, every time that he smiles
it’s you proudly knowing that your father is doing the right thing now
I never tell a woman what to do with her body
but if she don’t love children then we can’t party
I think about it every year so I picked up a pen
Happy birthday, I love you whoever you would have been

[Chorus x 2]
Happy birthday
What I thought was a dream
make a wish
was as real as it seemed

I made a mistake

[repeat x2]
from the heavens to the womb
to the heavens again
from the ending to the ending
never got to begin
maybe one day we can meet face to face
in a place without time and space
happy birthday

[Chorus x 2]
Happy birthday
What I thought was a dream
make a wish
was as real as it seemed

I made a mistake

Zucker Takes on the Irag Study Group

How true might this parody actually turn out to be?

Monday, December 18, 2006

Wish the ACLU Merry Christmas!

Help spread some Christmas cheer to the nazis at the ACLU. Click on the card above to send them an e-Christmas card, or even better, mail them a physical card!

Here's the address:

125 Broad Street
18th Floor
New York, Ny 10004

What If The ACLU Had Existed On The First Christmas Eve?

What If the ACLU Had Existed on the First Christmas Eve?
December 18, 2006
By John Lillpop

As we Americans struggle to preserve our rich cultural traditions surrounding Christmas, there are times when the struggle seems too hard, the load too heavy.

For example, one wonders if it is worth it upon hearing that another whacked-out liberal judge has determined that the nativity scene is unconstitutional.

The nativity scene is unconstitutional, for heaven’s sake!

Not that long ago, the word unconstitutional was reserved for major injustices that really harmed humanity. For instance, unconstitutional referred to heinous acts like slavery or racial discrimination.

Or what about that chacter with too much time on his hands who threatened to sue if his religious symbols were not granted equal time and importance to fifteen Christmas trees enjoyed by the overwhelming majority of the public at the Seattle airport? Why would a supposed “man of faith” act to deny so many people the pleasure of seeing a simple, unobtrusive symbol just because the symbol did not represent his particular faith?

How does one confront such narrow-minded, spiteful thinking without going barking mad?

One way is to fantasize what the first Christmas might have been like if liberals and the ACLU had been in charge on the night Jesus was born.

The Christmas story would have been dramatically different:

* Upon entering Bethlehem, Mary and Joseph would have been approached by members of the local Planned Parenthood. Mary would have been encouraged to abort the unborn fetus, and Planned Parenthood would have offered to pay for the procedure with tax money stolen from the Roman government.

* An activist liberal judge in Nazareth would have issued a restraining order to prevent the three wise men from entering the city where the Savior was born.

Citing the lack of any women, blacks, Hispanics, gays, transvestites, or blind and handicapped Buddhists among the three wise persons, the judge would give the wise men three hours to implement an affirmative action plan, or be forced to leave the Holy Land.

* Lawyers from the Bethlehem chapter of the ACLU would have sued the innkeeper who turned Mary and Joseph away. The suit would claim that there was, in fact, plenty of room at the inn, but that Mary was discriminated against solely because she was an unmarried, pregnant, middle-eastern woman who spoke Aramic but not Latin.

* Joseph would have been required to pay a special “Usury Fee”—not a tax, mind you—owing to the fact that the donkey carrying the blessed Mary was not licensed in Bethlehem. The local tax assessor was known in the underground as the “Ass Taxer,” a term that still applies to most Democrats.

* Joseph and Mary would have been forced to leave Bethlehem earlier than originally planned, because a local bureaucrat named Goreish determined that their donkey was releasing unhealthy levels of toxic gases—indelicately called “farts” in our enlightened times.

Such emissions were thought to be a major factor in clinical depressions, and were also implicated in a phenomenon that Goreish called “global warming” which he claimed would surely destroy the earth by the end of the month, at the latest.

If nothing else, we can give thanks for the fact that liberalism and the ACLU did not exist in their present form on that first Christmas Eve.

And that allowed our Creator to give humanity the greatest and most blessed gift of all time!

Thought for the Day

The so-called “War on Terror” is a misnomer. Terror is a tactic, not an enemy. We are at war with those who utilize this tactic against us, our interests, and our allies.

Negotiation is by definition the art of compromise. The finding of a middle ground which can be mutually acceptable. Diplomacy is only possible where both sides are capable of compromise. When one party to a negotiation has an immutable agenda and the willingness to die in the pursuit of its fulfillment, there is nothing to be gained by negotiation as there is no possibility of mitigating their position. There is no mutually beneficial or mutually acceptable common ground. To believe otherwise is little more than politically correct pie-in-the-sky pipe dreaming.

Sunday, December 17, 2006

The Ultimate Thug League

Last night at the end of the Denver Nuggets vs. New York Knicks game the following brawl erupted. One more reason why the NBA is the worst league in sports. The players in the league today are a far cry from Magic, Bird, Jordan, Robinson, etc. of yesterday who showed nothing but class on the court. The NBA is now a league of thugs, over-paid crybabies, and wanna-be gang-bangers who need to learn some dignity, honor, and basic human respect.

Thursday, December 14, 2006

The Jib Jab Year in Review

Those crazy guys at Jib Jab have done it again, they've created a hilarious video about the past year in review.

Jimmy Carter the Jew-Hater

Jimmy Carter: Jew-Hater, Genocide-Enabler, Liar
By David Horowitz | December 14, 2006

Jimmy Carter was certainly the worst President in American history. It was no particular feat that he went on to become the worst ex-President as well. But now he has sunk to a new and abominable low.

Even as Islamic Hitlerites gather in Iran to deny the first Holocaust of the Jews and to plot the second, former president Jimmy Carter tours America with a new book that describes Jews as racists and oppressors, and suggests they are also a conspiratorial mafia that intimidates “critics,” controls America’s media and war policy, and are therefore also the source of Islamic terrorism and the Arabs’ genocidal campaign to eliminate them from the map of the Middle East.

In other words, Americans beware of the Jew in your midst.

Here is Carter’s description of the Middle East conflict in his own words, delivered during an interview he gave on National Public Radio during the second day of the Holocaust deniers’ conference in Teheran:

“I have spent a lot of time in Palestine in recent years. … The Palestinians have had their own land, first of all, occupied and then confiscated and then colonized. They’ve been excluded from their own gardens and fields, and pastures and churches. They have been severely restrained in their movements. They have to have different kinds of passes to go through different checkpoints inside their own lands on their own roads. The Israelis have built more than 200 settlements inside Palestine.They connect these settlements with very nice roads for the Israeli settlers, and then superhighways and so forth going into Jerusalem. Quite often the Palestinians are prevented from even riding on those roads that have been built in their own territory. So this has been in many ways worse than it was in South Africa.”

When hundreds of millions of Muslims are calling for the extermination of the Jews of Israel this is more than a lie; it is a blood libel.

It is a lie that Palestinians “had their own land, first of all, occupied.” This is like saying that Texans had their own land occupied by Hispanics, ignoring the fact that Hispanics were there first. The very word Palestine is a Roman appellation for the people called Philistines, who were not Arabs but red-haired sailors from the Aegean. The Jews were there as well.

In short, first of all the Jews were in the land before the Arabs.

Second of all, the Arabs who inhabited the Palestine Mandate in 1948, at the time of the creation the state of Israel, considered themselves Syrians.

Third, the Palestine Mandate was not created on land taken from the Syrians or the Arabs. It was taken from the Turks.

It was not taken from the Turks by the Jews, but by the British and the French. They took it because Turkey sided with Germany in the First World War and, of course, lost. The Turkish empire had ruled the entire region including Syrian, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan for four hundred years before Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan were artificially created by the English and the French. Jordan – a state whose majority is Palestinian – occupies 80% of the Palestine Mandate.

So it is a preposterous lie to say that the Palestinians had their own land and that it was occupied by the Jews.

Fourth, the individual plots of land that Jews now own were in the first instance bought from the Arabs who regarded themselves as Syrians and who lived in the area of Israel. The only property that was confiscated was confiscated as a spoil of the aggressive war that five Arab states waged against Israel from the day of its birth. Five Arab armies invaded Israel, a sovereign state, with the declared intent of “pushing the Jews into the sea.” The cry today of the Muslim majority in the Middle East is to “liberate Palestine from the river to the sea.” In other words push the Jews into the sea.

By the standards of occupation and legitimacy Jimmy Carter invokes, Israel has more legitimacy as a Jewish state than Texas does as an American state, rather than a Mexican province.

The fifth Jimmy Carter lie in this lone Jimmy Carter sentence is the claim that the Jews have colonized anything. “The Israelis have built more than 200 settlements inside Palestine.”

Why is it wrong of the Jews to live in the West Bank? (The 7000 Jews of Gaza, of course, have already been expunged as result of the Arabs’ genocidal hate.) Why can’t Jews have settlements in the West Bank?

The answer is because the Palestinians Arabs are filled with a racist and theocratic hate towards the Jews. They can’t tolerate a non-Muslim, non-Arab people --however small a minority -- living in their midst. (The 7000 Jews of Gaza – out of a population of 1.2 million – were law-abiding and peaceful and created a horticultural industry that produced ten percent of Gaza’s gross national product. But they were Jews. And that was intolerable to Palestine’s Nazis. So they had to be removed.)

Contrast Carter’s attack on Jews living in the West bank as “colonizers” who must be expelled with the fact that more than a million Arabs live in Israel, where Israel provides them with more rights – including the right to vote and elect Arab members of Israel’s government – than any Arab who lives in any Arab state in the Middle East.

There is indeed a wall now between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. But it is not a wall to keep Arabs out of Israel because they are Arab, as Carter maliciously maintains. There are more than a million Arabs living in Israel. There are indeed checkpoints in the West Bank and into Israel and obstacles to Palestinians crossing them. But this is not because the Israelis discriminate against Palestinians because they are Muslims or Arabs.

It is because too many Palestinians have shown themselves to be bloodthirsty, murderers who have been indoctrinated by their religious leaders and their government to believe in a sick Islamic fantasy that it is their Muslim duty to kill Jews by blowing themselves up; and that, if they do so, they will go to heaven along with 70 members of their family; and, that, if they are lucky enough to be male they will be rewarded by 72 virgins on the other side.

On this side they will be regarded as martyrs and saints and honored by their government. Sixty-percent of Palestinians support suicide bombing and this sick, genocidal agenda – which is shared by all members of the Palestinians’ democratically elected government – to kill the Jews.

To ignore these facts and to invert them, as Jimmy Carter does, is to mark yourself as a moral defective.

To take on as a mission the spreading of lies that enable Islamic Nazis to carry out their final solution is the epitome of the evil that America’s fifth column left and its reprehensible ex-President represent in our time.

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Frank Barone has Died

Peter Boyle, better known as Frank Barone on TV's 'Everybody Loves Raymond,' my all time favorite sitcom, has died. He was 71. Fox News has the story.

McCain's Anti-Internet Usage Bills

Senator and presidential hopeful John McCain of Arizona recently introduced two bills to the senate to suppress online Internet usage. Under the guise of helping curb child pornography and exploitation, the bills would force websites, including blogs, chat rooms and social networking sites, to remove any members or material deemed inappropriate, including discussions on the topics. CNet reports.

McCain's website lists the two bills here and here.
In theory the idea to force registered sex offenders to register their Internet activity is an interesting concept, however, it does appear to cross the line of our personal freedoms, to the point of censorship. The first bill can be read here.

The fact that McCain is teaming with Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on the second bill should be cause to worry for any Internet using, freedom loving American.

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

The Newest Member of the Blogosphere

Everyone's favorite ousted Republican from Texas has joined the blogging community. Tom DeLay launched his blog on Monday. Should be some interesting reading.

In other news, the Christian Embassy in Washington has this video on their website that is stirring up all kinds of controversy. I guess they didn't get the memo that you're not supposed to be Christian and work on the Hill. Insert sarcasm here. Glad to see that some people still believe they can put their faith into practice in politics. Note to the ACLU...the separation of Church and State was designed to protect the Church from the State, not the other way around!

Islam as Heresy & the Endless Jihad

Two excellent articles on Islam, the enduring heresy from a Catholic perspective, can be found here, and the endless jihad from a muslem worldview, here.
Thanks to Catholic Answers for these great articles.

Monday, December 11, 2006

Iran Students Heckle Ahmadinejad

Breitbart news reports that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was heckled by a group of students during a speech at a Tehran university recently.

If the US could somehow tap into these disgruntled groups of students or others and support them, it would be a significant help in undermining the radical Islamic ideas set forth by Ahmadinejad.

UPDATE: Gateway Pundit lists all the latest and Hotair has the video via fox.

Islam Gets Concessions; Infidels Get Conquered

By Raymond Ibrahim
December 5, 2006

IN THE DAYS before Pope Benedict XVI's visit last Thursday to the Hagia Sophia complex in Istanbul, Muslims and Turks expressed fear, apprehension and rage. "The risk," according to Turkey's independent newspaper Vatan, "is that Benedict will send Turkey's Muslims and much of the Islamic world into paroxysms of fury if there is any perception that the pope is trying to re-appropriate a Christian center that fell to Muslims." Apparently making the sign of the cross or any other gesture of Christian worship in Hagia Sophia constitutes such a sacrilege.

Built in the 6th century, Hagia Sophia — Greek for "Holy Wisdom" — was Christendom's greatest and most celebrated church. After parrying centuries of jihadi thrusts from Arabs, Constantinople — now Istanbul — was finally sacked by Turks in 1453, and Hagia Sophia's crosses were desecrated, its icons defaced. Along with thousands of other churches in the Byzantine Empire, it was immediately converted into a mosque, the tall minarets of Islam surrounding it in triumph. Nearly 500 years later, in 1935, as part of reformer Kemal Ataturk's drive to modernize Turkey, Hagia Sophia was secularized and transformed into a museum.

Protests aimed at keeping the pope out of Hagia Sophia rocked Istanbul right up to the morning of his visit to the site. Contrast that intolerance with the tolerance granted Muslims in regard to the Al Aqsa mosque — this time, an Islamic site in Jerusalem annexed by Judaism. Unlike the permanent Muslim desecration of Hagia Sophia, after Israel's victory in the 1967 war, the Jews did not deface or convert the mosque into a Jewish synagogue or temple, even though the Al Aqsa mosque is deliberately built atop the remains of the Temple Mount, the holiest site of Judaism and, by extension, an important site for Christians. Moreover, since reclaiming the Temple Mount, Israel has granted Muslims control over the Al Aqsa mosque (except during times of crises).

All this illustrates the privileged status that many Muslims expect in the international arena. When Muslims conquer non-Muslim territories — such as Constantinople, not to mention all of North Africa, Spain and southwest Asia — those whom they have conquered as well as their descendants are not to expect any apologies, let alone political or territorial concessions.

Herein lies the conundrum. When Islamists wage jihad — past, present and future — conquering and consolidating non-Muslim territories and centers in the name of Islam, never once considering to cede them back to their previous owners, they ultimately demonstrate that they live by the age-old adage "might makes right." That's fine; many people agree with this Hobbesian view.

But if we live in a world where the strong rule and the weak submit, why is it that whenever Muslim regions are conquered, such as in the case of Palestine, the same Islamists who would never concede one inch of Islam's conquests resort to the United Nations and the court of public opinion, demanding justice, restitutions, rights and so forth?

Put another way, when Muslims beat infidels, it's just too bad for the latter; they must submit to their new overlords' rules with all the attendant discrimination and humiliation mandated for non-Muslims. Yet when Islam is beaten, demands for apologies and concessions are expected from the infidel world at large.

Double standards do not make for international justice. Either territorial conquests are always unjust and should therefore be ameliorated through concessions, or else they are merely a manifestation of the natural order of things — that is, survival of the fittest.

If some Muslims wish to wage eternal jihad until Islam dominates the globe, they are only being true to Islam and its doctrines as they understand it. However, in that case, where the world is divided into two warring camps, Islam and Infidelity — or, in Islamic terms, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War — how can these Muslims expect any concessions from the international community? The natural conclusion of the view that "might makes right" is "to the victor go the spoils."

The fact that Turkey conquered Constantinople more than 500 years ago does not prevent the Turkish government from returning Hagia Sophia to Christendom today, which would undoubtedly be a great gesture. But of course that can never be. The Muslim world would undergo a "paroxysm of fury" if a Christian pope dares pray in the conquered church; what would the Muslim world do if Hagia Sophia were actually converted back to a church?

But perhaps Muslims cannot be blamed for expecting special treatment, as well as believing that jihad is righteous and decreed by the Almighty. The West constantly goes out of its way to confirm such convictions. By criticizing itself, apologizing and offering concessions — all things the Islamic world has yet to do — the West reaffirms that Islam has a privileged status in the world.

And what did the pope do in his controversial visit to Hagia Sophia? He refrained from any gesture that could be misconstrued as Christian worship and merely took in the sights of the museum. Moreover, when he was invited into the Blue Mosque nearby, he respectfully took off his shoes and prayed, eyes downcast, standing next to the the grand mufti of Istanbul like a true dhimmi — a subdued non-Muslim living under Islamic law and acknowledging Islamic superiority.

And therein is the final lesson. Muslims' zeal for their holy places and lands is not intrinsically blameworthy. Indeed, there's something to be said about being passionate and protective of one's own. Here the secular West — Christendom's prodigal son and true usurper — can learn something from Islam. For whenever and wherever the West concedes ideologically, politically and especially spiritually, Islam will be sure to conquer. If might does not make right, zeal apparently does.

Friday, December 8, 2006

Feast of the Immaculate Conception

Today is the Roman Catholic feast day of the Immaculate Conception. Want to understand it a little better? Read here.

Facing Evil

Facing Evil

Melissa Lang

The problem is people today, pretend not to know the difference between good and evil, even after 9/11. Morality is now politically incorrect; the homosexuals, the abortion party, the race baiters, the celebricrats would all have to come to terms with right and wrong which eventually becomes a choice between good and evil. They are not willing to face it in their own lives, so they refuse to face it on a national or international level.

Wednesday, December 6, 2006

The Iraq Study Group Reports

The Iraq Study Group has finally compiled their report. Of course they recommended the worst course of action, opening up talks with Iran and Syria. Right Wing Nut House and the Counterterroism Blog have a couple of excellent posts on the matter.

Want a good read on the reality of what's going on in Iraq and at home? Andrew C. McCarthy has a great one here about fighting the real war.

Senator Rick Santorum delivered a speech back on October 30 about terrorism and the state of national security in the US. I just stumbled across the transcript here and it is a great example of statesmanship, something that more people should be saying.

Tuesday, December 5, 2006

The Anti-Islamofascism Movement

I'm a little late in posting about this but Jack Wheeler has created a great concept to help stamp out the Islamofacists. A similar movement was used during the Cold War. Read all about it here.

White And Nerdy From Weird Al

This is hilarious, certainly a nice break from the negativity of everything in the news lately.
White and Nerdy

Monday, December 4, 2006

The Fraud of Ancher Babies


By: Dr. Jack Wheeler

The myth of Birthright Citizenship is one of the more extraordinary frauds committed in America today. Liberals insist that the "Citizenship Clause" of the 14th Amendment - which states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" - means that children of illegal aliens born on US soil automatically are US citizens.

The 14th Amendment means no such thing. When it was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves, the Citizenship Clause's author, Senator Jacob Howard, made it explicitly clear that the clause did not apply to "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States."

The key phrase of the clause is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The primary author of the entire 14th Amendment, Senator John Bingham, stated, "I find no fault with the introductory (Citizenship) Clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."

This meaning was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins (1884), which determined that the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" explicitly excluded "citizens of foreign states born within the United States."

In other words, an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby. Illegal aliens from Mexico do not owe allegiance to America. Their children, if born in the US, thus have no constitutional right to US citizenship.

These children are known as "anchor babies," as under the 1965 Immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. They are thus a major contributor to the flood of illegal invasion into America.

Current estimates are that 300,000 anchor babies are born in the United States every year now to illegal alien mothers. The cost of providing government services such as health and education for them at taxpayer expense is in the billions each year.

To help stop this invasion, to stop this misinterpretation of the Constitution, Congressman Nathan Deal (R-GA), along with 84 co-sponsors, has introduced HR 698 into Congress: The Citizenship Reform Act. Its purpose is to "deny automatic citizenship at birth to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens."

The 85 Congressional sponsors of the Citizenship Reform Act, after thorough legal consultation, are convinced the problem of anchor babies can be solved legislatively, and does not require a constitutional amendment.

Democrats do not want the bill passed, as the more anchor babies, the more illegal relatives enter the US, the more welfare programs are needed to take care of them, the more government workers hired to administer the programs, all resulting in more Democrat voters.

"Moderate" Republicans are afraid the bill will "alienate" certain voters. Being spineless, their fear controls them.

Yet a growing number of people in Congress are heeding the demands of the great majority of American citizens to end the outrage of birthright citizenship. The prospects of passage for HR 698 are thus growing with them.

As Congressman Deal explains:

The Supreme Court has never gone so far as to suggest that a foreign national with no lawful connection to our nation ought to be able to confer citizenship on their child on the basis of a decision to violate our immigration laws. Someone with no legal equities or any legal duties to the United States is in no position to lay claim to the ultimate prize of citizenship on behalf of their offspring.

You might consider calling your Congressman's local district office and asking if he or she is a co-sponsor of HR 698, and that you won't vote for them if they are not.

An Oldie but a Goodie

I just stumbled across this great article about Oriana Fallaci, the famed Italian journalist who died of cancer back in September. I found it a fascinating read and thought I'd pass it on.

The Latest on the Flying Imams

Pajamas Media reports the latest info on the flying imams, including the official police report and an eye witness account. This certainly doesn't sound like they were just innocent passengers flying home to me.

UPDATE: Powerline has posted more info from the Minneapolis airport police.

Thursday, November 30, 2006

The Koran to Replace the Bible?

Thanks to the American Family Association and Townhall for this story.

America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on
By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

A Palestinian woman holds the Koran during a Hamas rally against Israeli troops operation in northern Gaza strip November 3, 2006. Israeli troops shot and killed two Palestinian women acting as human shields between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian gunmen during a clash at a Gaza mosque on Friday, witnesses said, before the gunmen escaped. REUTERS/Mohammed Salem (GAZA)

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?

Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.

So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath?

The answer is obvious -- Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.

This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).

But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.

When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America. But if it is, it is not only Europe that is in trouble.

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

The Letter From Little Hitler

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has written a letter to the American people. He is using our own media to undermine our government and try to spread his own absurd views by causing division within ourselves. As if we don't have enough problems or differences to worry about we have to put up with this crap! Enough I say!
Fox News has put up a forum for Americans to write letters to this little Hitler and they will post them on their website. Email letters here.

In other news...Al-Qaida has denounced the Pope's visit to Turkey, calling it a "crusader campaign" against Islam. Now who would have expected this, radical terrorist muslims denouncing the holiest man alive?

Now the Christians Want to Forsake Christianity

Lee Camp, a theologian from David Lipscomb University in Nashville says that Christians must 'let go' of some beliefs for the sake of peace by forsaking the Christian model. Read the entire article here. A historically conservative Church of Christ university, Lipscomb appears to be falling into the politically correct trap of muslim appeasement.

Monday, November 27, 2006

I Always Knew There Were Huge Differences

Most people know from basic observation that there is a substantial difference between men and women, well, this study proves it. Apparently, women talk three times as much as men do, engage more brain power during mundane chit-chat, and get a rush from hearing their own voices that compares to heroin addicts when they get high.
The study also said that the brain's "sex processor" is twice as large in men as in women.
So I guess you could say that for women talking is like having sex?

Friday, November 24, 2006

Down Your Throat and in Your Face?

Down Your Throat and In Your Face?

The debate about same-sex “marriage” is often reduced to outrage toward those who dare offer opposition. Rarely is there a calm debate over the real issues involved.

Instead, pro-family promoters are brutally stereotyped as hate-filled Bible-thumping conservatives who are attempting to push their narrow-minded beliefs down the throats of all in society. Their in-your-face attitude is labeled dangerous and irrational.

It is ironic that those liberals who rail against stereotyping should be so ardent in practicing it. Even a most elementary reading of most serious pro-family materials would be enough to dismiss such stereotypes. Even worse is the fact that the use of this stereotype has become a battering ram against those who would dare oppose any aspect of the homosexual agenda.

In face of such irrational attacks, perhaps it would be helpful to analyze not the pro-family arguments but the stereotype. Are all those opposed to same-sex “marriage” really hate-filled Bible-thumping conservatives attempting to push their narrow-minded beliefs down the throats of all in society?

Down Your Throat

Perhaps the most blatantly false part of the portrayal is the idea that social conservatives are forcing their agenda down the throats of Americans. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is a technical impossibility since one cannot impose something that is already in place.

In the case of same-sex “marriage,” all conservative Americans are doing is reaffirming the status quo. They are affirming something that is the norm. In the case of Catholic Americans, they are affirming a position that has been consistently taught by Church fathers and saints for 2,000 years.

Exclusive traditional marriage is the law of the land. This law has been further enshrined by popular acclamation in a Federal Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Bill Clinton defining marriage as between a man and a woman. State versions of this act were later adopted by forty states. Taking the law of the land yet further, traditional marriage constitutional amendments have been overwhelmingly approved in 27 American states. Family advocates merely affirm what is already in place. In other words, nothing is being imposed.

That is not the case on the side of same-sex “marriage” advocates. They are in fact proposing something completely new. A tiny minority is claiming as a right something that has never been accepted or established in history. Since it is not the law of the land, they are seeking to change the laws to fit their agenda. They avoid at all cost bringing the issue to a popular vote. More often than not, it is the activism of judges that force acceptance. In other words, same-sex “marriage” is being imposed on society by the homosexual movement and its allies.

Regardless of one’s stand, one has to admit that if anyone is forcing something down the throat of America, it is the same-sex “marriage” promoters.

To extend the argument yet further, it is worthwhile to note that social conservatives are also affirming the scientific status quo. There is no scientific evidence to support the thesis that homosexuality is genetic. Scientists have searched in vain for a homosexual gene. When family promoters point this out, they are simply presenting the evidence not their own opinions.

Again, the other side does the exact opposite. Many pro-homosexual individuals simply deny the scientific record and gratuitously affirm that homosexuality is genetic because they feel it is that way. In other words, their down-your-throat approach is to present their own opinions as scientific fact.


Another common misconception by those who do the stereotyping is that pro-family promoters based their position solely on the Bible. Pro-homosexual activists contend that since some Americans do not believe in the Bible, all such arguments are invalid.

Again, the reasoning is flawed. Indeed, the Bible is full of quotes that unequivocally oppose homosexual relations, revisionist exegeses notwithstanding. Pro-family promoters undeniably find these citations helpful in countering same-sex marriage. Religious and moral arguments are very important in the debate but they are far from being the only resource.

Pro-family supporters meet the opposition on every major field of argument. In the field of philosophy, they defend a long Western tradition of natural law, written on the hearts of all men, from which is built a morality of unchangeable laws. These laws are the same, always and everywhere and the basis of law in civilized society.

From the point of view of social science, social conservatives point out the factors of the homosexual lifestyle which disqualifies them for marriage. They cite, for example, the sterility of these relationships and the promiscuous lifestyles often adopted by those in so-called stable relationships who see no contradiction between monogamy and infidelity.

Across the board, the homosexual lifestyle presents greater risks in everything that makes for a healthy family. Pro-family scholars document high indexes of health problems, infectious social diseases, mental health problems, alcoholism, drug use, suicide rates, domestic abuse, and child abuse.

At the same time, thousands of studies have been produced in many disciplines that prove the overwhelming benefits of traditional marriage to child well-being. They prove that marriage is more than a private emotional relationship; it is an undeniable social good that best protects the interest of the child, family and society.

The fact is that the social conservatives base their positions on much more than just the Bible. In every major field and discipline, they have gathered material to support their position.

On the other side, the same quality of research is not often found. For example, studies seeking to prove that sexual orientation in family life is irrelevant have consistently suffered from design flaws, methodological problems and lack of long term evidence. The homosexual movement has often used misinformation, false premises and shoddy pop science like that of the late Alfred Kinsey. At times “evidence” consists of sentimental vignettes and emotionally charged prime time network reports.

Hateful Christians?

Finally there is the claim that social conservatives opposing same-sex marriage are hateful and uncharitable. Such accusations themselves are ironically often couched in passionate condemning diatribes.

Again, such characterizations are unjust. Those opposing same-sex marriage have no intention to defame or disparage anyone. No one is moved by personal hatred against any individual. In intellectually opposing individuals or organizations promoting the homosexual agenda, the sole intent of social conservatives is the defense of marriage, the family, and the precious remnants of Christian civilization in society.

In fact, far from being hateful, practicing Catholics are called to be filled with compassion and pray for those who struggle against unrelenting and violent temptation to sin, be it toward homosexual sin or otherwise. They pray for those who fall into homosexual sin out of human weakness, that God may assist them with His grace. They pray for the conversion of those radical activists pushing the homosexual agenda, even when doing everything permitted by law to block their efforts.

Down your throat and in your face? The evidence points to the other side.

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Happy Thanksgiving!

Father, please accept our thanks today,
as round this table here we pause to pray;
Grateful hearts are warmed as we recall,
'tis from Thy bounty that our blessings fall.
This gladsome feast with loved ones now to share,
is but a measure of Thy tender care.

Bless us oh Lord, and these thy gifts which we are about to receive, from thy bounty, through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Please Boycott, Nothing Would Make Americans Happier!

Normally I am not a huge fan of Ann Coulter as she can be a little over the top, but she wrote a great piece on her blog today about the 6 imams booted off a US Airways flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix.

November 22, 2006

Six imams removed from a US Airways flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix are calling on Muslims to boycott the airline. If only we could get Muslims to boycott all airlines, we could dispense with airport security altogether.

Witnesses said the imams stood to do their evening prayers in the terminal before boarding, chanting "Allah, Allah, Allah" — coincidentally, the last words heard by hundreds of airline passengers on 9/11 before they died.

Witnesses also said that the imams were talking about Saddam Hussein, and denouncing America and the war in Iraq. About the only scary preflight ritual the imams didn't perform was the signing of last wills and testaments.

After boarding, the imams did not sit together and some asked for seat belt extensions, although none were morbidly obese. Three of the men had one-way tickets and no checked baggage.

Also they were Muslims.

The idea that a Muslim boycott against US Airways would hurt the airline proves that Arabs are utterly tone-deaf. This is roughly the equivalent of Cindy Sheehan taking a vow of silence. How can we hope to deal with people with no sense of irony? The next thing you know, New York City cab drivers will be threatening to bathe.

Come to think of it, the whole affair may have been a madcap advertising scheme cooked up by US Airways.

It worked with me. US Airways is my official airline now. Northwest, which eventually flew the Allah-spouting Muslims to their destinations, is off my list. You want to really hurt a U.S. air carrier's business? Have Muslims announce that it's their favorite airline.

The clerics had been attending an imam conference in Minneapolis (imam conference slogan: "What Happens in Minneapolis — Actually, Nothing Happened in Minneapolis"). But instead of investigating the conference, the government is now investigating my favorite airline.

What threat could Muslims flying from Minnesota to Arizona be?

Three of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 received their flight training in Arizona. Long before the attacks, an FBI agent in Phoenix found it curious that so many Arabs were enrolled in flight school. But the FBI rebuffed his request for an investigation on the grounds that his suspicions were based on the same invidious racial profiling that has brought US Airways under investigation and into my good graces.

Lynne Stewart's client, the Blind Sheik, Omar Abdel-Rahman, is serving life in prison in a maximum security lock-up in Minnesota. One of the six imams removed from the US Airways plane was blind, so Lynne Stewart was the one missing clue that would have sent all the passengers screaming from the plane.

Wholly apart from the issue of terrorism, don't we have a seller's market for new immigrants? How does a blind Muslim get to the top of the visa list? Is there a shortage of blind, fanatical clerics in this country that I haven't noticed? Couldn't we get some Burmese with leprosy instead? A 4-year-old could do a better job choosing visa applicants than the U.S. Department of Immigration.

One of the stunt-imams in US Airways' advertising scheme, Omar Shahin, complained about being removed from the plane, saying: "Six scholars in handcuffs. It's terrible."

Yes, especially when there was a whole conference of them! Six out of 150 is called "poor law enforcement." How did the other 144 "scholars" get off so easy?

Shahin's own "scholarship" consisted of continuing to deny Muslims were behind 9/11 nearly two months after the attacks. On Nov. 4, 2001, The Arizona Republic cited Shahin's "skepticism that Muslims or bin Laden carried out attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon." Shahin complained that the government was "focusing on the Arabs, the Muslims. And all the evidence shows that the Muslims are not involved in this terrorist act."

In case your memory of that time is hazy, within three days of the attack, the Justice Department had released the names of all 19 hijackers — names like Majed Moqed, Ahmed Alghamdi, Mohand Alshehri, Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi and Ahmed Alnami. The government had excluded all but 19 passengers as possible hijackers based on extensive interviews with friends and family of nearly every passenger on all four flights. Some of the hijackers' seat numbers had been called in by flight attendants on the planes.

By early October, bin Laden had produced a videotape claiming credit for the attacks. And by Nov. 4, 2001, The New York Times had run well over 100 articles on the connections between bin Laden and the hijackers — even more detailed and sinister than the Times' flowcharts on neoconservatives!

Also, if I remember correctly, al-Qaida had taken out full-page ads in Variety and the Hollywood Reporter thanking their agents for the attacks.

But now, on the eve of the busiest travel day in America, these "scholars" have ginned up America's PC victim machinery to intimidate airlines and passengers from noticing six imams chanting "Allah" before boarding a commercial jet.

Thursday, November 16, 2006

A Legend has Died

The Cato Institute reports that Economic Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman has died, he was 94.

While in college studying economics, my professors regarded Friedman as a living legend, someone who had revolutionized economic thought, impacting both the Reagan administration and the Thatcher government. The world has lost a true genius today.

The Kurdish Key to the Middle East


Dr. Jack Wheeler

Among the most fascinating folks in the world are people known as the Kurds. They are older than history. The Land of Kurda is mentioned in Sumerian clay tablets - the world's oldest writing - over 5,000 years ago. The Land of Kurda - Kurdistan - was ancient five millennia ago.

The Kurds had been living there for thousands of years before 3,000 BC - and they are still living there today, in the mountains of what is now northwestern Iran, northern Iraq, northeastern Syria, and southeastern Turkey.

They number in the tens of millions - five million in Iraq, ten million in Iran, three million in Syria, between twenty and thirty million in Turkey. They are by far the largest ethnic group on earth without their own country.

This has always made them a threat to the countries that divide up their homeland of Kurdistan. Always. The Kurds have been fighting the Persians for 2,500 years, the Arabs for 1,300 years, the Turks for 500 years. Western governments look upon the Kurds as a problem which threatens to break apart the fragile map of the Middle East into chaotic pieces:

Now at last, the time has arrived to look upon the Kurds as an opportunity rather than a threat, not as a problem but a solution. The emerging reality is that the Kurds are the key to peace, freedom, and democracy throughout the entire Middle East.

I am writing this in the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world - Arbil in northern Iraq. Unlike other claimants to that title such as Damascus and Jericho, Arbil has been continuously inhabited for millennia by the same people, the Kurds. ("Arbil" or "Irbil" is the name on the map, it's Saddam-era Arabic name. The original Kurdish name is Hewlar, pronounced how-lair.)

Every day in the newspapers there are headlines about "the civil war in Iraq." There is no civil war here, in Iraqi Kurdistan. There is no terrorism, no IED attacks, no car bombings, no suicide bombers, no gangs of Shia murderers slitting the throats of Sunnis and vice versa.

In their place is a construction boom. Everywhere you look in Arbil ( a city of close to two million) and Iraqi Kurdistan's second largest city, Sulaymanieh (over one million), you see built or being built beautiful new homes, office buildings, hotels, car dealerships, and shopping malls.

The "civil war" is taking place in the Sunni and Shia regions of tripartite Iraq. It is the third part, Kurdish Iraq, that is holding Iraq together. The Kurds are already the key to keeping Iraq intact. When is it going to dawn on Washington that they are the key to solving the Middle East's other intractable problems?

It won't until it somehow acquires the wisdom to support Kurds in Iran - there are twice as many Kurds in Iran as in Iraq - struggling to liberate Eastern (Iranian) Kurdistan from the nightmare tyranny of the Mullacracy in Tehran. Kurds like Hussein Yazdanpanah, leader of the Revolutionary Union of Kurdistan (RUK) whose guerrilla fighters have been conducting anti-mullacracy activities for a generation.

I am writing this in his home. I am looking at a photograph on the wall of his dining room. It was taken in 1980, after Ayatollah Khomeini declared a Holy War on the Kurds for not accepting his dictatorship.

An execution squad of Khomeini soldiers are kneeling and firing their rifles point blank at a line of Kurdish captives. Several of the Kurds have just been hit, and you see their knees buckling and their bodies thrown back with the shock of the bullets. They are Hussein Yazdanpanah's relatives.

His family has been fighting the Mullacracy since its inception in 1979. But actually, his family has been fighting for Kurdish freedom for the last 500 years.

Note what they and Kurds in general have not been fighting for: Islam.

Kurds are reluctant Moslems, who recite to their children stories of how Islam was forced upon their ancestors by Arab conquerors in the 7th century. They pay literal lip service to Allah, mouthing prayers in Koranic Arabic they don't understand. The ancient Kurdish language is far, far different from Arabic - thus while many Kurds also speak colloquial Arabic, very few of them read the classical Arabic of the Koran.

It is the month of Ramadan right now, a time of fasting and religious observance, but many young Kurds are ignoring it. That's here, in Iraqi or "South" Kurdistan (southwestern Turkey is North Kurdistan, while eastern Syria is West Kurdistan).

In Iranian or East Kurdistan, belief in Islam is collapsing. The mullacracy has disgraced Islam in the eyes of young eastern Kurds and are thus rejecting it en masse.

More and more, they are returning to their original religion of Zoroastrianism. "Zoroaster" is the Anglicized pronunciation of Zardasht, a religious teacher from the Urumia area (now in Eastern Kurdistan near where Turkey, Iraq, and Iran come together) who lived around 1200 BC.

He taught that the earth was the battleground between the forces of good, represented by the god Yazdan (also named Ahura-Mazda), and the forces of evil, represented by the god Ahriman. The way to overcome evil and to take the path to heaven, he counseled was Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds.

Cyrus I (590-529 BC), founder of the Persian Empire, adopted the worship of Zardasht or Zoroaster and declared it to be the state religion of Persia. The Three Magi who visit the infant Jesus in the manger at Bethlehem in the Book of Matthew were Zoroastrians.

In the mid-7th century AD, the invading Arab hordes forced the Kurds and Persians to abandon their religion and accept Islam at the point of a sword. After 13 centuries, that sword has lost its edge for the Kurds as they return to their ancient faith.

One of them is Hussein Yazdanpanah, whose name means "Under the shadow (protection) of God."

Yes, there are mosques and minarets and muezzins calling people to prayer here in Iraqi Kurdistan. You see older women (although never the younger) wearing a nun-like black cloak called a hijab. But Kurds take their ethnic identity as primary. Their religion comes in second.

Thus the Kurds have a long, long history of religious tolerance. Adherents of a religious sect formed of a mix of paganism, Zoroastrianism, and Islam known as the Yezidis flourish among them. Their often-odd beliefs such as proscriptions against wearing the color blue and never eating lettuce are easily accepted.

The descendants of the Empire of Assyria that reached its peak in the 7th century BC adopted Christianity in 3rd and 4th centuries AD. The Christian Assyrian community has been a part of Kurdish culture ever since. There are a number of Christian churches of varying denominations here in Hewler (Arbil) and elsewhere in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Yet for all of this, just about no one in Washington seems able to apply it to Iran.

It's not just the invertebrates of the State Department allergic to regime change in principal - it's even astute folks like Charles Krauthammer and Fred Barnes who say on Fox News they don't know of an alternative to the only choices they see: militarily attack Iran or capitulate to the Mullacracy and make the best deal we can.

They, like most everyone else, are unaware of the potential of the Kurds to liberate Iran. It's not just that Eastern or Iranian Kurdistan is exploding with dissent, or even that liberation movements like the RUK and KDPI (Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran) are organizing that dissent.

It's that the Eastern Kurds are not demanding secession from Iran, but autonomy within a federated Iran - just like what the Southern or Iraqi Kurds have achieved in Iraq.

They realize that the dream of an independent, united Kurdistan - North (Turkey), South (Iraq), West (Syria), and East (Iran) Kurdistan all in one sovereign nation carved out of the map of the Middle East, is just that - a dream.

The reason is Turkey. The Kurds of Iran, Iraq, and Syria are grossly outnumbered by the Kurds of Turkey and have no wish to be dominated by them. In a fully united Kurdistan, they would be.

Worse, the Kurds of Turkey are plagued with a totalitarian Marxist terrorist organization called the PKK, the Kurdish Workers Party.

Everyone here in Iraqi Kurdistan, every liberation movement in Iranian Kurdistan, hates the PKK. Originally set up by KGB agent Yevgeni Primakov in the 1970s and sponsored by the Soviets to destabilize NATO-member Turkey, the PKK is now sponsored by the Mullacracy of Iran. The main base of the PKK with several thousand PKK guerrillas, is near Urumia in Iran near the Turkish Border.

A liberated Iran would end this support, and the Iraqi and Iranian Kurds could then help the Turkish Kurds eradicate the PKK and bring autonomy to a Turkish Kurdistan within a fully democratic Turkey. (Turkey doesn't even recognize the existence of their Kurds, calling them "Mountain Turks." All attempts to have Kurdish schools, newspapers, and other expressions of Kurdish identity are brutally suppressed.)

Even with that eventuality, Iranian Kurds have no intention of merging with Turkish Kurds who outnumber them so greatly. Thus support from the United States - money, military and political training, supplies - for them represents the third alternative, the way out of the dilemma to attacking or capitulating to the Mullacracy.

In an attempt to find out how viable this third alternative is, I am about to be taken inside Iran with a group of RUK guerrillas. Surreptitiously crossing a heavily-guarded border with armed guerrillas is not something to be undertaken lightly. But it is the only way to see for oneself.

Next week, I'll tell you what I experienced, and then we can discuss further how the Kurds are the key to achieving freedom in Iran and democracy in the Middle East. In the meantime.... Wish me luck.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

The Artist Formally Known as Cat Stevens

Remember when Cat Stevens was denied entry into the United States in 2004 after his name appeared on the "no fly list"? Well, it appears he might be more deserving of that distinction then originally thought. View the article here. Thanks to the Mudville Gazette for the original link to the post.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

What President Bush Should be Saying

Diane West has a great two-part article about what President Bush should be saying about Islam. View the originals here, and here.

What President Bush should say to us:
By Diana West

If this were a sane world, this is what we would hear during the president's next address to the nation:

My fellow Americans.

President Bush pauses before the start of a meeting with the Homeland Security Team at the National Counterterrorism Center on Tuesday, Aug. 15, 2006 in McLean, Va. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

I come to you now, gravely aware that what I am about to say will radically change the course of what we have, for nearly five long years now, called the war on terror.

For almost as long as I have held this office, I have been leading this war. On my watch, the United States sent troops into Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban and drive Al Qaeda from the safe haven it used to plan attacks on our country. On my watch, we sent troops into Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein and break this link in the terrorism food chain. On my watch, the United States spearheaded an ambitious drive to bring democracy to regions of the Middle and Near East as part of an effort to touch brutalized peoples with the salve of freedom and see them recover their free will, forever strengthened by what we in America prize as God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I made this democratization process the centerpiece of my second term, the core of my political strategy against global terrorism, because history has taught us that democracies don't make war, or support terrorist attacks, on one another. I didn't, as one predecessor of mine famously put it, simply want "to make the world safe for democracy." I wanted to make the world -- that part of the world from which terrorism mainly springs -- democratic, and therefore, safe.

Over the past few years, then, the United States has supported fledgling democracies in Afghanistan Iraq and the Palestinian Authority. We have proudly assisted in making free and fair elections possible in these places, and with excellent results -- at least with regard to the freeness and the fairness of the elections. But the fact is, when these peoples have spoken, what we have heard, or should have been hearing, in the expression of their collective will is that the mechanics of democracy alone (one citizen, one vote) do not automatically manufacture democrats -- if by democrats we mean citizens who believe first and foremost in the kind of liberty that guarantees freedom of conscience and equality before the law.

On the contrary, each of these new democracies has produced constitutions that enshrine Islamic law. Because Islamic law, known as "sharia," does not permit equality between the sexes or among religions, it is anything but what we in American consider "democratic." Indeed, sharia law endows Muslims, and Muslim men in particular, with a superior position in society. It also outlaws words and deeds that oppose this inequitable power structure for being "un-Islamic." From this same Islamic legal tradition comes the mandate for jihad (holy war, usually against non-Muslims) and dhimmitude, the official state of inferiority of non-Muslims under Islam.

With their devotion to Islamic tradition, then, these new democracies have, in effect, peacefully voted themselves into the same doctrinal camp as the many terror groups that violently strike at the non-Muslim world in the name of jihad for the sake of a caliphate -- a Muslim world government ruled according to sharia.

So be it. What I mean by that is, it is neither in the national interest nor in the national will for the United States of America to attempt to reshape such a culture to conform to our notions of liberty and justice for all. It is neither in the national interest nor in the national will to attempt to reform a belief system that animates this culture to conform to our notions of freedom of worship. It is, however, in our national interest, and must become a part of our national will, to ensure that Islamic law does not come to our own shores, whether by means of violent jihad terrorism as practiced by the likes of Al Qaeda or Hezbollah, or through peaceful patterns of migration, such as those that have already Islamized large parts of Europe.

The shift I am describing -- from a pro-democracy offensive to an anti-sharia defensive -- means a national course correction. Rather than continuing to emphasize the democratization of the Muslim Middle East as our key tool in the war on terror, I will henceforth emphasize the prevention of sharia from reaching the West as our key tool in the war on terror.

This will entail the immediate adoption of the following steps.

At home, the line of defense is clear. It is our border. My new strategy calls on us to think of our border as more than just a line on a map. We need to see the border as a cultural line also, a defining line of freedom against proponents of Shariah, which, I cannot emphasize enough, poses a direct threat to our founding principles of liberty and equality. It is that simple. There is a crucial military component to the anti-Shariah defensive, which I will outline momentarily. But without taking civil precautions at the border, even a decisive military victory abroad could be nullified by non-violent means at home.

How? Through largely unregulated immigration of peoples from "Shariah states" — those regions whose governing traditions derive, wholly or in some important part, from the edicts of Islam. If such an influx continues, Islamic law will be accommodated, adopted and even legislated, at least in some jurisdictions, according to majority will. We know this to be true because such a "Shariah shift" is already transforming what sociologists call post-Christian Europe into an increasingly Islamic sphere. If we do not want to see such changes here, we must act. Accordingly, I am asking Congress to amend our laws to bar further Islamic immigration, beginning with immigration from Shariah states.

This, the most crucial domestic component of my anti-Shariah program, will undoubtedly be regarded as the most controversial because it necessitates making a definitive judgment against the laws promulgated by Islam, a religion. This may appear to go against our cherished tradition of religious tolerance, not to mention good manners. But if the laws promulgated by Islam directly threaten freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and religion, women's rights, and key concepts of equality — and they do — it is a sign of intellectual rigor mortis not to say so. And I do say so, but, again, not to launch a transformative military or cultural offensive against Islam, but to initiate the mobilization of a defensive movement to prevent the Islamization of American law and liberty.

And what about Iraq? Thanks to American-led coalition troops, a Ba'athist dictatorship has been dismantled, and Iraq is a parliamentary democracy under a new constitution. It is a matter of increasing significance, however, that this new constitution, ratified by the people of Iraq, enshrines Islamic law above all. This means that when the new Iraq joined the ranks of democratic nations, it simultaneously joined the ranks of Shariah states. This may help explain widespread Iraqi sympathy for Hezbollah, for example, the Iranian-supported Shi'ite terrorist group that not only attacks American and Israeli interests, but also seeks the expansion of Shariah. It also begs the question about long-term American support: How, in the war on terrorism, can we uphold a partner that feels solidarity with terrorists?

We cannot — certainly not as a realistic war strategy to safeguard the liberty of the Free World. Once, I saw the war that began on September 11 as dividing the world between those countries that were with us, and those that were against us. I have now come to define the crisis, both cultural and military, as occurring between the Free World and the Shariah World. The centrality of Shariah in Islam is not something Americans can or should try to change. But it is not something we can ignore, either.

With this centrality in mind, our goals in the Middle East should change from, in effect, promoting Shariah-democracy to preventing the export of Shariah and terrorism to advance Shariah. Accordingly, I have directed our military to formulate a plan to redeploy American troops from Iraq's cities, where they have been operating at great risk to attain stability for the Iraqi government, to bases in the north. From there, they may assist as needed in our mission to neutralize the terrorism — and Shariah — exporting capabilities of freedom's enemies in the region. These would include nuke-seeking Iran and Syria, without whose support Hezbollah would not exist, and Saudi Arabia, from whose coffers comes global jihad.

What we call the war on terror now moves into a more focused phase, which better defines our mission and makes it more attainable. The road ahead is long and difficult, but our next steps are clear.

God bless the United States.