Strange Bedfellows: The Irony Of Transecting Agendas Between Radical Islam and The American Far Left

After hearing the transcript of the new Osama video today and thinking back at some of Ahmadinejad's more recent ramblings about the west it occurred to me just what unlikely partners they have become with what are now, the mainstream of the Left wing in our American political spectrum. What also struck me was the irony of such a union. Among other things, the enemy of my enemy is my friend came to mind. But most striking was the oft heard realization around conservative circles, that the liberals in this country would be the first to die and be persecuted were the Islamists to get their much revered Caliphate state here in the US. More specifically, were the liberals in America to win every single battle they now fight for the radical islamist here and abroad, their own values, or lack thereof would be the first casualties of the Islamist new found "Civil Liberty". Everything the left holds dear is an absolute affront to Sharia law and to Islam in general. Yet we have Osama quoting Chomsky, lamenting global warming, etc... and liberals in this country attempting to grant known terrorists Miranda rights that only united states citizens enjoy, putting Muslim foot baths in on college campuses, and fighting for designated prayer time for Muslims in schools.

The real difference is though folks, that Osama, Ahmadinejad, and their ilk are playing the libs like Clapton plays a blond strat and its working, achieving their ends. The libs however think they are appealing to the broader kinder nature of the Radical Islamist by their efforts and actions and being lead to believe by the Islamists that this is in fact working. That if we just stop fighting them and give them the "rights" they deserve, everything will be peachy keen. They really believe that this will foster a peaceful globalist society, that does not war with its neighbors and does not seek to overthrow governments and push its own agenda upon the rest of the world. As I have already supposed above however, this is simply not the case. For the Islamist, this is a mere marriage of convenience and an opportunity to decieve the enemy as they are taught to do in their most Holy books.

To close I would like to quote for you one of the most hilarious couple of lines from Osama's most recent rant. He says first, "You permitted Bush to complete his first term, and stranger still, chose him for a second term," then, "after several years of tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions".

Note the incredulity of these two statements, he is angry because his unwitting puppets have not done their job properly. Strange bedfellows indeed!

Liberals are not Christlike Part Deux

When I read this article today on CNN.com I just had to shake my head. Barak Obama on the 26th speaking at a Sunday church service in New Orleans invoked the Sermon on the mount. No not as an exhortation to believers to obey God's precepts, nor was it a call to be a doer of the Word. No, in fact of all the 20 + lessons Jesus taught on that mountain Obama managed to espouse not one of them, take an integral passage completely out of context, and miss the entire point of the sermon Jesus gave while he was at it. In fact he likened the famous passage in which Christ tells His listeners to build their houses on a Rock by being doers and not just hearers of The Word of God to our Governments lack of response during Hurricane Katrina.

Obama said:

"Getting ready to talk to you today, I recall what Jesus said at the end of the Sermon on the Mount," Obama said at New Orleans' First Emmanuel Baptist Church. "He said, whoever hears these sayings of mine and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on a rock."

"The rains descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house. But it did not fall, because it was founded on the rock," he continued.

That rock, he said, was a principal of brotherhood exemplified by the church during Hurricane Katrina — but not the federal government.

"Something was wrong in America. Our foundation wasn't built on the rock."

Now, if that isn't the biggest bit of pandering to Christians I have heard since Hillary adopted her "Southern" accent, I don't know what is. First of all, if Barak were any sort of Christian at all he would know that "The Rock" is not/was not anything even remotely related to any principal of brotherhood. the Rock is Christ Himself and The Word of God. Secondly however I do agree that something was and is wrong in America, and that our foundation is less and less these days firmly planted on The Rock, the True Living Stone "that causes men to stumble". Unfortunately, Mr Obama and his paper "Faith" with comments like this are part of the problem. It is appalling to me that someone could fear God so little as to misrepresent the very words of Christ for political gain and to further their own agenda. This Liberal hand extended to Christian voters is a joke. Again as I said in the last post, I just hope America will see through it. For now I'll just have faith that nothing is hidden from God and that the truth will be laid bare in the coming months as to where these democratic candidates really stand on issues of Faith.

Here is a link to the actual sermon broken down into teachings. Sermon On The Mount

Ann's Corner

In the latest offering from columnist Ann Coulter, she address the Baghdad Diarist...

"Various conservatives began questioning the plausibility of the anonymous diarist's account — noting, for example, that Bradley vehicles don't "swerve," as the diarist claimed. The editor of The New Republic responded by attacking the skeptics' motives, complaining that some conservatives make "a living denying any bad news that emanates from Iraq." But when that clever retort failed to quiet rumblings from the right wing, The New Republic finally revealed the "Baghdad Diarist" to be ... John Kerry! Actually it was Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, Democratic candidate for president circa 2028. (That gives him 20 years to learn to pronounce "Genghis.")"


Too classic. View the whole article here

News Busters has an article here as well

Why Liberals will never win back the religous voter

There is now and has been ever since the losses of 2004 a massive effort underway by democrats to ferret out the reasons why people of faith voted and still continue to vote Republican in very large numbers. In an article out today from Time/CNN this fact becomes totally apparent from lines like these,

"Clinton has hired Burns Strider, a congressional staffer (and evangelical Baptist from Mississippi) who is assembling a faith steering group from major denominations and sends out a weekly wrap-up, Faith, Family and Values. Edwards has been organizing conference calls with progressive religious leaders and is about to embark on a 12-city poverty tour. In the past month alone, Obama's campaign has run six faith forums in New Hampshire, where local clergy and laypeople discuss religious engagement in politics. "We talk about ways people of faith have gone wrong in the past, what they have done right and where they see it going in the future," says his faith-outreach adviser, Joshua DuBois."

Full Article at time.com


So, I think it is safe to say they are serious. But with that said, it all begs the question, why did the dems lose the faith vote in the first place? Well, speaking as a person of faith and as someone who knows many devout people of faith, we vote against them not because they do not appear religious, but because they have no Christian walk to speak of, values voters vote on the basis of #1. what have you done, #2. what are you saying you'll do and #3. have you been true to what scripture says about a particular issue? No "faith steering groups", "faith-outreach-advisor's", or "faith forums" are going to replace a simple statement of your faith as it relates to the important issues like abortion, gay marriage, poverty, immigration and education that face our nation evidenced in ...wait for it... your voting record. Yes folks, it does matter to us backward religious idiots what you actually voted for in Congress or when you were Governor, Mayor, etc... It does not matter to us how religious you appear, nor does it matter how many ordained liberal hypocrites you can get to say you are a God fearing person. It also looks especially lame and desperate to me personally that they are trying so hard, and spending so much money to win something that frankly does not take money to win, but Truth, Values and an adherence to God's sovereign word.

20 Reasons why the new immigration bill needs to go down

20 Loopholes in the Senate Immigration Bill

From the website of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R) Alabama



* Loophole 1 – Legal Status Before Enforcement:


Amnesty benefits do not wait for the “enforcement trigger.” After filing an application and waiting 24 hours, illegal aliens will receive full “probationary benefits,” complete with the ability to legally live and work in the U.S., travel outside of the U.S. and return, and their own social security card. Astonishingly, if the trigger is never met and amnesty applications are therefore never “approved,” the probationary benefits granted to the illegal alien population never expire, and the new social security cards issued to the illegal alien population are not revoked. [See pp. 1, 290-291, & 315].


* Loophole 2 – U.S. VISIT Exit Not In Trigger:


The “enforcement trigger,” required to be met before the new temporary worker program begins, does not require that the exit portion of U.S. VISIT system – the biometric border check-in/check-out system first required by Congress in 1996 that is already well past its already postponed 2005 implementation due date – to be in place before new worker or amnesty programs begin. Without the U.S. VISIT exit portion, the U.S. has no method to ensure that workers (or their visiting families) do not overstay their visas. Our current illegal population contains 4 to 5.5 million visa overstays, therefore, we know that the U.S. VISIT exit component is key to a successful new temporary worker program. [See pp. 1-2].


* Loophole 3 – Trigger Requires No More Agents, Beds, or Fencing Than Current Law:


The “enforcement trigger” does not require the Department of Homeland Security to have detention space sufficient to end “catch and release” at the border and in the interior. Even after the adoption of amendment 1172, the trigger merely requires the addition of 4,000 detention beds, bringing DHS to a 31,500 bed capacity. This is far short of the 43,000 beds required under current law to be in place by the end of 2007, or the additional 20,000 beds required later in the bill. Additionally, the bill establishes a “catch, pay, and release” program. This policy will benefit illegal aliens from countries other than Mexico that are caught at the border, then can post a $5,000 bond, be released and never show up for deportation hearings. Annual failure to appear rates for 2005 and 2006, caused in part by lack of detention space, doubled the 2004 rate (106,000 – 110,000 compared with 54,000). Claims that the bill “expands fencing” are inaccurate. The bill only requires 370 miles of fencing to be completed, while current law already mandates that more than 700 miles be constructed [See pp. 1-2, & 10-11, and EOIR’s FY2006 Statistical Yearbook, p. H2, and The Secure Fence Act of 2004].


* Loophole 4 -- Three Additional Years Worth of Illegal Aliens Granted Status, Treated Preferentially To Legal Filers:


Aliens who broke into the country illegally a mere 5 months ago, are treated better than foreign nationals who legally applied to come to the U.S. more than two years ago. Aliens who can prove they were illegally in the U.S. on January 1, 2007, are immediately eligible to apply from inside the U.S. for amnesty benefits, while foreign nationals that filed applications to come to the U.S. after May 1, 2005 must start the application process over again from their home countries. Last year’s bill required illegal aliens to have been here before January 7, 2004 to qualify for permanent legal status. [See pp. 263, 282, & 306].


* Loophole 5 – Completion of Background Checks Not Required For Probationary Legal Status:


Legal status must be granted to illegal aliens 24 hours after they file an application, even if the aliens have not yet “passed all appropriate background checks.” (Last year’s bill gave DHS 90 days to check an alien’s background before any status was granted). No legal status should be given to any illegal alien until all appropriate background checks are complete. [See pp. 290].


* Loophole 6 – Some Child Molesters Are Still Eligible:


Some aggravated felons – those who have sexually abused a minor – are eligible for amnesty. A child molester who committed the crime before the bill is enacted is not barred from getting amnesty if their conviction document omitted the age of the victim. The bill corrects this loophole for future child molesters, but does not close the loophole for current or past convictions. [See p. 47: 30-33, & p. 48: 1-2]


* Loophole 7 – Terrorism Connections Allowed, Good Moral Character Not Required:


Illegal aliens with terrorism connections are not barred from getting amnesty. An illegal alien seeking most immigration benefits must show “good moral character.” Last year’s bill specifically barred aliens with terrorism connections from having “good moral character” and being eligible for amnesty. This year’s bill does neither. Additionally, bill drafters ignored the Administration’s request that changes be made to the asylum, cancellation of removal, and withholding of removal statutes in order to prevent aliens with terrorist connections from receiving relief. [Compare §204 in S. 2611 from the 109th Congress with missing §204 on p. 48 of S.A. 1150, & see missing subsection (5) on p. 287 of S.A. 1150].


* Loophole 8 – Gang Members Are Eligible:


Instead of ensuring that members of violent gangs such as MS 13 are deported after coming out of the shadows to apply for amnesty, the bill will allow violent gang members to get amnesty as long as they “renounce” their gang membership on their application. [See p. 289: 34-36].


* Loophole 9 – Absconders Are Eligible:


Aliens who have already had their day in court – those subject to final orders of removal, voluntary departure orders, or reinstatement of their final orders of removal – are eligible for amnesty under the bill. The same is true for aliens who have made a false claim to citizenship or engaged in document fraud. More than 636,000 alien fugitives could be covered by this loophole. [See p. 285:19-22 which waives the following inadmissibility grounds: failure to attend a removal proceeding; final orders of removal for alien smuggling; aliens unlawfully present after previous immigration violations or deportation orders; and aliens previously removed. This appears to conflict with language on p. 283:40-41. When a direct conflict appears in a statute, the statue is interpreted by the courts to the benefit of the alien.].


* Loophole 10 – Learning English Not Required For A Decade:


Illegal aliens are not required to demonstrate any proficiency in English for more than a decade after they are granted amnesty. Learning English is not required for an illegal alien to receive probationary benefits, the first 4-year Z visa, or the second 4-year Z visa. The first Z visa renewal (the second 4-year Z visa) requires only that the alien demonstrate an “attempt” to learn English by being “on a waiting list for English classes.” Passing a basic English test is required only for a second Z visa renewal (the third 4-year Z visa), and even then the alien only has to pass the test “prior to the expiration of the second extension of Z status” (12 years down the road). [See pp. 295-296].


* Loophole 11 – Earned Income Tax Credit Will Cost Taxpayers Billions In Just 10 Years:


Current illegal aliens and new guest workers will be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit, a refundable tax credit designed to encourage American citizens and legal permanent residents to work. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this loophole will cost the U.S. taxpayer up to $20 billion dollars in just the first 10 years after the bill’s enactment. To be consistent with the intent of the 1996 welfare reforms – which limited new immigrants from receiving public benefits until they had been legal permanent residents for five years – the bill should withhold EITC eligibility from amnestied aliens until they become legal permanent residents. Closing this loophole will save the taxpayers billions of dollars. [See p. 293 after S.A. 1190 was adopted, p. 307, p. 315, §606. All that is required for EITC eligibility is a social security number and resident alien status. Nothing in the bill’s tax provisions limit EITC eligibility. The issuance of social security numbers to aliens as soon as they apply for amnesty will ensure they are able to qualify for the EITC.]


* Loophole 12 – Affidavits From Friends Accepted As Evidence:


Records from day-labor centers, labor unions, and “sworn declarations” from any non-relative (acquaintances, friends, coworkers, etc) are to be accepted as evidence that the illegal alien has satisfied the bill’s amnesty requirements. This low burden of proof will invite fraud and more illegal immigration – even aliens who are not yet in the U.S. will likely meet this burden of proof. DHS will not have the resources to examine whether the claims contained in the “sworn declarations” of the alien’s friends (that the alien was here prior to January 1, 2007 and is currently employed) are actually valid. [See p. 293: 13-16].


* Loophole 13 – Taxpayer Funded Legal Counsel and Arbitration:


Free legal counsel and the fees and expenses of arbitrators will be provided to aliens that have been working illegally in agriculture. The U.S. taxpayer will fund the attorneys that help these individuals fill out their amnesty applications. Additionally, if these individuals have a dispute with their employer over whether they were fired for “just cause,” DHS will “pay the fee and expenses of the arbitrator.” [See p. 339:37-41, & p. 332: 37-38.]


* Loophole 14 – In-State Tuition and Student Loans:


In-state tuition and other higher education benefits, such as Stafford Loans, will be made available to current illegal aliens that are granted initial “probationary” status, even if the same in-state tuition rates are not offered to all U.S. citizens. This would normally violate current law (8 U.S.C. §1623) which mandates that educational institutions give citizens the same postsecondary education benefits they offer to illegal aliens. [See p. 321: 8-31].


* Loophole 15 – Inadequacy of the Merit System:


The “merit system,” designed to shift the U.S. green card distribution system to attract higher skilled workers that benefit the national interest, is only a shell of what it should have been. Though the merit system begins immediately, it will not increase the percentage of high skilled immigrants coming to the United States until 2016, 8 years after enactment. Of the 247,000 green cards dedicated to the merit based system each year for the first 5 years, 100,000 green cards will be reserved for low-skilled guest workers (10,000) and for clearing the current employment based green card backlog (90,000). From 2013 to 2015, the number of merit based green cards drops to 140,000, and of that number, 100,000 green cards are still reserved each year for low-skilled guest workers (10,000) and for clearing the current employment based green card backlog (90,000). Even after 2015, when the merit system really begins (in 2016) by having 380,000 green cards annually, 10,00 green cards will be reserved specifically for low skilled workers, and points will be given for many characteristics that are not considered “high-skilled.” For example, 16 points will be given for aliens in “high demand occupations” which includes janitors, maids, food preparation workers, and groundskeepers. [See p.260: 25 – p. 261: 20, p. 262, & The Department of Labor’s list of “occupations with the largest job growth” available at www.bls.gov/emp/emptab3.htm].



* Loophole 16 – Visas For Individuals That Plan To Overstay:


The new “parent” visa contained in the bill which allows parents of citizens, and the spouses and children of new temporary workers, to visit a worker in the United States is not only a misnomer, but also an invitation for high rates of visa overstays. This new visa specifically allows the spouse and children of new temporary workers who intend to abandon their residence in a foreign country, to qualify to come to the U.S. to “visit.” The visa requires only a $1,000 bond, which will be forfeited when, not if, family members of new temporary workers decide to overstay their 30 day visit. Workers should travel to their home countries to visit their families, not the other way around. [See p. 277:1 – 33, and p. 276: 38-43].


* Loophole 17 – Chain Migration Tippled Before Being Eliminated:


Though the bill will eventually eliminate chain migration (relatives other than spouses and children of citizens and legal permanent residents), it will not have full effect until 2016. Until then, chain migration into the U.S. will actually triple, from approximately 138,000 chain migrants a year (equal to 14% of the 1 million green cards the U.S. currently distributes on an annual basis) to approximately 440,000 chain migrants a year (equal to 45% of the 1 million green cards the U.S. currently distributes on an annual basis). [See pp. 260:13, p. 270: 29 – pp. 271: 17]


* Loophole 18 – Back Taxes Not Required:


Last year’s bill required illegal aliens to prove they had paid three of their last five years of taxes to get amnesty. This year, payment of back taxes is not required for amnesty. The bill requires taxes to be paid at the time of application for a green card, but at that time, only proof of payment of Federal taxes (not state and local) is required for the years the alien worked on a Z visa, not the years the alien has already worked illegally in the United States. Though Senator McCain’s S.A. 1190, adopted by voice vote, claimed to “require undocumented immigrants receiving legal status to pay owed back taxes,” the amendment actually only required proof of payment of taxes for “any year during the period of employment required by subparagraph (D)(i).” Since the bill does not contain a subparagraph (D)(i), nor require any past years of employment as a prerequisite for amnesty, the amendment essentially only requires proof of payment of taxes for future work in the U.S., not payment of “back taxes.” [See p. 307, and p. 293 as altered by S.A. 1190, amendment p. 2: 19-20.]


* Loophole 19 – Social Security Credits Allowed For Some Illegal Work Histories:


Aliens who came to the U.S. on legal visas, but overstayed their visas and have been working in the U.S. for years, as well as illegal aliens who apply for Z visa status but do not qualify, will be able to collect social security credits for the years they worked illegally. Under the bill, if an alien was ever issued a social security account number – all work-authorized aliens who originally came on legal visas receive these – the alien will receive Social Security credits for any “quarters of coverage” the alien worked after receiving their social security account number. Because the bill requires social security account numbers to be issued “promptly” to illegal aliens as soon as they are granted “any probationary benefits based upon application [for Z status]” (these benefits are granted 24 hours after the application is filed), an illegal alien who is denied Z visa status but continues to work illegally in the U.S. will accumulate Social Security credits. [See pp. 316:8 – 16, and pp. 315: 32-39]


* Loophole 20 – Criminal Fines Not Proportional To Conduct:


The criminal fines an illegal alien is required to pay to receive amnesty are less than the bill’s criminal fines for paperwork violations committed by U.S. citizens, and can be paid by installment. Under the bill, an illegal alien must pay a $1,000 criminal fine to apply for a Z visa, and a $4,000 fine to apply for a green card. Eighty percent of those fines can be paid on an installment plan. Under the bill’s confidentiality provisions, someone who improperly handles or uses information on an alien’s amnesty application can be fined $10,000. Administration officials suggest that the bill’s “criminal fines are proportionate to the criminal conduct.” Why, then, is the fine for illegally entering, using false documents to work, and live one-tenth the fine for a paperwork violation committed by a government official? [See p. 287: 34, p. 317: 9, p. 315:6-8, & remarks made by Secretary Gutierrez on Your World with Neil Cavuto, 4:00 May 31, 2007]

Ann's Corner

More words of wisdom from Ann on the Imus situation...

"This wasn't an insult to all mankind, and certainly not an insult to Al Sharpton. Now, if Imus had called the basketball players "fat, race-baiting black men with clownish hairstyles," well, then perhaps Sharpton would be owed an apology. "

Full Article Here

I Agree With Nancy Pelosi!

There I said it, and I am not backin' down!

Seriously though, I do agree with her statement in this article today in the SF Chronicle. Responding to reporters who asked her if she would agree with Congressman Tom Lantos' statement that
"however objectionable, unfair and inaccurate many of (Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's) statements are, it is important that we have a dialogue with him".
Pelosi then sited the fact that Mr. Lantos is a holocaust survivor and that if he did not object to meeting with maqmood imademigod, that "Speaks Volumes". That is the part I agree with, though not for the same reason as Nancy I'm sure. It does in fact speak volumes to the unwillingness of liberals and their elected leaders to acknowledge evil for evil. It does speak volumes to a fairy tale vision of peace and dialogue overcoming centuries of hate and destructive ideology. It does very clearly speak volumes about a possible presidential victory for democrats in 08 and underscores every reason why that can never be allowed to happen. It is the very reason why I was depressed for three days when she won the speakership and cringe every time she opens her mouth. Good intentions are not enough, we have to be right on this one folks. There is just too much at stake.

Let me break this down for you a bit, make it a little more personal. Let's say there is this man living two states over from you. Lets call him Fred. Now Fred hates all Eskimos and their state of Alaska, can't even stand that there are any living in the world. Furthermore, Fred has no reason to hate Eskimos. He will says that Eskimos treated his great, great, great, great, great, great, great Grandfather badly, or at least it says that in a book somewhere. Or that the tiny state of Alaska is bent on world domination and must be stopped. But after some investigation it becomes apparent that Fred is completely disconnected from reality and you wonder to yourself if he might be an insane person. Fred also takes every opportunity to let the media/press in his town know that if he had it his way, all Eskimos would be exterminated (see prior sentence). But there's more... Every time you drive by Fred's house, he is in his garage building a weapon that, when finished will give him the ability to wipe every Eskimo and their home "off the map" and frankly to do significant damage to yours and others homes also if he were to suddenly decide he hates you. Fred says til' he's blue in the face that what he is building is not a weapon at all, but a device that will enable other bigoted Eskimo haters to live a more prosperous life, but all of his actions tell you different. Oh yes, I almost forgot... Many people have seen what Fred is doing and have called the police to stop him, but they will not do anything but issue him warnings and wag their fingers in his general direction. What do you do?

Do you:

A. allow Fred to finish his weapon, all the while talking him out of his hate for all Eskimos, however irrational?

B. Leave it to the police, after all its really not your business anyway?

C. take matters into your own hands and make sure that Fred will never be able to use that weapon on anyone?

I know my answer and I would hope that most of you, for the sake of all Eskimos (and for the rest of us) would choose the same.

WaPo Gets It Exactly Right

This editorial is the closest thing to common sense I have heard out of the MSM since Pelosi took her trip down the Middle East yellow brick road. Please give it a read and some thought. When you think about it, Natanz Nancy is doing harm and all Iran has to do is sit back and watch. It boggles my mind sometimes to imagine that there is someone this clueless 3rd in line for the Presidency.

Pratfall In Damascus

I AM JOHN DOE!

This is a great video from over at Hot Air and Malkin. It affirms that we will not lie down, and we will not be moved!

...And finally our lawmakers have done something right

This Is Really Funny!

...and on the 8th Day AlGore created the internet, and lo, He looked and saw that it was good...

I saw this over at Six Meat Buffet and it made me laugh really hard so I thought you all would enjoy.

The Secular Faith - The Book of Algore

Hate To Say I Told Ya' So...

But I did! Democrats send out first round of subpoenas

Moonbats of the world rejoice, Queen Nancy and The Stooges Of The Mahogany Table take the first step in her quest to vanquish the EeeeeViiil Bush administration

They may be comin' in the back door, but they still mean to rape us folks! Nancy and her, "no impeachment on my watch" line of bull has just taken the first of many steps in the lead up to 2008. What will happen next is the Dems will drag every Bush administration official they can find who knew anything about the lead up to the Iraq war and put them in front of the Senate. They will lynch those with something to hide and discredit any who don't. Then for their grand finale, depending on if their hearings go well, Mr. Bush himself served up on a silver platter for America to see right before the November elections. Can you say Hillary for president boys and girls...I know you can! ....

Wow, that was like channeling a Daily Kos wet dream, I have to watch those dimensional skips into liberal cognitive reasoning. Anyway, let's all pray that we (conservatives) have the brains and balls to stop them. I know I am!

BTW - for all of you who are interested in this subject please check out my mini-poll in the right side-bar. Have a great weekend everyone!

Ann's Corner

"What is so audacious about announcing that you're running for president? Any idiot can run for president. Dennis Kucinich is running for president. Until he was imprisoned, Lyndon LaRouche used to run for president constantly. John Kerry ran for president. Today, all you have to do is suggest a date by which U.S. forces in Iraq should surrender, and you're officially a Democratic candidate for president."

Nice!!

Full Article

Well, Isn't That Special!

It seems that as usual Democrats are not the ones with their fingers on the pulose of Americans contrary to their own comments and suggestions that this is so. I submit to you the latest poll numbers from this headliner on the Drudge Report.

Most Americans "Want to Win In Iraq"

with that sharply contrasting what Gallup found Here

Wonder which is more accurate? Hmmmm...

Through the Negative Looking Glass III

I have talked at length in past posts about our society's back is front, right is wrong, etc... turn for the worst in the last 3 decades. But I had to post about this one more time. In reading an article today on CBS's website about Tim Hardaway's phone interview, I realised something shocking. In American pop culture it is no longer acceptable to abhor homosexual behavior. No, I did not say homosexuals (meaning the actual people) although that is even more taboo. No, I said and meant that if you come out against men having sexual relationships with other men and women with other women you are homophobic & a bigot. Now lets examine those two words for a moment shall we? According to ReligousTolerance.org...

The word "homophobia" was invented by George Weinbert who defined it as "the dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals." It grew to mean a general "fear of homosexuals or of homosexual behavior."

According to Wikipedia though, which is usually pretty accurate it has taken on a half a dozen different meanings,

Homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.^[1] It can also mean hatred, hostility, or disapproval of homosexual people, sexual behavior, or cultures, and is generally used to insinuate bigotry.^[2] The term homophobic means "prejudiced against homosexual people,"^[3] and a person who is homophobic is a homophobe.

So really what they are saying is that you can call someone a homophobe for something as simple as taking a gay guys parking space, or as complex as oh, I don't know, saying you wouldn't want a gay team mate changing & showering with you in a locker room.

Next the oft coined word "Bigot" or "Bigotry" again according to Wikipedia,

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to their prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false. rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr(sound of brakes screeching).

Hold up one minute. If we accept this definition then we also have to look at the word "intolerant". Another term bandied about by those who use the word bigot and homophobe a lot. Let's hear Philosopher Karl Popper's assertion in "The Open Society and Its Enemies" shall we?

He states that among other things,

In particular, should a tolerant society tolerate intolerance? What if by tolerating action "A", society destroys itself? Tolerance of "A" could be used to introduce a new thought system leading to intolerance of vital institution "B". It is difficult to strike a balance and different societies do not always agree on the details, indeed different groups within a single society also often fail to agree. The current suppression of Nazism in Germany is considered intolerant by some countries, for instance, while in Germany itself it is Nazism which is considered intolerably intolerant.

If you take that last part and substitute the word Homosexuality for the word Nazism and the word Christendom for the word Germany (not that I am comparing Christians to Germans by any means) it is easy to see why a reasonable person who, simply but vehemently, disagrees with the homosexual life style and its effect on our society might take offense to being called a homophobe and/or a bigot because they are not tolerant of a person or group's destructive and harmful behavior. Or maybe they just feel that in certain situations said behavior might be inappropriate and subject to moral scrutiny.

Lets take Mr. Hardaway's comment about not wanting a homosexual team mate in his locker room. If you were a woman basketball player would you want a man showering with you and watching you undress? Well I suppose it would depend on the man and on you but generally I think the answer would be no because... wait for it... it would be inappropriate. Why? There is a privacy issue where sexual attraction is involved and whether you are a man or a woman you should have the basic right to not be stared at and ogled while you undress and shower. Actually I will go farther, you should not even have to worry about the possibility of being ogled while undressing or showering. In my mind being in the locker room with a homosexual is like being in the locker room with someone of the opposite sex... Not cool!

So to bring this all back around to my original point, those who throw around terms like Bigot, Homophobe and Intolerance should take a step back and look at the larger picture. It may just be that your Intolerant attitude towards Intolerance is itself bigoted and Intolerable!

Ann's Corner

"If you wonder how it came to be generally acknowledged "fact," accepted by all men of good will, that Joe McCarthy was a monster, that Alger Hiss was innocent, that mankind is causing global warming and that we're losing the war in Iraq, try watching the rewriting of history nightly on MSNBC. Don't forget to bring your time machine."

Full Article

What They Don't Want Us To Know

The fight by Muslims to close down a repair of the bridge that non-Muslims use to enter the temple mount has been a page 6 story at best. But the significance to Christians and Jews is front page news. So why did the Mayor of Jerusalem suspend repairs and why are Muslims so angry. Well, you won't hear this in the MSM but from the mouths of Muslims themselves, they are afraid. Afraid that repairs to the bridge may uncover some evidence that proves Israels right to the temple mount prior to the arrival of the Muslims in Jerusalem and the building of Al-Aqsa. You see one of the most ridiculous Muslim claims other than denying the Holocaust is there assertion that the Jews have no inherent right to the Holy Land. No, not that they can't have it back, or that they haven't earned it. No, they believe rather blindly that contrary to thousands of years of written history the Israelites were just plain never there to begin with.

So why is this such an issue over the rebuilding of a bridge? Well, simply put, in Jerusalem you need and Archaeological permit to do any kind of construction work on or near a sight like this even if you have no intent to search for any artifacts. Just the fact that you might find one while moving the earth needed to build whatever it is stands as enough of a need that Israel's government has this law. In any event, the Muslims being ever distrusting of Jewish motives, have taken the position that Jews are doing this renovation as a guise for proving the existence of a B.C. Jewish temple on that site. Some Muslims claim however that the re-construction of the bridge in question, which is well outside the area Muslims consider Holy Ground is defiling the ground and object on that basis alone. This is sort of disingenuous though when you consider that barely 6 years ago Muslims ravaged with bulldozers, the area within the boundaries they say they want to protect despite the deep and very vocal objections of Jewish leaders.

This Article covers the edges of it, but I would suggest a comprehensive Google search if you want the entire story.

Would You Vote For This Man?

Rudy in 08?

So would you? If it were between him and Hillary? Him and Edwards? I am speaking to moderate democrats as well, cuz while Rudi is a hawk on defense, he may as well be a log cabin repulican member of NOW for all he cares about conservative social policy. He is a bit of an enigma to me with his views bouncing from conservative to liberal back and forth so many times that I am not really sure where he stands morally in his own life. I don't know about you but that matters to me. A man's business is his business and everything, but it scares me to think of having another clintoonesque president for lack of a better term. On the whole though I like him, he "seems" to have his head on semi-straight and apart from his liberal stance on Gay Marriage/Rights and Abortion seems also to understand the argument, why people oppose those things and seems to believe that there is a valid argument unlike those on the left who sware by those things like they are written in stone or something. Oh well, I suppose more time will tell though. I am interested in what all of you think. All comments are welcome!

Vanity=Global Warming?

I have been following this debate over the last two or three years and especially since Al Gore declared the coming Global Apocalypse in "An Inconvenient Truth". Two things have occurred to me: One is that based on the gobs and gobs of money involved on both sides, I trust nobody. Two is that faith definitely comes into play here, more than a lot of people realise. Honestly... when you think about it, it takes a very vain, self important world view to say, "I affect the world's climate", or even, "I can prevent Climate Change", for that matter. Now I'll grant you that a dozen or so Nuclear weapons certainly could, but me thinks, not much else. Yes we are to be good stewards of this earth and respect that great gift. But psychologically I believe that the Global Warming debate turns on a persons personal Faith in God, and not so much how they feel about the science. Evidence of that is found in people from either side who will ignore what appears to be solid evidence because it does not fit their worldview. I mean think about it for a moment, how could someone who has no faith in a Creator possibly believe that the fate of the earth is in any but their own hands. Conversely, how then could someone with a very deep faith in God and a knowledge of how He operates in the world possibly come to the conclusion that they(instead of God) are causing anything that happens on a global scale or that they have any say in the matter ultimately whatsoever. Don't get me wrong, I mean there were warming and cooling trends globally in the past, there are now, and there will be again. But as Timothy Ball from the Canada Free Press quotes Dr. Richard Lindzen to say in this article , "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." This is the case in too many "studies" bent on proving one point or the other. No wonder why God said that you cannot serve Him (Truth) and Money both as masters simultaneously. Reality gets lost under all the dollar bills flying back and forth.

Whether it is faith, worldview or politics, from what I can see one thing is clear... Sound science is not the major force influencing this debate.

Ann's Corner

"You want to protect the borders, cut taxes, fight Islamic fascists and put up Ten Commandments monuments? Get her name. Find out about Patrick Fitzgerald what we'd know if he were Ken Starr. If you won't defend your own champions, conservatives, then don't sit back and wonder why so few people want to be your champions. "

Full Article

Obama - Perception vs. reality

Barak Obama says "The arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact" in his memoirs this year. This intruiged me so that I decided to do some research and confirm brother Obama's claims if I could. Here is what I found:

Liberals are for Multiculturalism in America which essentially says that any race group should be allowed to form subcultures over and above any culture of a nation state in which they live. Simply put they believe that to make America stronger we need less national unity, patriotism and assimilation of immigrants as opposed to the exact opposite lesson taught us by our founders who from many, made one by unifying, and finding a common culture as American's.

Liberals are against Capital Punishment for murderers, but for the killing of innocent children on the notion that the former is cruel and unusual and the latter is justified by a combination of some intangible age of viability and a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body. Likely the most unreasonable argument I have ever heard, 99% of women have a choice when they flirt, a choice when they invite a man home with them, a choice to undress, and a choice to make when they allow a man inside them... By the time of conception all of the relevant and important "choices" should have already been made. For those who have been forcibly made pregnant through rape this does not apply. But what does however is the fact that life begins at conception, period. Choice can be argued, but to argue that there are not clear and dyer implications to that "choice" is neither reasonable nor factual.

Liberals believe in Affirmative Action as a means to equality. When in fact the implimentation of AA at its core would see colleges, businesses, etc.. use racial quotas to ensure said equality. In other words, denying certain students or applicants solely on the basis of race so that you can accept or hire others based on race as well. Discriminating as a means to end discrimination, does not sound like a very reasonable argument to me.

and last but certainly not least an op-ed pice that kind of says it all... Hate Speech On The Left