Image Hosted by ImageShack.usImage Hosted by         Right Thinking

                                                                           Conservative Thought and Commentary

HEADLINES:      September 6 - Huge Step Taken by Europe’s Bank to Abate a Crisis       September 6 - U.S. policy on China sees little progress       September 6 - State Department drops Maoists from terrorist watch list       September 6 - Venezuela Holds U.S. Vessel And Crew On Suspicion Of Arms Trafficking       September 5 - DNC Overrules Delegates, Rams God and Jerusalem Back into Platform       September 5 - Powerful quake hits Costa Rica      

Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Senator Joe Lieberman on Iraq

I may not always agree with Senator Joe Lieberman, but I can certainly respect him. He is a voice of reason and sanity in the Democratic Party.

Case in point: Lieberman's views expressed in yesterday's Wall Street Journal:

I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there.
In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad to the east, Tikrit to the north and Ramadi to the west, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here, too, there is progress.

There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraqi hands than before. All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing.

This is progress that, unfortunately, most of the leaders of Senator Lieberman's own party don't want the American people to know about. When was the last time you have heard any of this from Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry... I could go on with the list of names, but you get the idea.

Senator Lieberman continued by defining the war in Iraq:

It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists... We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.

Does anyone on the left hear that? "The outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America." Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Hollywood, CNN... Wake Up!

Lieberman describes the developing Iraqi democracy:

In my meeting with the thoughtful prime minister of Iraq, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, he declared with justifiable pride that his country now has the most open, democratic political system in the Arab world. He is right.

In the face of terrorist threats and escalating violence, eight million Iraqis voted for their interim national government in January, almost 10 million participated in the referendum on their new constitution in October, and even more than that are expected to vote in the elections for a full-term government on Dec. 15. Every time the 27 million Iraqis have been given the chance since Saddam was overthrown, they have voted for self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 terrorists offer them.

Senator Lieberman points out that the United States deserves the credit (not the blame that liberals want to lay on our doorstep) for what is happening in Iraq. He also has a message for Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania and all others who want the U.S. to either withdraw immediately or to at least publicize a withdrawal timeline:

None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country.

The leaders of Iraq's duly elected government understand this, and they asked me for reassurance about America's commitment. The question is whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this.

What do the Iraqi people think about the future of their country?

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.

Somehow, the message of Senator Lieberman needs to be widely spread across America. Don't count on network TV to do it. Thank goodness for bloggers and talk radio. Let's get busy spreading the truth about Iraq, and let's hope that what we collectively can do is enough.

Monday, November 28, 2005

Democrats and Pre-war Intelligence

Bloggers and talk radio have been pointing out for a very long time that democrat after democrat saw the same prewar intelligence as did the President and came to the same conclusion as did the President: that Saddam Hussein had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. However, not until recently, when the President began pointing this out, have democrats had to account for their statements regarding Iraq and WMD's.

Their defense? A Boston Herald editorial points to a report that claims “no more than six senators and a handful of House members,” had read beyond the five-page summary of the 92-page intelligence document provided by the CIA to members of Congress. Senator Jay Rockefeller, D-WV, recently repeated that claim.

What kind of defense is that? If we believe what Rockefeller says, these people voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq without reading the information that they felt they needed to make that decision. If we don't believe what he says, then it's back to what some of us have been saying all along, that they saw the same intel as the President, and believed that Iraq was a threat and needed to be disarmed.

Interestingly enough, Hillary Clinton, when recently asked whether she had read the intel report, declined to say whether she had or not.

Friday, November 25, 2005

Are These People Insane?

The Associated Press ran a story today covering Cindy Sheehan's return to Crawford, Texas, to resume her protest. No big deal; that's just more of the same. But the quote from the story that caught my attention was from fellow protester Tammara Rosenleaf, who was commenting on the traditional Iraqi meal the protesters at the camp ate for Thanksgiving.
It's significant because the people of Iraq are suffering under our occupation, and for people in America it's business as usual stuffing themselves on fat turkeys.

Suffering under our occupation? Can these people really not be aware of the Saddam Hussein torture and rape rooms? Can they really not be aware of the stonings and beheadings of those who would dare to speak against the Saddam Hussein government? Can they really not be aware of the chemical poisoning of thousands of Iraqi citizens.

Can these people really be this ignorant, or do they just hate America so much that anything the United States does is worse in their minds than anything any tyrant has ever done?

Maybe these people are just insane.

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Protesters in Crawford

The Associated Press reports today that Protesters Gather Again Near Bush's Ranch .

Two things really struck me about this report. The first thing that caught my attention was the first line of the report: "More than a dozen war protesters returned to a roadside near President Bush's ranch before dawn Wednesday, defying two new local bans on roadside camping and parking."

More than a dozen protesters? Oh no! What a turnout! Their numbers are massive!

The second thing that caught my attention in this report was protester Ann Wright, a former U.S. diplomat, who told a sheriff's deputy who had warned the group to leave or face arrest that most of the group would stay because they believed the bans restrict their free-speech rights.

Well, I think we ought to also allow people to get naked and dance in the public square at noon. Now, I personally wouldn't want to do that; that would just be too ugly. But who are we to not allow others to exercise their free-speech rights in that way if they choose to do so?

You protesters, stand strong. Exercise your free-speech rights. All twelve of you.

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Andrea Mitchell's "Retraction"

I recently received a comment on a November 12th post entitled Plame's Big Identity Secret? . The post was in reference to five people who have claimed that the identity of Valerie Plame as a CIA employee was known in Washington well before it appeared in Robert Novak's column.

The commenter, who calls himself/herself, Abben, begins by stating that it looks like I have my facts wrong. Abben then proceeds to quote an article from a website called Media Matters for America . This article attempts to discredit the claims of four of the five people whom I quoted in my original post.

So I checked the Media Matters for America article. I also checked some other references to see if Abben was correct. I wanted to know - did I have my facts wrong? I doubted it, but I checked anyway. Guess what I found.

The Media Matters for America article completely fails in its attempt to cast legitimate doubt on former CIA officer Wayne Simmons', General Paul Vallely's, National Review's Cliff May's, and NBC's Andrea Mitchell's claims that Plame's CIA employment was well-known. To read my complete rebuttal of the Media Matters for America article, and of Abben's claim that I have my facts wrong, you can check the original post and comments. However, I want to share in this post what Media Matters for America says about Andrea Mitchell's claim.

On Oct. 3, 2003, Alan Murray, host of CNBC's Capital Report, asked Mitchell:

"Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?"

To this question, Mitchell replied:

"It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that."

Media Matters for America reports that Mitchell later retracted her claim. The implication, of course, is that we should not believe Mitchell's original claim because she later retracted it. However, looking at Mitchell's attempted retraction, we see that the retraction is absurd.

On November 10 of this year, Don Imus of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning asked Mitchell about her October, 2003 statement. Here is Mitchell's reply:

"I - I - I said it was widely known that an envoy had gone - let me try to find the quote. But the fact is what I was trying to say in the rest of that sentence - I said we did not know who the envoy was until the Novak column."

That's not what she was saying in October, 2003. Look again at the original question and at her original answer. Mitchell was asked "how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA." Her answer was that it "was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community." She did not say that it was widely known that an envoy had gone, as she tries to claim in her so-called retraction.

Mitchell's pathetic attempt at a retraction really makes her original statement more believable. It reminds me of when Bill Clinton explained, "It depends on what the meaning of the word is is. When someone says something like that, you know that person is lying. And if Mitchell was lying in her retraction, it makes me believe that her original statement was true.

Saturday, November 19, 2005

A Book I Wish I Had Written

Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under My Bed , a children's book by Katharine DeBrecht, is a book I wish that I had written. One reason, of course, is that it will probably make the author a lot of money, but beyond that, I just love the concept.

This full-color illustrated book is a fun way for parents to teach young children the valuable lessons of conservatism. Written in simple text, readers can follow along with Tommy and Lou as they open a lemonade stand to earn money for a swing set. But when liberals start demanding that Tommy and Lou pay half their money in taxes, take down their picture of Jesus, and serve broccoli with every glass of lemonade, the young brothers experience the downside to living in Liberaland.

If you have young children, you had better hurry and purchase your copy of the book before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules that parents do not have the exclusive right to teach their children about political ideology and declares the book unconstitutional.

Friday, November 18, 2005

Hopeful Sign form Orange County, Florida

I have been writing for weeks about black conservatives who have much more to offer to the black community than do people like Charles Rangel, Jessie Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, and other so-called black leaders of the liberal persuasion.

The following posts all reference fine Americans with real answers for the problems blacks are facing today; a couple of these posts also make apparent the contrast between the intellectual honesty of these black conservatives and the hypocrisy and deceitfulness of the liberal black leadership:

The Wisdom of Thomas Sowell
The True Leaders of the Black Community
Farrakhan's Conspiracy Theory

Chris Malott of "Malott's Blog" has also been writing on the same subject and has contributed the following posts:

Thomas Sowell Is My Hero
A Man of Character
Star Parker On California's Assault On the Family
Star Parker on the "Millions More Movement"

I know, too, that there are thousands of other conservative bloggers out there who are trying to communicate the same message: that it is the policies and philosophies of the left that retard the progress of the black community, and the right whose policies and philosophy provide hope for a better future.

Now, here is a glimmer of some encouraging news. Maybe we are beginning to see a breakthrough. Scott Maxwell wrote an article in yesterday's Orlando Sentinel with the headline NAACP chief makes switch to GOP .

For decades, Republicans have struggled to reach out to black Americans. But now in Orange County, the GOP has to reach no further than the NAACP.

As of this week, Derrick Wallace, head of Orange County's NAACP, has switched parties -- to become a Republican.

Does everyone realize what an amazing step in the right direction this is? The NAACP has been one of the most liberal organizations in the country. It has been so liberal, in fact, that Rush Limbaugh has dubbed it the NAALCP (National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Colored People)

"I've thought about this for two years," Wallace said Tuesday afternoon, just a few hours after returning from the elections office. "This is not a decision I made yesterday."

I suspect that this is a decision that more and more black Americans are thinking about all the time as the truth is becoming more widespread. That truth is that conservative values do enable, not only black Americans, but all Americans, to more closely realize our full potential as as human beings.

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

The Proper Place for Debate

Can anybody explain to me what positive purpose it serves our country for a former President of the United States to go abroad and tell university students that the United States made a “big mistake” by invading Iraq?

That’s what former President Bill Clinton told students at the American University of Dubai.

"Saddam is gone. It's a good thing, but I don't agree with what was done, " Clinton told students at the American University of Dubai.
"It was a big mistake. The American government made several errors ... one of which is how easy it would be to get rid of Saddam and how hard it would be to unite the country."

It’s fair for Clinton to hold this opinion. It’s acceptable to have this debate within the halls of Congress. It’s not acceptable to denigrate our own government before the eyes and ears of the world.

Sports teams have an unwritten rule: “What’s said in the locker room stays in the locker room.” In other words, players, teammates, and coaches can disagree with one another, but they don’t do it publicly (Unless, of course, it’s someone like Terrell Owens). Families have disagreements among themselves, but strong families keep it within the family; they work it out within the family.

That’s part of what united means. Debating U.S. policy with each other makes us stronger. Having that debate on the world stage weakens us. Bill Clinton doesn’t understand that, or doesn’t care.

Happy Birthday

On a personal note, I would like to wish my daughter Delaney a very happy 11th birthday!

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

What the Terrorists Really Want

On Sunday's Meet the Press , Jordan's King Abdullah refuted the idea that the recent terror attacks in Jordan can somehow be attributed to the idea that Jordan is supportive of the United States.

On the show, Tim Russert quoted the al-Qaeda website as saying that "the places of execution were chosen to be some hotels, which the tyrant of Jordan has turned into a back yard for the enemies of Islam, such as the Jews and the Crusaders."

King Abdullah responded with the following:

I'd like to point out that those that know Jordan, the hotels, especially the Days Inn is a favorite place for Jordanians and Iraqis, these suicide bombers actually went and aimed at Jordanian targets. The Radisson Hotel was a Jordanian wedding with Jordanians and Palestinians, where innocent people were killed. So this was nothing to do with the West. This targeted Jordanian citizens, innocent men, women and children.

Abdullah is absolutely correct; the motivation for the attack in Jordan has nothing to do with the West. America needs to understand that terrorists' claims that they are acting in response to "the Crusaders" presence in Iraq or in Saudi Arabia, or that they are acting because of U.S. support for Israel is nothing more than a smoke screen for what they really want: total elimination of all infidels, i.e., anyone not in complete agreement with their radical beliefs.

Sunday, November 13, 2005

If Only Al Gore Had Been Elected President

"I don't want to diminish the threat of terrorism at all, it is extremely serious, but on a long-term global basis, global warming is the most serious problem we are facing."

Global warming is more serious than terrorism? It is according to former vice-president Al Gore, who has come to that conclusion based on "a feeling (after hurricane Katrina) that we have entered a period of consequences and that bitter cup will be offered to us again and again until we exert our moral authority and respond appropriately."

Gore made the statement while discussing the British-based sustainable investing company Generation Investment, of which he is co-founder and chairman.

Don't you wish Al Gore had been elected President in 2000? He could have tackled the problems that he had a feeling were serious. While he was at it, maybe he could have talked to the terrorists about their feelings and discovered why they're so angry with us. Then he could have worked something out with them, like if they would quit blowing people up, then maybe we would establish some government program that all terrorists could attend for free. The program would be designed to help the terrorists build up their self-esteem so they would no longer feel the need to blow people up. Then we could just sit around with the terrorists, who were no longer terrorists, and we could all feel good together while we were working on the really serious problem of global warming.

Ah yes, what could have been!

Saturday, November 12, 2005

Kurdistan Singing U.S. Praises

File this under "News You Won't Hear in the Mainstream Media." reports that a group called Kurdistan Development Corporation is sponsoring an ad campaign thanking America "for helping us win our freedom."

Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman, Chairman of the Kurdistan Development Corporation and Kurdistan’s High Representative to the UK, says the commercials are necessary to counter the American media’s largely negative coverage of Iraq.

"We feel the mainstream media,” she tells Newsmax, "is focusing on the negative stories coming out of Iraq and very rarely highlighting the good news.”

"We’re not saying that the media doesn’t tell the truth. They do tell the truth. There is violence. There is an insurgency. But it’s not the whole truth, or the whole picture.”

Rahman expressed concern, however, about the talk of a U.S. pullout from Iraq:

"If people are saying that America should withdraw their troops now, that would be a catastrophe, not only for the people of Iraq but also for the Middle East and the wider intentional community and the United States,” she says.

If that doesn't make some on the left squirm, this certainly will:

"The people of Kurdistan and the government of Kurdistan,” she (Rahman) gushes, "admire President Bush’s courage in fighting Saddam Hussein despite some of the doubts of America’s international partners.”

On the Kurdistan website Kurdistan - The Other Iraq , H.E. Masoud Barzani, President, Kurdistan Region in Iraq, further praised the United States:

The United States has never wavered in its quest to help Iraqis build a democracy that rewards compromise and consensus. The ever generous American people have paid a tragic price, the lives of their finest men and women, to advance the banner of freedom and democracy, a sacrifice for which we are profoundly grateful.

It just doesn't sound like the image of the United States has been tarnished around the world like liberal Democrats like to claim. Certainly, U.S. image is shining brightly in places where people really know what is going on.

Plame's Big Identity Secret? reports that General Paul Vallely, former CIA officer Wayne Simmons, Andrea Mitchell, Robert Novak, and National Review's Cliff May all "have first hand knowledge that Valerie Plame/Wilson's identity as a CIA employee was commonly known in DC, especially among the socially prominent movers and shakers who frequented State Department parties and similar functions." Furthermore, none of them were contacted by Patrick Fitzgerald during his two-year investigation into the alleged leak of Plame's CIA identity.

Interviewed on the November 3, 2005 edition of ABC's John Batchelor show, Vallely asserted that he had met and discussed the status of Plame with Wilson in Fox News' "green room" before the two were scheduled to appear as guest commentators.
Cliff May said on Fox News "I knew this, and a lot of other people knew it."
Wayne Simmons said on Fox Radio "As most people now know, [Plame] was traipsed all over Washington many years ago by Joe Wilson and introduced at embassies and other parties as 'my CIA wife.'"
Andrea Mitchell said on NBC "[Plame's identity] was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger...So a number of us began to pick up on that."
Robert Novak said ..."First, I did not receive a planned leak. Second, the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else. Third, it was not much of a secret."

It's amazing that in two years of investigating this case, Fitzgerald never felt it important to interview these individuals. I suspect that a Scooter Libby defense attorney might show a little more interest. I also suspect that Joe Wilson is the one who could find himself in the hot seat if this case goes to trial.

Friday, November 11, 2005

Tribute to Veterans

"You Can't Tell a Vet Just By Looking"

He is the cop on the beat who spent six months in Saudi Arabia sweating two gallons a day making sure the armored personnel carrier didn't run out of fuel.

He is the barroom loudmouth whose behavior is outweighed in the cosmic scales by four hours of unparalleled bravery near the 38th Parallel in Korea.

She is the nurse who fought against futility in Da Nang and went to sleep sobbing every night for two solid years.

He is the POW who left one person and came back another.

He is the drill instructor who has never been in combat, but has saved countless lives by turning no-accounts into Marines.

He is the parade-riding legionnaire who pins on his ribbons and medals with a prosthetic hand.

He is the white-haired guy bagging groceries at the supermarket, aggravatingly slow, who helped liberate a Nazi death camp.

A vet is an ordinary and extraordinary human being — someone who offered his life's vital years in the service of his country.

He is a soldier and a savior and a sword against the darkness, and nothing more than the finest, greatest testimony on behalf of the finest, greatest nation ever known. We will never be able to repay the debt of gratitude we owe.

—Author Unknown—

Thursday, November 10, 2005

House Republicans Cave In

All right, now I'm hoppin' mad! When will Republicans learn to act like they won the elections? Maybe when those of us who voted for them hold them accountable.

Once again, House Republicans have shown that they lack the courage to act like the majority party by caving in to environmentalist groups by removing from the currently debated budget bill language that would open ANWR to oil drilling, and language that would allow states to authorize oil and gas drilling off both coasts.

It just makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever to complain about high energy prices in one breath, then to say in the next breath, "No drilling in ANWR; no drilling off the coasts; no building new refineries." I'm not an economist, but I understand basic supply and demand. Demand is not going to change all that much. I hear all about conservation, and that's fine. I have nothing against conservation; we should conserve where we can. However, let's be honest about it. Conservation is only going to have so much effect. The fact of the matter is we still have to drive from point A to point B; and we still have to heat our homes, our factories and our offices. So the demand is going to remain.

That leaves us with supply. When we increase the supply, the price will go down. It's pretty simple, really. We can't continue to say "No" to every attempt at progress; we can't continue to sit on our hands and let others continue to say "No" to every attempt at progress, and then continue to complain about energy prices.

If you are concerned about what effect drilling in ANWR might have on wildlife, then consider the following facts from :

*ANWR is an area of 19 million acres.

*Of that 19 million acres, only The Coastal Plain area, which is 1.5 million acres in size, would even be considered for exploration, while 17.5 million acres (92% of ANWR) will remain "permanently closed to any kind of development."

*Of the 1.5 million acres designated for evaluation, less than 2000 acres would actually be developed. That's less than one half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.

*Prudhoe Bay, North America's largest oil field, is less than 100 miles west of ANWR. In over 40 years of production in this area, "the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas."

In short, the area that would be affected is very small, and even in that area, wildlife will still thrive.

The Senate has already included ANWR drilling in its budget bill, and according to an Associated Press report, "leaders will push hard for any final House-Senate budget bill to include it."

If you're sick of paying the high gasoline prices, if you're sick of hearing about how your heating bills are going to soar this winter, start calling you senators and representatives and tell them to include ANWR and coastal drilling provisions in the budget bill. Tell them to stand up for once to environmentalists and liberal politicians who are in the environmentalists' pockets.

Update: Here are the names of the "moderate" Republicans who signed a letter to House Republican Leadership on Tuesday expressing "strong opposition" to the provision in the budget bill allowing for drilling in ANWR.

Charles Bass - NH, Nancy Johnson - CT, Frank A LoBiondo - NJ,
Rodney Freylinghuysen - NJ, Sue Kelly - NY, Jim Saxton - NJ,
Wayne Gilchrest - MD, Jim Gerlach - PA, Vernon Ehlers - MI,
Jim Leach - IA, David Reichert - WA, Mark Kirk - IL,
Mike Ferguson - NJ, Rob Simmons - CT, Christopher Shays - CT,
Sherwood Boehlert - NY, Jeb Bradley - NH, Mike Castle - DE,
James Sensenbrenner - WI, Jim Walsh - NY, Timothy Johnson - IL,
Michael Fitzpatrick - PA, Jim Ramstad - MN, Bob Inglis - SC,
Mark Kennedy - MN

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Michael Steele Fights Back

On November 2nd, I posted a report on the racist attacks Democrats in Prince George's County, Maryland have been making against Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, a black conservative Republican running for a seat in the U.S. Senate. Yesterday, The Washington Times reports that Mr. Steele is fighting back.

Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele said black Democratic leaders who call racially tinged attacks on him fair game because he is a conservative Republican have exposed themselves as racists and cast shame upon the state.

"I think it diminishes their leadership," Mr. Steele said in an interview. "But most importantly, I think it embarrasses our state to have elected officials speak in those terms. Marylanders now have a sense of the content of their character, because that is what [Martin Luther King] wanted us to judge each other by, and that's enough for me."

Steele had this to say about comments from Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, who said Mr. Steele invites criticism because his conservative philosophy is anti-black.

"The fact that my values are outside the black community ... will come as a surprise to my mother, who raised me with those values," said Mr. Steele, whose widowed mother raised him in the District working as a minimum-wage seamstress and refused welfare.

Refused welfare? That's where the problem began. Refusing welfare is outside the liberal community, black or white.

"When I have opponents like that say that I am anti-black, [I say] show me in my rhetoric where I have been anti-black, tell what I have said that has been anti-black," he said.

"When I talk about empowering my community and all communities, not just African-Americans but everyone, when I talk about giving your business a fair opportunity, a fair shake, giving your child a fair shot at a good education, giving your community a fair shot at re-establishing itself and growing again, I don't know where that becomes anti-anyone."

It's not anti-black; it's not anti-white; it's not anti-anyone else, but it is anti-liberal because Mr. Steele is talking about giving everyone a fair opportunity. This means an opportunity for your business to earn its success, an opportunity for your child to earn a good education, an opportunity for your community to earn its growth. Liberal thinking is that the business, the child, and the community are entitled to these things, whether they are earned or not. This sense of entitlement helps only to destroy motivation and, consequently, becomes a hindrance to success.

Mr. Steele, a former chairman of the state Republican Party, said his party has failed to articulate its message to black voters but he intends to correct that mistake.

"The philosophy, the policies that we espouse go directly to the benefit of the black community," he said. "But our problem is we never stepped up and started talking about that directly to the community."

The other problem is that for far too long, liberal blacks have been allowed to masquerade as the voice of the black community. People like Mr. Steele speaking out will certainly benefit the black community.

Perhaps the most ironic quote in The Washington Times article comes from U.S. Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin who pledged not to use racial attacks in his campaign for senator, but would not denounce those who do.

"This is the Democratic Party, after all. We have a rather open party, and people are very opinionated," Mr. Cardin said.

Did he just say, "We have a rather open party"? After the lambasting that Mr. Steele has had to suffer for being a black conservative, do I even need to point out the irony and hypocrisy of Mr. Cardin's statement?

Monday, November 07, 2005

A Hoosier Nutcase

Anyone not convinced of the extreme kook nature of some on the far left need only to take a look at the blog Indiana 9/11 Truth . I stumbled across this website this past weekend quite by accident and could only wonder what this guy has been smoking. He is, I'm sorry to say, a fellow Hoosier, but the guy's just not right.

Here are a few quotes from the site:

How angry would you be if you found out that 9/11 wasn't what you thought it was? Would you be surprised if they lied to us about that, too?
Can anybody even prove that bin Laden still exists? There is evidence to support the contention that he is a fictitious boogeyman, created by the CIA.
A few months ago, I ordered a book I saw on called American Assassination: The Strange Death of Senator Paul Wellstone by Four Arrows Press and Jim Fetzer. This is a remarkable book. It makes a very convincing case for the argument that Wellstone was killed by elements in the Bush administration, in order to tip the Senate over to a Republican majority, which would then be able to vote for the attack on Iraq.
God only knows what they're planning as a follow-up to 9/11. The fear-mongers use this uncertainty about "what's next" to make everyone afraid of "the terrorists" as they have defined them (fanatics from the Middle East). But our fear has been misdirected. We should be afraid of the real terrorist infrastructure that made 9/11 happen: elements of our own invisible government, rogue network, or whatever you want to call it.

We have a lot of work to do, folks.

Saturday, November 05, 2005

Former President Carter and the Abortion Issue

The Washington Times reports that on Thursday, former President Jimmy Carter expressed his views condemning abortion.

Former President Jimmy Carter yesterday condemned all abortions and chastised his party for its intolerance of candidates and nominees who oppose abortion.

"I never have felt that any abortion should be committed -- I think each abortion is the result of a series of errors," he told reporters over breakfast at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, while across town Senate Democrats deliberated whether to filibuster the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. because he may share President Bush and Mr. Carter's abhorrence of abortion.

"These things impact other issues on which [Mr. Bush] and I basically agree," the Georgia Democrat said. "I've never been convinced, if you let me inject my Christianity into it, that Jesus Christ would approve abortion."

Thank you, Mr. Carter! As a Christian highly opposed to abortion, I have never understood how any Christian could possibly support abortion rights. The only answer I've ever gotten is that "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I don't believe I have the right to impose my views on others. We can't legislate morality."

That's complete nonsense! Stealing, murder, rape, kidnapping, child pornography, and racial discrimination are all moral issues; they are also all illegal. We legislate morality every day.

In 1858, Senator Stephen A. Douglas, D-IL used the same reasoning to argue against legislating against slavery.

It is no answer to this argument to say that slavery is an evil, and hence should not be tolerated. You must allow the people to decide for themselves whether it is a good or an evil.

Imagine what this country would be like if the "I have no right to impose my views on others" argument had won the day on the slavery issue. Yet this is the very argument many Christians use to justify their "pro-choice" stand on abortion. In fact, it's the argument that Mr. Carter used to justify his pro-choice stand during his presidential campaign.

Running for president in 1976 -- just three years after the Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision -- Mr. Carter took a moderate stance.

"I think abortion is wrong and that the government ought never do anything to encourage abortion," he said during that campaign. "But I do not favor a constitutional amendment which would prohibit all abortions, nor one that would give states [a] local option to ban abortions."

So, Mr. President, if abortion is wrong, why would you oppose legislation that would outlaw it? If you had been President in 1865, would you have opposed the 13th amendment abolishing slavery?

Can someone please explain to me how a person can believe that abortion is wrong, yet oppose legislation to stop it? Can someone justify that to me in a historical context and within the context of all the other laws that we already have in this country which do legislate morality? I'm not talking here about people who say they do not believe abortion is wrong. I'm not talking about someone who says that abortion is no different than having a doctor remove a lump of tissue from a women's body. That's another argument, one that also makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, but one that I'll save for another day. I'm talking here about someone who says that abortion is wrong, but that it should remain legal. Someone explain that one to me, and don't use the "you can't legislate morality argument" because, as I've already said, that's simply not true.

So has Mr. Carter finally taken an unequivocal stance against abortion? I hope so, but if we read to the end of the Washington Times article, it sounds like he may still be trying to play both sides of the issue, perhaps in an attempt to reconcile his newly stated pro-life belief with his loyalty to the Democratic Party.

Mr. Carter said his party lost the 2004 presidential elections and lost House and Senate seats because Democratic leaders failed "to demonstrate a compatibility with the deeply religious people in this country. I think that absence hurt a lot."

Democrats must "let the deeply religious people and the moderates on social issues like abortion feel that the Democratic party cares about them and understands them," he said, adding that many Democrats, like him, "have some concern about, say, late-term abortions, where you kill a baby as it's emerging from its mother's womb."

"Some concern" about a procedure "where you kill a baby"? How can anyone have some concern about killing a baby? Is abortion wrong or not? Is the being that is "emerging from its mother's womb" a baby or not? If it's not a baby, then why would you have any concern? If it is a baby, then how could you have anything less than absolute horror and outrage?

You can't have it both ways, Mr. President. I'm glad to see you admit that you "never have felt that any abortion should be committed" and that you have "never been convinced...that Jesus Christ would approve abortion." But my challenge is for you and all others who share these beliefs to boldly proclaim what you believe, stand up for the sanctity of life, and join the fight to abolish the legalized murder in this country of over 1 million babies per year.

Thursday, November 03, 2005

Darn Those Baggy Pants

This report from the Associated Press is just too good not to comment on.

FERNDALE, Mich. -- A man suspected of stealing discs from a video store was tripped up by his baggy pants, falling twice before police captured him, authorities said.

James Green, 30, of Detroit, took about a half-dozen DVDs on Sunday night, and initially made his getaway on a bicycle, police said.

Officers spotted him in an alley, and he abandoned the bike and ran, but his pants fell to his ankles and he tripped, Ferndale Detective Sgt. Patrick Jones told The Daily Tribune of Royal Oak. "Finally, he kicked off his pants and shoes" and then jumped a fence into the backyard of a house where he was captured, Jones said.

On Monday, Green pleaded guilty to resisting arrest and retail fraud and was ordered jailed for 30 days.

Note to Mr. Green: When you get out of jail, get some pants that fit, get a job, and buy your DVDs.

Wednesday, November 02, 2005


The Democratic Party is the party of inclusion. It's the party with the big tent, the party that supports minorities. It's the colorblind party, the party of open minds. Right?

Try telling that to Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele. Mr. Steele is a black American running for a seat in the U.S. Senate. He is also a conservative Republican.

A Washington Times article illustrates just how open-minded liberals are.

Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.

Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.
But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with "pointing out the obvious."

"There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names," said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Wait a minute; the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Wouldn't it be advancement if Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele were elected to the U.S. Senate? No, never mind. Rush Limbaugh is correct when he calls that organization the NAALCP (National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Colored People.)

Well, back to the Washington Times article.

State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat, said she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele, in the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes.

"Party trumps race, especially on the national level," she said. "If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It's democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy."

-"does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs" Would it be OK if someone from the Republican Party made some racial jabs? Didn't think so.

Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.

"Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community," she said. "His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people."

-"different than most public blacks" Isn't that stereotyping? Isn't that profiling? Thought we weren't supposed to do that!

State Sen. Verna Jones, Baltimore Democrat and vice chairman of the General Assembly's legislative black caucus, said black Republicans deserve criticism because the Republican Party has not promoted the interests of the black community.

"The public policies supported by Democratic principles are the ones that most impact the African-American community," she said. "I'm not saying [Mr. Steele] is a sell-out. That's not for me to say."

This is some of the most personal, vile, racist, hate-filled venom I've heard in a long time.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Deciphering Liberal Code

Liberal-speak. That's the code by which liberals in this country attempt to communicate with the American people without giving away what they really mean. Liberal-speak has been quite common for some time, but since the recent nomination of Judge Samuel Alito for the U.S. Supreme Court, there has been an increase of coded messages coming from the left.

In case you're not familiar with the code, let me decipher some of it for you.

"It’s sad that the president felt that he had to pick a nominee likely to divide America, instead of picking a nominee like Sandra Day O’Connor that had united America.” –Senator Charles Schumer, D-NY.
Code: " a nominee likely to divide America" = a nominee that conservatives like
Code: "a nominee that united America" = a nominee that liberals liked

"The Senate needs to find out if the man replacing Miers is too radical for the American people." -Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV
Code: "is too radical for the American people" = is a conservative

"There are many serious questions about whether Judge Alito is a mainstream nominee…" -Senator Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.
Code: " a mainstream nominee" = a liberal
"Apparently, he couldn't find a woman or minority or a mainstream nominee…" -Senator Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.
Code: "a woman or minority" = a liberal woman or minority
Code: " a mainstream nominee" = a liberal

"Instead of seeking to unify the country with a nominee who would command wide consensus, the President again chose to submit to the dictates of the radical right." -House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-CA
Code: "a nominee who would command wide consensus" = a nominee that liberals like
Code: "to submit to the dictates of the radical right" = to do what conservatives elected him to do

“We now have to ask the basic questions of Judge Alito to determine whether he is in the mainstream or whether this nomination is simply an effort to appease the far right wing.” -U.S. Senator Dick Durbin, D-IL
Code: "to determine whether he is in the mainstream" = to determine whether he is liberal
Code: "to appease the far right wing" = to do what conservatives elected him to do

"I will take all actions necessary to ensure that the next justice is not an ideological activist" -Senator Jon Corzine, D-NJ
Code: "not an ideological activist" = not a conservative

“I’m disappointed that it appears President Bush chose to nominate a top choice of the extreme Right rather than a mainstream jurist more in line with the views of the American people. -Senator Chris Dodd, D-Conn.
Code: "to nominate a top choice of the extreme Right" = to do what conservatives elected him to do
Code: "a mainstream jurist more in line with the views of the American people" = a jurist liberals like

"Today, the President nominated a replacement designed to pacify these most extreme elements in his party." – Senator Tom Harkin, D-IA
Code: "to pacify these most extreme elements in his party" = to do what conservatives elected him to do

"Regrettably, when he could have united the country through his choice, the President chose to reward one faction of his party and risk dividing the country." – Senator Patrick Leahy, D-VT
Code: "could have united the country" = could have nominated a liberal
Code: "chose to reward one faction of his party" = chose to do what conservatives elected him to do
Code: "risk dividing the country" = risk angering liberals

The Conservative Sites Webring by lazarst
[ Join Now | Ring Hub | Random | << Prev | Next >> ]