Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

Here's some quick information on new Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito, Jr. This information comes from the website Wikipedia .

His (Alito's) ideological likeness to United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia has earned him the nickname "Scalito."

* Alito wrote the opinion for ACLU v. Schundler, (1997) holding that a religious holiday display on city property does not violate the Establishment Clause.
* Alito was the sole dissenter in the 3rd circuit's decision on Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which struck down a Pennsylvania law requiring women to inform their husbands before getting an abortion.."

And this from Senator Harry Reid commenting Sunday on Justice Alito on CNN's "Late Edition":

...that is not one of the names that I've suggested to the president. In fact, I've done the opposite. I think it would create a lot of problems.

So far, this nominee looks pretty good.

Harry Reid, Self-Appointed Arbitrator of Moral Responsibility

Senate minority leader Harry Reid has appointed himself grand jury, prosecutor, judge, and jury. Add arbitrator of moral responsibility to that list. Acting in these self-appointed roles, Reid has decided that Karl Rove should resign .

"I think Karl Rove should step down," Reid said. "Here is a man who the president said if he was involved, if anyone in the administration was involved, out they would go."

Note to Harry Reid: Karl Rove has not been convicted of anything. Karl Rove has not even been charged with anything.

Reid also commented, "This has gotten way out of hand, and the American people deserve better than this."

I'll tell you what has gotten way out of hand. It's Harry Reid and his cronies on the left with their new-found presumption of guilt. They've already convicted Tom Delay, even though there has been no trial; they've convicted Scooter Libby, even though there has been no trial; and now they're convicting Karl Rove, even though there has been no charge.

You're right Harry, this has gotten way out of hand.

A Bad Day for the Left

That's right; it's a bad day for the left. I know the media has been shouting from the mountaintops that it's a bad day for the White House, and granted, with the Scooter Libby indictment, it's not the best day the White House has ever experienced. But it's worse for the left.

An indictment against Libby for obstruction is not what the left wanted. They wanted Karl Rove. They wanted indictments for leaking the name of a CIA agent. After a two-year investigation, they got no indictments for leaking and nothing against Rove.

Yes, obstruction of justice is serious, and this is a serious charge against Libby. However, it's not much to show for two years of investigations, and for liberals trying so desperately to discredit the Bush administration, it's a huge disappointment. They'll never admit that; they'll continue trumpet this indictment as a serious blow to the White House, but it's not nearly what they wanted, and they're disappointed.

Poor ol' Joe is Saddened

Former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson says that he is saddened by the possible forthcoming indictments against Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. "The fact that this may become a crisis of governance should please no one," Wilson said.

When asked about claims that vice-president Cheney may have also been involved in the CIA leak case, Wilson responded,

I don't know what to think of that, except to say it saddens me deeply. I get no satisfaction from that.

Saddened my eyeball! Who does he think he's fooling as sits there autographing his new book The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir ? This guy is as phony as the phony "outing" of his CIA wife who was not even considered to be covert in the first place.

On the Harriet Miers' Nomination Withdrawal

On a personal level, I feel bad for Harriet Miers. No, I don't know her personally, but as a Christian, I feel bad for anyone who has been the victim of injustice, and Harriet Miers has been the victim of injustice. She was judged by the court of public opinion to be unqualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Justice demanded that she be allowed to have her day before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Justice denied.

Having said that, let me now say that when Miers asked to have her nomination withdrawn, she did the country a great service. I don't say that out of a belief that she is not qualified. In fact, as I have previously written, I think she would have been a fine justice. However, the fact of the matter is that her nomination divided the Republican Party. Even the so-called Christian conservative wing of the Republican Party was divided.

The Miers' withdrawal gives President Bush another opportunity to nominate someone who will unite this party once again. He has another opportunity to nominate a strict constructionist, one who is proven and battle-tested.

We all know there are several excellent candidates available, candidates with outstanding track records. We also know that if the President nominates one of them, there will be a monumental confirmation battle. All the better. If the President nominates a Janice Rogers Brown, a Priscilla Owen, or an Edith Jones, conservatives will rally around him like never before. Of course, liberals will hate him, but they're going to do that anyway.

The President has an opportunity to nominate a candidate who will unite the party, solidify his supporters, and move the court to the right. Let's hope he does the right thing.

Tribute to David A. Kasey

I wanted to use the opportunity of the Chicago White Sox World Series Championship to pay tribute to one of my closest friends, David Kasey. David, who passed away on February 6th, 2003, was a life-long White Sox fan. He and his brother Dennis have long waited for this day. I know Dennis has been thinking of David throughout the playoffs, and I know David is smiling down from heaven on this night. Congratulations Dave!

More Good News from Iraq

One day after Iraq announced that their new constitution had officially passed, three Sunni groups announced the formation of an alliance which will participate in the new Iraqi political process.

The alliance, called the Iraqi Concord Front, consists of the National Dialogue Council and the Iraqi People's Gathering, both of which oppose the new constitution. The third group, the Iraqi Islamic Party, supports the constitution.

The fact that these three groups, united as the Iraqi Concord Front, intend to field candidates in the upcoming December 15 parliamentary elections, indicates a willingness to participate in the political process, and is only the latest sign that democracy is, in fact, beginning to take hold in Iraq.

Tribute to Rosa Parks, 1913 - 2005

Rosa Parks in 2001 (AP Photo)


Civil rights hero Rosa Parks died yesterday at the age of
92. This is dedicated to her quiet and dignified courage.

Howard Dean - The Perfect DNC Chairman

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean appeared Sunday on ABC's This Week with host George Stephanopoulos.

In discussing the alleged outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, Dean said

What got [Karl] Rove and [Lewis] Libby in trouble is that they were attacking, which the Republicans always do, attacking somebody who criticizes and disagrees with them.

Dean went on to say that making personal attacks was

a fundamental flaw in the Bush administration... They never make the argument - they always make the personal attack.

How could Dean make this statement with a straight face? That's all the Democrats do! That is their entire game plan - to make personal attacks against Republicans.

Howard Dean is completely out of touch with mainstream America. I guess that makes him the perfect person for the DNC chairman.

Able Danger Update VII

We haven't heard much about Able Danger lately. My last update was all the way back on September 27th. But now, Pennsylvania Republican Congressman Curt Weldon has revealed the name of the person who kept Able Danger information from the 9-11 Commission. The name of that person? Dieter Snell.

What is the significance of this information? Dieter Snell was a staffer for Jamie Gorelick, the former Clinton administration deputy attorney general who was the primary architect of the so-called intel wall which prevented information sharing between intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Gorelick was also a member of the 9-11 Commission.

In my first Able Danger post on August 15th, I raised four questions related to Able Danger, two of which pertained to Jamie Gorelick.

1. What roll did the Gorelick wall play in the fact that information collected by Able Danger was not shared with the FBI?

2. What role did the fact that Jamie Gorelick was a member of the 9-11 Commission play in the Commission's decision not to fully investigate or to include revelations concerning Able Danger?

The revelation that it was a Gorelick staffer who withheld the Able Danger information from the 9-11 Commission seems to answer both questions. Consider the following sequence of events:

-The military intelligence program "Able Danger" gathers information on a terrorist cell operating in New York in 1999.

-The cell includes Mohammed Atta and three other 9-11 hijackers.

-An intel wall erected by Jamie Gorelick prevents this information from being shared with the FBI.

-After 9-11, a commission is formed to investigate the attacks, and to provide recommendations for guarding against future attacks. Jamie Gorelick is named as a member of this commission.

-Gorelick's lead staffer Dieter Snell interviews Able Danger analyst Scott Philpot and learns that Able Danger had information about the New York based terror cell but was prevented from sharing that information with the FBI

-Snell fails to pass on to the 9-11 Commission what he has learned from Philpot.

Is it just me, or does this whole situation seem more corrupt every time more information is disclosed? And where is the media? They're too concerned about whether Rove or Libby outed a CIA agent who was not even clandestine in the first place to care about incompetence that may well have contributed to over 3,000 deaths and the subsequent cover-up of that incompetence.

The Wisdom of Thomas Sowell

I have referenced Thomas Sowell in previous posts. He is one of many great writers and thinkers of our time who happen to be black. He is largely ignored by mainstream media, but that's not surprising because he doesn't fit the mold of what an African-American leader is supposed to sound like. In other words, he's not Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, or Louis Farrakhan.

Here are a few quotes from one of his latest columns entitled "Random Thoughts":

People who think that they don't owe anything to anybody should read David McCullough's outstanding new book "1776," to see what hell other people went through to create the freedom that we enjoy and abuse today.

Senator Dianne Feinstein asked Judge John Roberts whether his being Catholic would interfere with carrying out his duties on the Supreme Court but she would undoubtedly have felt insulted if anyone had asked her whether being Jewish would interfere with her carrying out her duties as a Senator.

I usually read the Wall Street Journal before breakfast. I can't take the New York Times on an empty stomach.

Read the rest of Sowell's column Here .

Local Councilman Misrepresents Bill Bennett's Statement

In September, Bill Bennett, the former Reagan administration Secretary of Education, made the following statement on his radio call-in show Morning in America:

If you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.

In the October 19 edition of The Kokomo Perspective , Kokomo, Indiana Common Council President, Democrat Robert Hayes, commented on Bill Bennett’s remarks. In his column Hayes wrote that he found Bennett’s statement “sickening.” He went on to say that

In any logical discussion, such rhetoric is inexcusable. In Mr. Bennett’s world African-American babies would be convicted, tried and executed while in their mother’s womb.

What kind of logical discussion is Mr. Hayes talking about? Based on his remark, Mr. Hayes certainly hasn’t looked at Bennett’s statement with any kind of logical analysis.

Here are the circumstances surrounding Bennett's statement. Mr. Bennett and a caller to his show were discussing arguments for and against abortion. The caller suggested that one good argument against abortion was that if abortion were illegal, society would have more tax-paying citizens, and Social Security would be solvent

Bennett, who is pro-life, responded to the caller's suggestion by saying that social issues should not be used to argue the pro-life position. He went on to suggest that such arguments could be used both ways, and he referenced a book called Freakonomics, written by Steve Sailer and John Lott. Sailer and Lott argued that the increase in the number of abortions since Roe vs. Wade has contributed to a reduction in the crime rate. To illustrate the potential abhorrent consequences of arguing for abortion by using such a hypothesis, Bennett made the statement that is quoted above.

Obvious to anyone who wants to look at Bennett's statement in context and with intellectual honesty is that Bennett's point was that solving societal problems, whether it be Social Security or crime, should not be the basis for making either a pro-life or a pro-choice argument.

Yet, in his column Councilman Hayes implies that Mr. Bennett is actually advocating the abortion of all black babies. Hayes writes

I am soon-to-be a grandfather of a black baby boy whom I hope and pray will be healthy and just as beautiful and intelligent as his parents. I hope and pray he will be born in a world where comments by a national figure regarding his demise for the betterment of society would not be tolerated by not just black folks, but not tolerated by all people of all races, colors and sensibility.

I shudder to think if Mr. Bennett’s world were real how many law enforcement officers, doctors, ministers, lawyers, scientist, teachers, factory workers, mothers and fathers, just to name a few, would not be given the opportunity to even live and help reduce crime, cure sickness, educate the ignorant, eliminate poverty and fight the injustice that abounds in our society today.

Mr. Bennett, shame on you for even uttering those vile and hateful words.

I don't know Councilman Hayes personally, but I have to believe that he is an intelligent man quite capable of examining Bennett's words in the context of the discussion in which they were spoken. That being assumed, I have to wonder whether Mr. Hayes simply failed to investigate the point Bennett was trying to make, or whether Mr. Hayes knew Mr. Bennett's point and just ignored it, choosing instead to echo the rhetoric of many of the leaders of the national Democratic Party.

Either way, Mr. Hayes, shame on you for misrepresenting Mr. Bennett's words.

Limbaugh and Clinton? That's What Sheehan Says!

In September, Senator Hillary Clinton expressed her views in The Village Voice regarding withdrawal from Iraq. Clinton said, “I don’t believe it’s smart to set a date for withdrawal... I don’t think it’s the right time to withdraw."

In response to Senator Clinton's remarks, Cindy Sheehan has now compared Clinton to Rush Limbaugh!

That sounds like Rush Limbaugh to me. That doesn't sound like an opposition party leader speaking to me.

Rush Limbaugh and Hillary Clinton! Wow! Who would have thought these two would ever have been mentioned in the same breath?

Another Great American

On Monday I wrote about the racist Louis Farrakhan and others like him who offer only hate and defeatism to those they purport to help. I also suggested some names of a few True Leaders of the Black Community who offer real hope for African-Americans.

Yesterday, Chris Malott quoted Star Parker, another African-American whose words are well worth reading.

Check it out.

Cries of Fraud Sound Familiar

Sunni Arab leaders are crying fraud in Sunday's referendum on the new Iraqi constitution. Sounds a lot like Democrat leaders and liberal nutcases every time a Republican wins an American election.

Velvet Revolution Nuthouse

Velvet Revolution, a self-described “network of more than 120 progressive organizations...” has offered

a reward of up to $120,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of officials involved in the following three incidents: 1) the illegal outing of CIA Agent Valerie Plame, 2) the illegal payment of bribes to Congressman Dennis Hastert, and 3) the rigging of the 2004 Presidential election in Ohio.

Notice that third one, and then tell me that I’m not accurate in the post about the Sunni Arab accusations.

Velvet Revolution has also determined that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby (who have not even been indicted, much less convicted) are facing a possible life imprisonment under the United States Sentencing Guidelines for their alleged involvement in the Valerie Plame case. Furthermore, they claim

the only hope for them under the Guidelines appears to be...saving their own skin by implicating fish bigger than he is, and that means George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Of course, bringing down Cheney, and ultimately George Bush, is all this investigation has ever really been about. The nuthouse far-left at Velvet Revolution have just pointed out what anybody with any degree of intellectual honesty has always known anyway.

Getting Tough on Illegal Immigration

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said today that his department is set to get tough on illegal immigration.

Our goal at DHS (Homeland Security) is to completely eliminate the 'catch and release' enforcement problem, and return every single illegal entrant, no exceptions.

It should be possible to achieve significant and measurable progress to this end in less than a year," Chertoff told a Senate hearing.

I’d say it’s about time. Do you think they’ll follow through on this?

The True Leaders of the Black Community

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan claims to be speaking for black Americans. He is calling for a class action lawsuit against the U.S. government for "criminal neglect" after Hurricane Katrina. He has been advancing the notion that the New Orleans levees were purposely blown up by the U.S. government in order to kill black people. He is calling for slavery reparations to make up for America's "wickedness."

Louis Farrakhan is a racist. He preaches racism. He incites racism. He provokes racist anger. The sad thing is that nothing he is saying is going to do anything to promote a better standard of living for black Americans. He is only propagating a failure mentality, the mentality that says, "My failure, my lack of success, isn't my fault. I have someone else to blame."

African-Americans who choose to listen to agitators like Louis Farrakhan will never improve their positions in society. His words promote only hate and self-defeat.

There are many excellent black American role models, thinkers, and leaders: Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, Reverend Wayne Perryman, Bill Cosby, La Shawn Barber , and Mychal Massie , just to name a few. These fine Americans, who happen to be black, understand what it takes to be successful. They understand personal responsibility. They understand self-worth and self-control. They understand preparedness, hard work, and perseverance.

So why aren't these people more well-known (with the exception of Bill Cosby, of course)? First, the Farrakhans, the Jessie Jacksons, and the Kanye Wests of the world are more outlandish; they make more interesting headlines. Secondly, they champion the same left-wing agenda that so much of the mainstream media espouses.

I do not, however, believe these radical, so-called black leaders represent the views of a large percentage of the African-American population. While Farrakhan and his kind spew hatred, bigotry, and failure; the clear-thinking men and women mentioned above, and others like them, represent faith, hope, peace, and success.

It's only too bad that they are not heard by a wider audience. Maybe conservative bloggers can help to spread the word.

2006 Elections

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted October 8-10 appears to suggest that Republicans could be in trouble in next year's midterm election.

807 registered voters nationwide were asked, "What is your preference for the outcome of the 2006 congressional elections: a Congress controlled by Republicans or a Congress controlled by Democrats?" The answer?

39% prefer Republicans
48% prefer Democrats
13% are Undecided

These numbers are being used by Democrats, left-wing bloggers, and the mainstream media to suggest that the Democrats are set to take control of Congress in 2006. But what these numbers do not show is the breakdown of individual Senate and House races, so I decided to do a little checking, and here's what I found.

The Senate
Republicans currently hold a 55-44 seat edge in the Senate, with one liberal-leaning independent, giving Republicans an effective advantage of 55-45

There will be 33 Senate elections in 2006. Of those 33 seats, 17 are currently held by Democrats, 15 by Republicans, and one by an independent.

Analysis of these 33 races reveals the following:

-13 of the 17 Democrat seats are very likely to remain Democrat.
-10 of the 15 Republican seats are very likely to remain Republican.
-The one Democrat leaning independent seat is likely to remain independent.

This means that there are four Senate seats currently held by Democrats that could go to Republicans, and there are five seats currently held by Republicans that could go to Democrats.

Now, let's suppose the Democrats do the following:

-Protect all 4 of the currently held Democrat seats that seem to be in play.
-Win all 5 of the currently held Republican seats that seem to be in play.

This would leave the Senate with a 50/50 split (counting the lone independent with the Democrats). However, with Vice President Cheney casting the deciding vote in the case of any ties, the Democrats would, in reality, still be one seat short of controlling the Senate, meaning that they would have to win one of the current Republican seats that seems to be safe, without letting the Republicans win any "safe" Democrat seats.

In other words, for Democrats to take control of the Senate in 2006, they would need a near perfect storm of victories.

The House
Republicans currently hold a 231-202 seat edge in the House, with 1 Independent, and one vacant seat. In December, the vacant seat will become occupied by Republican John Campbell from Orange County California, giving Republicans a 232-202-1 advantage.

All House seats will be on the ballot in 2006, but analysts, depending on whom you listen to, believe that only 30 to 32 of those seats will be competitive. Of those seats, again according to whom you listen and, therefore, according to which races you see as competitive, 18 to 20 of the competitive races are for seats currently held by Republicans; 10 to 14 are for seats currently held by Democrats.

Looking at one possible scenario based on the above numbers, suppose there are 32 seats in play, 20 currently held by Republicans, 12 by Democrats. To create just a 217-217 tie in the House, Democrats would have to protect all 12 of their own seats, and win 15 of the 20 seats away from the Republicans.

You can create other scenarios from these numbers, but in any one of them, Democrats would need to nearly run the table to gain control of the House in 2006.

Now, I admit, I'm not a statistician, and maybe there is something in these numbers that I'm not seeing. I also realize that it's early, and just because a particular seat might look safe now, that doesn't mean it will be safe next November. That's true of seats held by either party.

Still, it looks to me like the chances of the Republicans maintaining control of both the Senate and the House are excellent, and the great Democratic takeover is just the wishful thinking of the left. Am I wrong?

Source used for this report:

National Review Online
Sabato's Crystal Ball
The Washington Times

Our Friends the Saudis

“The king of Saudi Arabia says women may eventually be allowed to drive in the kingdom.”

Well, that’s a good start.

Where are the liberals when you need them?

Jeffrey Woodard, a former student at Jupiter Christian School in Florida is seeking damages for being expelled from the school in 2003 after confiding to a school chaplain that he was gay. The state's Supreme Court must decide whether or not clergy are legally obligated to protect confidentiality in the same way as are attorneys and psychologists.

Wait a minute! Separation of church and state! Isn't that what liberals are always shouting? Where are the liberals when you need them? Why aren't they screaming that the court has no business telling clergy whether or not they must keep conversations confidential?

Furthermore, this is private school. They have the right to determine their own rules for admission, and expulsion. Woodard was told he could get counseling, voluntarily withdraw, or be expelled. Woodard's mother, Carol Gload, told the school that she didn't think Jeffrey needed therapy, so the school expelled him.

This is not about Woodard's sexual orientation. This is about a private school having the right to set its own standards, and about the government not having the right to tell clergy what they can and cannot do in regard to confidentiality.

Come on liberals - tell the Florida Supreme Court to stay out of the church's business. Separation of church and state!

A Quick Note to Gerhard Schroeder

Evidently, outgoing German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder just couldn’t pass up the chance to take a parting shot at President Bush .

I can think of a recent disaster that shows what happens when a country neglects its duties of state towards its people. My post as chancellor, which I still hold, does not allow me to name that country but you all know that I am talking about America.

Perhaps Mr. Schroeder should be reminded that his socialist policies have left his country’s current unemployment at 11.2 percent, compared to the U.S. unemployment rate of 5.1%.

Perhaps Mr. Schroeder should be reminded that the citizens of his country pay the equivalent of nearly six U.S. dollars per gallon of gasoline, while U.S. citizens pay around $3 per gallon.

Perhaps it should be mentioned that Mr. Schroeder's government has pledged 1 million euros in aid for earthquake victims in Pakistan and India. That's the approximate equivalent of 1.2 million U.S. dollars. The United States has pledged 50 million dollars.

Perhaps we should just say, "Auf wiedersehen Herr Schroeder."

Gay Bloomington

The Bloomington, Indiana Convention and Visitor Bureau website has a link called www.visitgaybloomington.com, which is really just another page of the Convention and Visitor Bureau site. When you click on that link, you are taken to a page entitled “gay bloomington,” which is dedicated to encouraging gays and lesbians to visit the city.

The “gay bloomington” page begins with this quote from Out Traveler Magazine:

The verdict: Whether you're gay, straight or somewhere in between, Bloomington offers something rarely found in this country: a small town with a bold history of openness and acceptance.

Following this quote, is a four paragraph promotional message which begins by proudly proclaiming.

Welcome to Bloomington, Indiana – home to the nation’s fifth largest per capita population of same-sex couples and one of the most progressive cities in the Midwest, both socially and politically. While Bloomington obviously has an appeal to gays and lesbians looking for a place to live, its potential as a vacation destination for the discerning traveler is just beginning to attract attention.

The message goes on to say, “At this site, you’ll learn more about all the great activities available to the gay/lesbian traveler.”

The “gay bloomington” page has external links to the IU Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Alumni Association website; PRIDE - Bloomington’s gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender film festival website; the International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association website, and other such websites.

Facts about Gay Bloomington is an internal link found on the “gay bloomington” page where one can read about BloomingOut, “Indiana's first and only radio show dedicated to lesbians and gay men”; the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction; and the Miss Gay IU and Miss Gay Bloomington pageants.

Another internal link, Things to Do, provides information on a wide array of activities and events that "might appeal to the gay/lesbian visitor."

So, the city of Bloomington is actively promoting itself as a tourist destination for gays and lesbians.

I can only imagine how quickly the ACLU would file a lawsuit if a city were to begin promoting itself as a tourist destination for straight people.

A Positive in the Face of Tragedy?

Can something good come from tragedy? We’ve seen it happen before. People, who under normal circumstances can’t get along, come together in the face of a common disaster. Let’s hope that will be one result of the recent Asian earthquake.

Although somewhat improved over the past year, the relationship between Pakistan and India has been a long and bitter one. However, The Associated Press reports today that Pakistan has said that it will accept earthquake relief aid from India.

The announcement came after Pakistani Foreign Ministry said Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh telephoned Pakistan's high commissioner in New Delhi and ''reiterated his offer to send relief aid to us for earthquake victims.''

High Commissioner Aziz Ahmed Khan met Singh and then contacted the government in Islamabad, which decided to accept the Indian offer after consultations at the highest level, Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said.

According to the report, “Musharraf (Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf) also made a similar offer for the victims of the quake in the Indian portion of Kashmir…”

Hopefully, the goodwill will last beyond the current circumstances, and these two longtime enemies can learn to live side by side in peace.

"Get a Life!"

Win Without War is a coalition of liberal groups including, among others, Feminist Majority, Greenpeace, MoveOn.org, NAACP, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, National Organization for Women (NOW), and Rainbow/Push Coalition.

The group recently ran a two-page ad in newspapers across the country featuring the headline "They Lied" over pictures of President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. Under the pictures are six quotes, which the ad alleges were lies.

The ad also featured a list of American military personnel killed in Iraq, and under the list are the words "They Died."

FactCheck.org analyzed the ad and found that

The brief quotes all seem starkly false in hindsight. But some are a bit too stark – they look a bit different when read in full context. Furthermore, calling them lies suggests Bush and his advisers knew they were wrong at the time. And a bipartisan commission concluded earlier this year that what the Bush administration told the world about Iraqi weapons – while tragically mistaken – was based on faulty intelligence.

Mike Geiselman, a liberal who often posts and comments on the local Kokomo Perspective blog, says about the FactCheck.org analysis that

The impression I get is that while Bush didn't intentionally lie, he was either duped or completely out of the loop.

Anyway you look at it, he doesn't come off looking too good.

The President's conclusions on Iraqi WMDs were based upon intelligence reports, the same intelligence reports upon which leading Democrats had based their opinions when they made the same claims about Iraqi WMDs. So if the President doesn't come off looking too good, neither do Sandy Berger, Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, William Cohen, Tom Daschle, John Edwards, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi, all of whom claimed that Iraq had WMDs .

I have never believed the "Bush lied" nonsense. In a July 26th post, I explained my thoughts on that in some detail. If you were not reading this blog in July and have not read "Bush Lied" - A Mindless Rant I invite you to do so.

I think the most amazing thing about this entire post is that liberals are still making the "Bush lied" claim. What was the purpose of the Win Without War ad? What do they hope to accomplish? Even if Bush did lie, which is an absurdity for anyone who wants to examine the facts with any degree of intellectual honesty, what good do they feel an ad like this will do them? Bush is not running for office again, yet they remain focused on him. They seem to have an obsessive preoccupation with destroying this President. I don't believe they can accomplish that goal, but even if they did, what would they get out of it? Nothing but the fulfillment of their sick obsession.

These people give new meaning to the old cliché "Get a Life!"

Congressional Resolution

I decided to browse the Thomas - U.S.Congres website this morning just to see what Congress is up to. The first thing I found was that yesterday, the House passed H. CON. RES. 59, a resolution "Recognizing the contributions of African-American basketball teams and players for their achievements, dedication, and contributions to the sport of basketball and to the Nation."

Like all resolutions, this one comes complete with plenty of "Whereas" statements, 16 to be exact, and follows that with several "Resolved" statements.

Now, I love basketball (I was a varsity high school basketball coach for ten years), and I realize that resolutions of various kinds are passed all the time. Still, it struck me that maybe Congress would have more important work to do than this.

But, maybe not.

Massachusetts Lawsuit Challenges a 1913 Law

The Associated Press is reporting that a lawsuit challenging a 1913 Massachusetts law prohibiting the marriage of out-of-state couples who are prohibited from marrying in their home states was argued today before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. The suit was filed on behalf of eight gay couples from surrounding states who have been denied marriage licenses in Massachusetts. The court is expected to rule on the case sometime in the next few months.

Michele Granda, a gay-rights lawyer for the couples, argued before the high court Thursday that the 1913 law ''sat on the shelf'' unused for decades until it was ''dusted off'' by the governor.

Granda said the high court, in its historic ruling legalizing gay marriage, found that under the Massachusetts Constitution, same-sex couples had the same right to marry as heterosexual couples.

''Nothing in (that ruling) says that our officials can discriminate simply because officials in other states discriminate,'' Granda told the six-judge panel.

Attorneys for the state argued that the law is being enforced in an evenhanded way for both heterosexual and same-sex couples.

Assistant Attorney General Peter Sacks said Massachusetts risks a ''backlash'' if it flouts the laws of others states by marrying gay couples from states that prohibit it. ''We've got respect for other states' laws,'' he said.

For reasons that I discussed on Sunday in a piece entitled Why We Need a Constitutional Amendment Protecting Marriage , this ruling will likely have nationwide ramifications, both for those in favor of and for those opposed to same-sex marriage.

We need to keep a close watch on this one.

A Steady and Dangerous Descent

Some have dubbed it the "slippery slope." Former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop called it "The Slide to Auschwitz." Now, the Netherlands is providing more evidence that once a society begins to devalue life, it's a steady and dangerous descent into a culture of death.

CNSNews.com reports today on a new directive that will be discussed in the Netherlands parliament later this month.

Four years after becoming the first nation formally to legalize euthanasia, the Netherlands is set to amend its legislation to provide for the euthanasia of newborn babies, under certain circumstances.

The report further states that child euthanasia has already been practiced in the Netherlands, and that a Netherlands hospital claims that the practice is also common in the United States.

The Groningen Academic Hospital, where doctors drew up the guidelines, made headlines last year when it admitted publicly that it had carried out euthanasia on terminally ill newborn babies.

The hospital claimed the practice was common elsewhere in the world, including in the U.S.

Government officials said there were 10-15 cases of child euthanasia in the Netherlands every year and doctors were eager for the directive to be adopted so they will not be prosecuted.

In "The Slide to Auschwitz," a 1977 address given to the American Academy of Pediatrics, C. Everett Koop stated that he saw "the progression from abortion to infanticide, to euthanasia, to the problems that developed in Nazi Germany..." The Netherlands seems to be eerily traveling that same road.

In April, soon after the starvation death of Terri Schiavo, I wrote an article on this same subject . The following is a paragraph from that article which talks about the acceptance of euthanasia in pre-Nazi Germany.

In 1920, well before the Nazis rose to power, German judge Karl Binding and psychiatrist Alfred Hoche wrote "The Release of the Destruction of Life Devoid of Value," a 60 page booklet which suggested that some lives were not worth living. Binding and Hoche justified euthanasia of "absolutely worthless human beings." Over time, the ideas presented by Binding and Hoche gained acceptance in German society.

Compare the acceptance in pre-Nazi Germany of the idea that some human lives were not worth living, with the following quotes from the CNSNews.com article about the current situation in the Netherlands.

The new directive, which will be debated in parliament later this month and most likely approved without a vote...

The 2001 euthanasia law and the new directive have drawn little public opposition in the Netherlands...

"We see there is more concern outside of Holland than in Holland itself."

In other words, the Netherlands was the first nation to legalize euthanasia. Now they are preparing to take another step by legalizing the euthanasia of babies, and nobody cares!

So where is the United States headed? To answer that question, simply look at where we have been and where we are. Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, over 45 million babies have been killed through legal abortion in the U.S. We've seen infanticide practiced ("Baby Doe," born with Down's Syndrome in Bloomington, Indiana is discussed in my article linked above). We've watch the court ordered starvation and dehydration death of Terri Schiavo. And just today, we've been hearing all about the debate over Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law.

It's a steady and dangerous descent into a culture of death.

New York Times article on Harriet Miers

Here is the link to The New York Times article on Harriet Miers that Drudge referred to yesterday. In Midcareer, a Turn to Faith to Fill a Void

Time To Pull Together

OK fellow conservatives, it's time to pull together. We've had our day or so to question the President's nomination of Harriet Miers for the U.S. Supreme Court. We wanted a sure-fire conservative whom we know, and we don't know Harriet Miers. So we were cautious. Some were more than cautious; some decided that Miers was a bad choice.

Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard said, "I'm disappointed, depressed and demoralized."

Pat Buchanan called the decision "deeply disheartening."

Ann Coulter called Miers "a complete mediocrity.”

I could go on, but you get the idea.

However, reports are starting to surface today that should encourage conservatives and disappoint, depress, demoralize, and deeply dishearten liberals.

Miers is reportedly a 25-year member of Valley View Christian Church in Dallas, Texas, an evangelical Christian church that preaches against abortion and gay marriage. Her minister, Rev. Ron Key says, "One of the things I admire about Harriet is she walks her faith in everyday life."

And this from Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht of Austin, Texas, a church member and friend of Miers for 30 years, on Miers' personal beliefs on social issues.

She hasn't said a lot, but you don't go to a church for 25 years if you're not comfortable with what they think. I'm sure she's consistent with the church's position.

Lorlee Bartos , a former campaign manager for Miers when she ran for the Dallas City Council in 1989 said, "She is on the extreme end of the anti-choice movement." Of course we all know that "anti-choice" is liberal code for "pro-life."

Now, The Drudge Report is reporting that Wednesday's New York Times will run a page one story indicating that Miers is an evangelical, born again Christian who became a Republican after she accepted Jesus Christ as her savior and "began identifying more with the Republican Party than with the Democrats."

Now if that doesn't scare the far left, nothing will. It will also bring out the heavy artillery of opposition.

This confirmation might be much more difficult than what we thought when we first heard the name of Harriet Miers. Why? Because Harriet Miers might be exactly what Christian conservatives have been praying for, and what other conservatives have been hoping for. That's why it's time to stop the criticism; it's time to stop the whining. It's time for conservatives to pull together, prepare for battle, and do what we can to encourage the Senate confirmation of Harriet Miers.

What Can I Say About Harriet Miers?

When people ask me what I think about the President's latest nomination for the Supreme Court, what can I say?

In 1988 Harriet Miers donated $1,000 to the Al Gore Jr. for President Committee - Ouch! That's not a good sign.

In 2000 she donated $5,000 to the Bush-Cheney recount fund - OK, now we're talking.

Eugene Delgaudio, president of the conservative group Public Advocate, thinks Miers is a terrible appointment, calling the nomination "a betrayal of the conservative, pro-family voters..." That concerns me.

Dr. James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family, is more positive,"We welcome the president's nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court." That makes me feel better.

Senate minority leader Harry Reid, D-NV, indicated that he likes Miers by stating, "I like Harriet Miers." That's worrisome.

Senate majority leader Bill Frist, R-TN, indicated that he likes Miers by stating, "Harriet is a nomination we are excited about." That's more encouraging.

Conservative strategist Manuel Miranda thinks Miers is unqualified - That's troubling.

MoveOn.org executive director Eli Pariser also thinks Miers is unqualified - That's reassuring.

So what do I say about Harriet Miers? I say let's not get too worked up. Be patient, pray, and have faith.

Why We Need a Constitutional Amendment Protecting Marriage

The Washington Times reported on Saturday that a 1913 Massachusetts state law will be under attack this week. The law states that nonresident couples who are prohibited from marrying in their home states are also prohibited from marrying in Massachusetts. A lawsuit challenging the 1913 law will be heard Thursday in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the same court which, in November of 2003, found a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. If the court overturns the marriage-residency law, it could open the way for same-sex couples from across the nation to get married in Massachusetts.

Same-sex couples married in Massachusetts would then undoubtedly sue to have their marriages recognized in their home states under section one of article four of the United States Constitution, known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Full Faith and Credit Clause states, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." This would mean that same-sex couples from anywhere in the United States could travel to Massachusetts, get married, then travel back to their home states where they would have to be recognized as legally married couples.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed by Congress in 1996, attempted to address this potential problem by declaring that no state must recognize "a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State." It takes very little imagination, however, to envision this provision of DOMA, if not DOMA itself, being ruled unconstitutional in our court system.

This leaves a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman as the only real protection of the institution of marriage.