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      

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Senator Evan Bayh - Hoosier Liberal

Today, for the second time in a row, the Senate voted to confirm a George W. Bush nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court. Also today, for the second time in a row, Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat from Indiana, voted “No.”

To my fellow Hoosiers: Please see Evan Bayh for what he is – a liberal democrat who has fought against the conservative cause at every turn. He likes to portray himself as a moderate who stands for “Hoosier Values.” That’s just a façade. It’s pure deception, and the people of Indiana have been deceived by this man long enough.

Bayh is going to attempt to get the Democratic nomination for President in 2008. I don’t think he’ll get it, but if he does, we need to make sure that he becomes another Democratic candidate who does not win his own state. If he is not elected President, he’ll want to remain in the Senate. In that case, it will be time to vote this liberal out of office and to elect someone who will truly represents “Hoosier values.”

Monday, January 30, 2006

Reports of Iraqi WMD's in Syria; What You Won't Hear on Network News

In July of 2005, I wrote an article explaining why I believed that Bush did not lie about Iraqi WMD’s. In that article, I suggested that one explanation for what happened to these weapons is that they were transported to Syria shortly before the war began. If you would like to read the whole article, click here , but the following is the excerpt from that article that is relevant to this report:

A second possible explanation for what happened to Iraq's WMD's is that they were shipped out of the country to a neighboring terrorist state. Syria comes to mind. Is there any evidence to indicate that this possibility is more than just wild speculation? You bet.

According to The Washington Times, Iraq Survey Group, a 1,400-member team organized by the Pentagon and CIA, has information from Iraqi sources indicating that "Saddam Hussein periodically removed guards on the Syrian border and replaced them with his own intelligence agents who supervised the movement of banned materials between the two countries..." (Scarborough)

In the same article, retired Lt. Gen. James R. Clapper Jr., who heads The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the U.S. intelligence agency that analyzes satellite imagery, is quoted as stating, "There is no question that there was a lot of traffic, increase in traffic up to the immediate onset of combat and certainly during Iraqi Freedom."

While this is not proof that WMD's were shipped across the border in the days before the start of the war, when evidence of satellite imagery is examined in light of the afore mentioned information from the Iraqi sources, there is certainly cause for a reasonable suspicion that Iraqi WMD's have found their way to Syria.

Further indication that Iraqi WMD's may have been shipped to Syria came in the form of an April, 2004 planned al Qaeda chemical weapon attack in Jordon. Five trucks originating from Syria and containing 20 tons of chemical weapons were intercepted in Jordon, just 75 miles from the Syrian boarder. Had the attack been successful, up to 80,000 people could have died from the resulting cloud of poison gas.

In a May 6, 2004 interview with Larry Elder, terrorism expert John Loftus stated, "There's a lot of reason to think (the source of the chemicals) might be Iraq. We captured Iraqi members of al Qaeda, who've been trained in Iraq, planned for the mission in Iraq, and now they're in Jordan with nerve gas. That's not the kind of thing you buy in a grocery store. You have to have obtained it from someplace."

Elder then asked, "They couldn't have obtained it from Syria?"

Loftus replied, "Syria does have the ability to produce certain kinds of nerve gasses, but in small quantities. The large stockpiles were known to be in Iraq." (Elder)

Recently, there have been reports from those who claim to have direct knowledge that Iraq's WMD's were, in fact, shipped to Syria. On December 15, 2005, The New York Sun reported on what the former top man in the Israeli military, General Yaalon, retired chief of staff of the Israel Defense Force, has said on the subject. In talking about Saddam and WMD’s, Yaalon stated, "He transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria. No one went to Syria to find it."

General Yaalon's claim reiterates what Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said over three years ago. The Fall 2005 Middle East Quarterly reported that on December 23, 2002, Sharon stated, "Chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria."

Now, an Iraqi general claims not only that the Iraqi WMD's are in Syria, but also that they are in the hands of al Qaeda. Last week The New York Sun reported that Iraqi general Georges Sada claims to have knowledge that Iraqi WMD’s were shipped to Syria.

”There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."

"Saddam realized, this time, the Americans are coming," Mr. Sada said. "They handed over the weapons of mass destruction to the Syrians."

What about speculation of the connection between Iraqi chemical weapons and the attempted al Qaeda chemical weapon attack in Jordon? reported yesterday that General Sada directly linked the two in an interview with Monica Crowley of WABC Radio.

"As a general, you see, we should keep our secrets," Gen. Sada told WABC Radio's Monica Crowley. But when news broke of the foiled WMD attack on Amman, he changed his mind.

"I understood that the terrorists were going to make an explosion in Amman in Jordan . . . . and they were targeting the prime minister of Jordan, the intelligence [headquarters] of Jordan, and maybe the American embassy in Jordan - and they were going to use the same chemical weapons which we had in Iraq," he told WABC.

It's amazing that reports such as these are not headlines on every major news network. When Joe Wilson said that the President had lied about Saddam Hussein's seeking to acquire uranium from Niger, the press was all over that. However, when evidence refutes Wilson's claim (see ), the press largely ignores that evidence. Now, you hear little if anything from the network news agencies regarding these claims of Iraqi WMD's being in the hands of al Qaeda in Syria.

It's an absolute tragedy that the American press is so blatantly anti-American in what it chooses to report and to not report.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Kerry Filibuster? Use it at Gitmo!

CNN is reporting today that Senator John Kerry is going to attempt a filibuster to block the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.

When I read this, I immediately had an idea that I think will work. If Kerry begins an extended period of speaking, someone needs to record his speech. Military interrogators can then play the recording to prisoners at Gitmo and Abu Grahab. That's a torture technique that's sure to work.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

One Victory in the Cultural War

As Christian conservatives become increasingly bold in standing up for morality in our society, we will begin to see increasingly greater results. In other words, Christian conservatives have a voice in this country; it is a powerful voice, and we are beginning to learn to use that voice.

Latest case in point: After only three weeks, NBC has decided to cancel The Book of Daniel, a show about a drug-addicted Episcopal priest with an alcoholic wife, a homosexual Republican son, a drug-dealing daughter, an adopted son who is sleeping with the bishop's daughter, and a sister-in-law who is sleeping with the priest's lesbian secretary.

Great entertainment, huh? So why is NBC dropping it? Was it a sudden wave of conscience? I doubt it.

American Family Association chairman Donald E. Wildmon said this:

“NBC didn’t want to eat their economic losses. Had NBC not had to eat millions of dollars each time it aired, NBC would have kept ‘Daniel’ alive. But when the sponsors dropped the program, NBC decided it didn’t want to continue the fight.”

“This shows the average American that he doesn’t have to simply sit back and take the trash being offered on TV, but he can get involved and fight back with his pocketbook. We want to thank the 678,394 individuals who sent emails to NBC and the thousands who called and emailed their local affiliates.”

This is just one small Christian conservative victory in the cultural war. As Wildmon said, we can fight back with our pocketbook, but just as importantly, we can fight back with our vote. We did that in 2004 and put George W. Bush in the White House for four more years. That's why John Roberts now sits on the Supreme Court and Samuel Alito is heading there. I shudder to think what the Court would look like now had John Kerry been elected.

The Christian conservative voice must continue to grow stronger. Let our pocketbooks continue to speak; let our votes continue to speak even louder. And we don't need to confine our influence in the voting booth to presidential elections only. We need to be there when our senators and congressmen, and our state and local leaders are being elected.

The cultural war is one that is long and difficult, probably one that will be never-ending in this lifetime. It's one that is fought non-stop, one battle at a time. But as the battle over NBC's version of The Book of Daniel illustrates, the battles can be won. Let's keep up the good fight.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

You Gotta Love This!

I clicked on The Drudge Report a few minutes ago to check out the headlines. The second, third, and fourth headlines in the right-hand column read as follows:

Snowstorm in HAWAII; Rare Event Causes Concern, Surprise...

Al Gore to Pen Second Book on Global Warming...

Deadly freeze claims more lives in Eastern Europe; Minus 13 in Warsaw...

How ironic! The headline announcing the latest liberal global warming scare mongering is sandwiched between headlines announcing extraordinary cold in Europe and snow in Hawaii!

Monday, January 23, 2006

Stop the Absurdity!

It’s bad enough that our government makes it legal to murder over 1,000,000 babies per year before they even have a chance to be born. What makes it even worse, if anything can, is that our government forces you and me to help finance abortion through our tax dollars.

Now, the American Life League (ALL) is leading a campaign to stop taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood, one of the largest abortion organizations in the country. According to ALL, Planned Parenthood receives over $265 million dollars of tax money per year.

Click here for a brief summary of Planned Parenthood’s agenda of secular humanism, sexual promiscuity, and abortion on demand; and to help ALL in its efforts to shut down taxpayer funding of this organization.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Michael Fortier to be Free - 168 Victims Still Dead

The Associated Press reports today that Michael Fortier will be freed from prison this week, more that a year ahead of schedule. In a plea bargain, Fortier was sentenced to just 12 years and fined $200,000 for his role in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, in exchange for his testimony against Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. Fortier’s wife Lori, who helped McVeigh make the false identification card that he used to rent the truck used in the bombing, received no prison time at all in exchange for her testimony.

McVeigh's attorney Stephen Jones said that Fortier and his wife “knew the date, time and place of the bombing and both of them assisted materially.''

What I’m having a problem with is how these people, both of whom not only had knowledge of the bombing plan, but who also assisted the bombers, can now be walking around free. 168 people died in that attack, including 19 children. Hundreds were injured, and untold numbers of others had their lives forever altered.

In my mind, Michael and Lori Fortier should never see the outside of a prison. Tell me if I’m wrong. Tell me if I’m not thinking this through clearly. Tell me why the Fortiers should be free.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Chocolate New Orleans

In talking yesterday about the rebuilding of New Orleans, Mayor Ray Nagin said, ''It's time for us to come together. It's time for us to rebuild New Orleans -- the one that should be a chocolate New Orleans. This city will be a majority African-American city. It's the way God wants it to be. You can't have New Orleans no other way. It wouldn't be New Orleans.''

Now, I’m trying to imagine a situation where a city with a white majority, someplace like Bakersfield, California, for example, is devastated by a natural disaster, maybe an earthquake. Now I’m imagining Harvey Hall, the white mayor of Bakersfield, talking about the rebuilding of the city and saying, ''It's time for us to come together. It's time for us to rebuild Bakersfield -- the one that should be a vanilla Bakersfield. This city will be a majority European-American city. It's the way God wants it to be. You can't have Bakersfield any other way. It wouldn't be Bakersfield.''

How loudly do you think the cries of “racism” would be heard across the land? We all know the cries would be loud and clear, yet Mayor Nagin gets a pass.

If we are ever going to completely eradicate racism in this country, a goal of which I assume Nagin would be in favor, we have to stop racism on both sides. You can't have a color-blind society when you have a mayor talking about rebuilding a "chocolate" city. You can't have a color-blind society when you have people like Michael Moore making the claim that people were left on their roofs for five days after Katrina because they were black. You can't have a color-blind society when you have people like Harry Belafonte attacking blacks who rise to the highest levels of success, calling them "Uncle Toms."

It's not conservatives who perpetuate racism in this country, and if racism is ever going to be truly a thing of the past, it's the liberals who are going to have to let it die.

Monday, January 16, 2006

AP Story is a Good Lesson on Slanted Reporting

As a teacher, I couldn't ask for a better lesson on slanted reporting. Last Wednesday, democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Ted Kennedy, spent a good part of the day assailing Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito over his early 1970's membership in a group called Concerned Alumni of Princeton. After a constant democrat barrage of insinuations that Alito is a racist and sexist, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina came to Altio's defense.

Giving him the opportunity to directly address the accusation that democrats had been implying, Graham asked Alito, "Are you really a closet bigot?"

Alito answered, "I'm not any kind of a bigot, I'm not."

Graham then followed up with this:

No, sir, you're not. And you know why I believe that? Not because you just said it -- but that's a good enough reason, because you seem to be a decent, honorable man. I have got reams of quotes from people who have worked with you, African American judges...glowing quotes about who you are, the way you've lived your life; law clerks, men and women, black and white, your colleagues who say that Sam Alito, whether I agree with him or not, is a really good man.

Graham, after then condemning the tactic of guilt by association that democrats had been employing during the hearings, made a direct apology to Alito for the verbal abuse that he had been made to endure.

Judge Alito, I am sorry that you've had to go through this. I am sorry that your family has had to sit here and listen to this.

It was during all this that Alito's wife, Martha-Ann Bomgardner, began to cry and left the room. Her distress was obviously caused, not by Graham's defense of and apology to her husband, but by the prior personal attacks launched by democrats against her husband.

However, an Associated Press report on Wednesday gives the reader the impression that it was Senator Graham who caused the distress.

Martha-Ann Bomgardner, who had sat behind her husband for hours of questioning over several days, left as her husband was being questioned by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

"Judge Alito, I am sorry that you've had to go through this. I am sorry that your family has had to sit here and listen to this," said Graham.

Moments earlier, the senator had asked Alito, "Are you really a closet bigot?" The nominee said no, and Graham said, "No sir, you're not."

Accompanying the article is an AP photo of an obviously distressed Martha-Ann Bomgardner, with the following caption:

Martha-Ann Alito reacts during the third day of the confirmation hearings for her husband Judge Samuel Alito as Associate Justice on the Supreme Court on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 11, 2006. Mrs. Alito reacted to the apology by Republican Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. for the contentious nature of questioning during the hearing.

The only hint that democrats might have had any role in upsetting Alito's wife comes in the second half of the article where it is briefly mentioned that there were "withering questions" from several democrats, and that "Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah suggested that Alito's wife was upset with the comments of Democrats."

However, if one reads the caption that goes with the picture and reads the first half of the report, the clear impression is that Senator Graham was the one badgering Alito.

This article slants the story to convey the impression the writer wants to convey. It is an impression that is far from truthful, and the result is an article that is an excellent example of what journalism should not be.

Thursday, January 12, 2006

Sean Penn, Smoking, and Mint Chocolate Chip Ice Cream

Sean Penn, appearing Saturday in Sacramento with Cindy Sheehan at a Bush-bashing rally, said that President Bush was making it difficult for him to quit smoking. “It makes it very difficult to quit smoking under this administration,” Penn said.

Now, I suppose that, maybe, Penn was just trying to be funny. Yet, I think this statement really epitomizes one important aspect of liberal thinking: never taking personal responsibility.

This could work out well for Penn. If he gets cancer from smoking, he can sue the President for causing the stress that caused him to continue to smoke.

I like this idea so much that I'm thinking of trying it myself. I don't smoke, but I am overweight, which we all know is not healthy. The problem I'm having is that people like Sean Penn and their idiotic statements are causing me stress, and the stress is making it really difficult for me to stop eating mint chocolate chip ice cream.

So if I develop heart disease from overeating, I’m thinking that maybe I can sue Sean Penn for causing the stress that caused me to continue to eat mint chocolate chip ice cream. No use in taking personal responsibility.

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Who’s Being Hoodwinked?

Various pro-life groups have had a generally favorable response to the Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination. Pro-abortion groups have been generally opposed. Yet in today’s confirmation hearings, in response to a question about Roe v. Wade, Alito said, "The presumption is the court will follow its prior precedents."

What does that mean? Does Alito still believe, as he wrote in 1985, that the “constitution does not protect a right to an abortion"? If this is still his belief, if he believes that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, would he, given the opportunity, vote to overturn it? Is he just playing the game of trying to placate liberal senators who would certainly vote against him if he told them what he really believed? Is he attempting to hoodwink the pro-choicers?

Or have those on the pro-life side already been hoodwinked? Does Alito mean to say that the principle of stare decisis (to stand by what is decided) carries more weight than the Constitution itself? Does he mean to say that, even though Roe was wrongly decided, it is now the law of the land and must be upheld? Is Alito another judge who, upon rising to the pinnacle of his profession, will betray the hopes of those who elected the president who nominated him?

I have real concerns about Judge Alito. I hope and pray that my concerns are unfounded.

Monday, January 09, 2006

Senators' Code Translations

Here are a few excerpts from senators' opening statements in the Alito confirmation hearings. Because these senators often speak in code, I have translated these excerpts so that their meaning is clear.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.:

''The challenge for Judge Alito in the course of these hearings is to demonstrate that he will protect the rights and liberties of all Americans (Translation: will vote to protect Roe v. Wade, will vote against allowing public prayer and any public display of religion - especially Christianity, will vote to continue allowing college admissions based on quotas rather than on qualifications, etc.).''

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.:

Judge Alito, millions of Americans (Translation: millions of liberal Americans) are very concerned about your nomination. They are worried that you would be a judicial activist who would restrict our rights and freedoms (Translation: would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, would vote to allow public prayer and other public displays of religion , would vote to expect people to meet certain standards for college admissions rather than allowing admissions based on quotas, etc.).''

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.:

''While every Supreme Court nominee has a great burden, yours, Judge Alito, is triply high. First, because you have been named to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the pivotal swing vote on a divided court (Translation: the vote we liberals could count on to swing decisions in our favor); second, because you have been picked to placate the extreme right wing (Translation: conservatives) after the hasty withdrawal of Harriet Miers; and, finally, because your record of opinions and statements on a number of critical Constitutional questions seems quite extreme (Translation: is not liberal enough for my liking)."

Keep a sharp ear for more code during these hearings. There will be plenty of it.

Thursday, January 05, 2006

Action Alert from The American Family Association

The following is an e-mail message from the American Family Association:

NBC Demeans Christian Faith

Writer for new series is practicing homosexual

Dear Charles,

NBC is promoting the network's mid-season replacement series "The Book of Daniel" with language that implies it is a serious drama about Christian people and Christian faith. The main character is Daniel Webster, a drug-addicted Episcopal priest whose wife depends heavily on her mid-day martinis.

Webster regularly sees and talks with a very unconventional white-robed, bearded Jesus. The Webster family is rounded out by a 23-year-old homosexual Republican son, a 16-year-old daughter who is a drug dealer, and a 16-year-old adopted son who is having sex with the bishop's daughter.

At the office, his lesbian secretary is sleeping with his sister-in-law.

Network hype – and the mainstream media – call it "edgy," "challenging" and "courageous." The hour-long limited drama series will debut January 6 with back-to-back episodes and will air on Friday nights. The writer for the series is a practicing homosexual.

The homosexual son will be network prime-time's only regular male homosexual character in a drama series.

Please use the link below to send a letter to NBC Chairman Bob Wright.

Next, please forward this to your family and friends today!

Those at NBC responsible for this program consider it a good, religiously oriented show typical of Christian families.

Click Here to Email NBC Now!



Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

P.S. Please forward this e-mail message to your family and friends!

The link above will take you to a page with an e-mail that you may edit, rewrite, or send as is.

Corruption Likely to be Found on Both Sides of the Aisle

Many democrats seem almost giddy with joy at the prospect of upcoming corruption investigations resulting from Jack Abramoff's recent guilty pleas.

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi said the Abramoff situation is "not a surprise because this Republican Congress is the most corrupt in history and the American people are paying the price."

Ms. Pelosi and her liberal friends had better be careful. While I suspect that the Abramoff related investigations will result in the fall of some, perhaps many, Congressmen, I also suspect that the corruption is not limited to Republicans.

Do I think that a Republican legislator found to have taken bribes should be held accountable? Absolutely. But I just don't think that all of those on Ms. Pelosi's side of the aisle are as pure white as the wind-driven snow. Expect this to come down on both sides.

Monday, January 02, 2006

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

I saw the movie today and highly recommend it. I would suggest, though, that you read the book first. If you haven't yet read the book, it is not long and could be read by an adult of average reading skill in just a few hours.

I was hoping that the movie's plot would stay true to the book, and I was not disappointed. The Christian symbolism, obvious in C.S. Lewis' novel, is clear in the movie as well. To me, that was most important; however, the special effects and the acting were outstanding as well.

Sunday, January 01, 2006

Don't Let the Truth Get in the Way of an Opportunity to Attack the President

Here is just one more example of a liberal democrat not letting the truth get in the way of an opportunity to attack President Bush.

On December 17th The Standard-Times of New Bedford, Massachusetts published a report of a University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth student who claimed that he was visited and questioned by federal agents after requesting, through an interlibrary loan program, a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's "The Little Red Book."

The student, who has remained unidentified, told two of his professors that he had filled out the interlibrary loan form, which required that he leave his name, address, phone number, and social security number, and that he was later visited by federal agents at his parents' home.

One of the student's professors, Robert Pontbriand, for whom the student was working on a research paper on communism, commented that, "Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security is monitoring inter-library loans, because that's what triggered the visit, as I understand it."

After this report appeared in The Standard-Times, Senator Ted Kennedy, D-MA, wasted little time in using the alleged incident to besmirch the Bush administration. In a December 22 op-ed in The Boston Globe, Kennedy wrote:

Just this past week there were public reports that a college student in Massachusetts had two government agents show up at his house because he had gone to the library and asked for the official Chinese version of Mao Tse-tung's Communist Manifesto. Following his professor's instructions to use original source material, this young man discovered that he, too, was on the government's watch list.

Think of the chilling effect on free speech and academic freedom when a government agent shows up at your home -- after you request a book from the library.

Incredibly, we are now in an era where reading a controversial book may be evidence of a link to terrorists.

Wow! The senior senator from Massachusetts really has something there; that certainly is "chilling" evidence that President Bush is over-stepping his constitutional bounds.

There is, however, one small problem: the entire story was a hoax.

On December 24th, two days after Kennedy's op-ed, The Standard-Times published a follow-up report with the headline Federal agents' visit was a hoax . The student made it all up. There was no visit by federal agents.

So Senator Kennedy is guilty of not checking his facts before discrediting the President of the United States. Well, we can forgive him for that, given the irrational but well-known and passionate desire he and others of his kind have for bringing this President to his knees. But surely, when the Senator found out that the student's story was fabricated, he immediately issued an apology for inadvertently perpetuating the fraud – right? Well, not quite.

The Senator's only response has come through spokeswoman Laura Capps. According to the The Boston Globe, Capps said that even if the assertion was a hoax, it did not detract from Kennedy's broader point that the Bush administration has gone too far in engaging in surveillance.

So there you have it, straight from the liberal playbook: don't let the truth get in the way of an opportunity to attack the President.

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