Gribbit of STOP THE ACLU posted today on this article by Lee Ellis (a retired journalist and a former vice president of both CBS and Gannet), which was published on 29 June 2005 at ChronWatch.com. In the wake of the recent, perplexing decisions by the Supreme Court with regard to the Ten Commandments, I chose to again approach this important issue of religious freedom in America. Here, I highlight what I felt were the core paragraphs from Ellis’ article:

A few days ago, the majority of the Supreme Court ruled as if it were using the Constitution of France instead of the Constitution of the USA. The French Constitution states that its nation is a secular one, while our Constitution states that we are a nation under God. One would not know this if the majority of the Supreme Court today is to be believed

…

The framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that all Americans could worship freely, without religious persecution. So they prohibited the federal government from ‘establishing a religion’ and equally prohibiting it from ‘interfering with the people’s free expression of their religion.’

…

Now the Socialist movement, the ACLU, and other liberal organizations (some with “Mom and Apple Pie” names to fool its readers, its fiscal donators and the country) have been partly successful in its efforts to drive the Judeo-Christian religion out America. The secularists have not failed in making most of Europe and Canada almost wholly secular and they are working hard to do this to America.

How?

They have crammed our courts with liberal legislative judges as replacements for Constitutional judges, and now their representatives in Congress have filibustered to keep President Bush from appointing a majority of Constitutional federal judges. Finally, the ACLU has tried to eliminate any mention of “GOD” from all public places. I don’t think that the word, “God” is a symbol of any one particular denomination or denotes any one specific religion, do you? So why do they act as if it does?

Apparently, the ACLU has forgotten that the founders were only afraid of a federally-owned religion ruled by a King or a President, not by free religious bodies governed by themselves. [emphasis mine]

In addition, the secularists have convinced enough people that they cannot offend any minority; they must all be “politically correct.” They accuse the majority of “trampling” on minority rights. What about the rights of the religious majority? Is not the minority trampling on those? Do the atheists not offend those who believe in God when they try to eliminate Judeo-Christian religious symbols from all public arenas?

One of the most important causes for the Bush Administration and American voters is to get Congress to accept only Federal judges who believe in and will rule upon and in light of what is actually written in the Constitution of America, not that of France, nor any other document, nor of a personal letter written by an individual—whether he is Thomas Jefferson or not.

There is another thing that Americans can do to take back our religious heritage from the likes of the ACLU. Legislation is now before Congress that, if passed, could severely limit the ACLU’s ability to erode our nation’s Christian heritage. Look into the Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA) of 2005 — House bill HR 2679. If this bill is passed and signed by the President, PERA would eliminate the awarding of federal taxpayer funds to the attorneys for plaintiffs in Establishment Clause challenges to the 1st Amendment. These cases are taken by the ACLU (and others) pro bono for the express purpose of gaining these federal funds.

If the awarding of federal funding is removed, the number of these lawsuits which lead to the removal of our public expression freedoms might decrease. Regardless, if the ACLU and other organizations are so devoted to these causes, they should prosecute them with their own funds, not at taxpayer expense.

Here’s how you can support the passage of HR 2679:
1) Sign the petition to get the ACLU off of the taxpayer’s dole.
2) Write, call, and email your Congressman and Senators urging passage of this important legislation.

3) Join the Stop The ACLU Blogburst, every Thursday at a right-minded blog near you.

Sites Already on Board:

Stop The ACLU

We are trying to raise money for full page ads and eventually commercials exposing the ACLU’s radical agenda. Help us out! Buy a bumper sticker!
Click Below To See Our Store!

Originally posted at TMH’s Bacon Bits

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

hehehe this is priceless. Apparently a guy who works for the United Nations is staying in one of George Soros’ properties for the exact salary the guys makes with the UN. ??? Sounds quite fishy and is also illegal. But do you think that will stop them? nah.

A top aide to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is defending his rental of a home in a posh New York suburb from billionaire financier and Democratic money-raiser George Soros.

Mark Malloch Brown acknowledged last week he pays $120,000 a year in rent to Soros, who last year orchestrated an expensive and unsuccessful effort to defeat President Bush. Brown’s annual salary as Annan’s chief of staff is $125,000.

Brown denied there is anything inappropriate about having Soros as his landlord, telling reporters at a daily news briefing, “I pay a full commercial rent for the one property of his that I live in.”

With Bush a Republican and Congress controlled by the GOP, Annan’s point man having such a financial relationship with Soros could raise eyebrows in Washington. Soros contributed more than $23 million to moveon.org and other groups that sought to topple Bush.

And this relationship is illegal.

An anonymous e-mail that has circulated internally within the development program and to the media contends that Leites’ actions violate U.N. regulations intended to keep the organization politically neutral.

But just about everyone knows it’s not–take a look at all the socialist/communist countries who are members.

To hear all the groans from the left today about Bush’s sin of “linking 9-11 to Iraq,” you would think that they had something new with which to skewer President Bush in the wake of his outstanding and moving speech last night. In reply to the condemnations of self-important yet forgetful liberal elitists, I offer them this 29 June 2005 article by Andrew McCarthy, published at National Review Online. This piece outlines clearly not only why we are in Iraq fighting this war, but also the history of Iraq/al Qaeda connections running back several years.

McCarthy’s list of connections, many of which were culled from intelligence reports during the Clinton administration, is presented as questions for the “no linkage whatsoever” folks to ponder. He asks: “What does the “nothing whatsoever” crowd have to say about…” (more…)

In President George W. Bush’s decisive speech at Ft. Bragg, NC on Iraq and the War on Terror, he mentioned a website:

At that site, you’ll find news and information regarding the wonderful job that the U.S. Military is doing in Iraq, Afghanastan, and around the world in the global war on terror. You can also learn of different ways American and international supporters just like you can help let the troops know that you care: from a simple “Thank You” note on a web form:

to listings of various state and national events, to buying a baseball cap or mug that shows others your resolve to stand with the military effort. All these little things help the troops know that they are in our hearts and prayers. Importantly, they inform the troops that, despite some embarrassing squawkings from the peanut gallery, America DOES support them AND the mission.

Before the long 4th of July weekend, stop by AmericaSupportsYou.mil and see what you can do to show your patriotism — to those who are risking their lives that we and others might be free.

Some among us are puzzled (and surely, some relieved) that the long-predicted resignations of Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist and/or Associate Justice John Paul Stevens somehow didn’t make the network news as anticipated on Monday. After all, like them or not, they are rather… mature: Rehnquist is 80 years young and battling thyroid cancer; Stephens as walked this good earth for nearly 85 years. Indeed, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, God bless her soul, is brilliant but no spring chicken.

Stuart Taylor wrote a compelling piece in National Journal titled “Life Tenure Is Too Long For Supreme Court Justices” that probes this issue. (N.B.: pubished on Monday 27 June 2005; there is no permalink, so if this article is unavailable then it might be available via the National Journal archive.) Let’s take a quick gander at the U.S. Constitution, shall we:

Article. III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

It was all good and fine, in fact clever, for the framers to have intended the courts to be insulated from political ebb and flow by refusing to term-limit the judiciary. But as Taylor and others have pointed out, the Founding Fathers simply could not have predicted that the human life span, through public health and medical advancement, would extend well beyond your atypical “three-score-and-ten.” The “good Behaviour” clause arguably didn’t anticipate that court appointments could average a quarter-century, as they have for the ten retirements since 1970. As Taylor notes:

By contrast, the first 10 justices served an average of under eight years, in part because of the rigors of the “riding circuit” that covered hundreds of miles on horseback. Three left to take other positions. Only two lived to age 70. The 90 justices who had completed their terms by 1970 retired (on average) after 15 years on the bench, at age 68.

The Founding Fathers seem not to have anticipated a time when turnover in the Supreme Court would slow to a crawl and justices would preside on the bench, in Taylor’s words, “longer than your average medieval monarch.” Taylor goes on to list several points he sees as serious concerns as regards lifetime juducial appointments. They include: Decreptitude; Intellectual Autopilot; Hubristic Complacency; Unaccountability; Randomness (an interesting one: Richard Nixon appointed four Supreme Court justices in his first term, while Jimmy Carter was shut out); and Uglier Confirmation Battles (since so much more is at stake for either side for any appointment). Taylor offers a few anecdotes for each of these and a few other examples of concern that perhaps were not thoroughly contemplated by the founders.

In his work “Democracy in America,” Alexis de Tocqueville seems to be at once impressed and concerned with the American judicial system and its power to declare unconstitutional the actions of the legislative branch. Impressive observer and critic of the American system as he was, one cannot blame de Toqueville, or the Founding Fathers, for not having gone one step further to envision the “life-term problem” and its potential ramifications in the 20th and 21st centuries. With adjudications of late such as the outrageous Kalo decision and the utterly arbitrary “Ten Commandments” rulings, I get serious heebie-jeebies thinking about the extended life expectancies of the SCOTUS Moonbat Five (Souter, Stevens, Bader Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer) and the suave yet perplexing O’Connor — though God knows I would not wish ill on any of them.

I have been highly inclined to beat the originalist drum when it comes to interpretation of the Constitution by the Judiciary. But what about interpretation of the Judiciary itself? For all their stunning prescience on so many matters, perhaps the Founding Fathers weren’t weilding their crystal balls well in some instances. I do feel something that simply could not have been foreseen over two centuries ago, such as extended life spans through medical advancement, might deserve a fresh look. After all, the Constitution does have an amendment process, which was used to good effect for such oversights as rights for women and the horror of slavery.

The Supreme Court Renewal Act is a recent proposal made by legal scholars Paul Carrington (a Democrat and Professor of Law at Duke) and Roger Cramton (Republican, and Professor of Law at Cornell). This proposal was signed on to by a bipartisan list of over 40 legal scholars from across the country. I’m not sure how I feel about this proposal to term-limit Supreme Court justices to 18-years as suggested by these thinkers, but let’s at least start a national debate. As it stands, the system seems not to be working well for anyone.

Cross-posted at TMH’s Bacon Bits

Image: LindaSog.com

Michael Kranish, reporter and official biographer of John Kerry writes: “During last year’s presidential campaign John Kerry was the candidate often portrayed as intellectual and complex, while George W. Bush was the populist who mangled his sentences. But newly released records show that Bush and Kerry had a virtually identical grade average at Yale University four decades ago.

But what we’re really after Mr. Kranish, is not Kerry’s grades from Yale–even though they’re very funny because they actually point out that Kerry for all his intellectual bravado, performed more poorly than Bush did during his college years, even though behind the scenes he was overheard saying things like “I can’t believe I’m losing to this idiot”.

The question is, Monsieur Kerrie, how long do you think the American people are going to put up with the stupid antics, the lies, the deceit and poking the finger at your opponents when it looks as though you have plenty skeletons of your own hidden in your closet?

What is the problem, John-boy? You said on national television that you would release your records, yet you didn’t release them–you tried to get away with another sleight of hand.

Again, still and forever we’re going to be hammering on this simple request: Release your full military and medical files -and don’t release them to your biographer or the Boston Globe, ok? Release them to the American people who deserve to see them in their entirety. Or release them to ME and I’ll make sure everyone knows what’s there. After all, you have nothing to hide, right?

This was brought to you by the Free Kerry’s 180 Blogroll.

We’ve formed a blogburst group and here are the bloggers who are contributing so far. If you want to join the blogroll for Free Kerry’s 180, click here to email Cao, and include the url for your blog. The blogburst is every Tuesday. All you have to do is encourage Kerry to set his 180 FREE, Cao will send you the code for the blogroll. The more, the merrier!

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

I was reading a post at Jihad Watch yesterday. In simple straight-forward terms, Mr. Spencer said:

Ever since I began doing this work publicly my point has been simple and consistent: that the jihad terrorists are working from mainstream traditions and numerous Qur’anic exhortations, and that by means of these traditions and teachings they are able to gain recruits among Muslims worldwide, and hold the sympathy of others whom they do not recruit. This explains why there has been no widespread, sustained, or sincere Muslim outcry against the jihad terrorist enterprise in general.

The mainstream media, both liberal and conservative, does not want to face these facts. They think that by speaking about the Islamic roots of jihad violence they will undercut moderate Muslims. But in fact, no reform in Islam can ever take place without an acknowledgment of what needs to be reformed. The near-universal refusal to provide that acknowledgment is just one reason why that reform is virtually certain not to be forthcoming.

Mr. Spencer linked over to a recent article by Time Magazine, an interview with a homicide bomber waiting for his “mission” in Iraq. My frequent readers will note that I have written several articles that express my concern about the danger — nee likelihood of Islamic terror in the United States, but nothing can be clearer than what has been said by an actual, pre-mission terrorist. Read the articles and then ask yourself — if these people are so dedicated to fanatical terrorism “there,” what on earth makes us think that Muslims living in America are any less devoted?

In a conversation with my good friend “Always on Watch,” she pointed out that the Qur’an is taken quite literally by all Muslims, and any Muslim who does not take the Qur’an literally is an apostate him or herself and an enemy of the “true faith.” Quite simply, there is nothing about the Muslim faith that has been hijacked by extremists; and Islamic organizations that keep telling Americans that the views of extremists do not represent the point of view of moderates is a patent lie. There is only ONE point of view — the Qur’anic view.

I asked my friend, “Why do you think our government and our fellow citizens so miserably fail to take terrorism in America seriously?” Her response was typically blunt:

“Americans are so optimistic that they don’t want to believe that evil exists. Multiculturalism has taken its effect in the United States, and our people open their arms to embrace it. They do not understand, or believe, that Islamic culture has but one goal — and that is the domination of their culture over all others.”

She then went on to say that another writer opined a few weeks ago that it will take no less than three mushroom clouds over American cities before Americans finally begin to wake up and understand that the horseman of the apocalypse has arrived. Now, I ask you . . . the reader . . . how pathetic is that?

XPost: Social Sense

If this isn’t the most despicable evidence of communism and why we must defeat it here–Davids Medienkritik has horrible news here:

We didn’t think it could get much worse in Germany…well, it just did. Davids Medienkritik recently learned that the Berlin city government, made up of a coalition between the SPD (Gerhard Schroeder’s Social-Democrats) and the PDS (former SED party that ran Communist East Germany), has decided to allow the razing of the Checkpoint Charlie monument by court order.

And get this: The monument, which consists of over 1,000 crosses adorned with the names of those murdered attempting to escape Communist East Germany for freedom, will be bulldozed on the 4th of July!

The Socialists and Communists in Berlin’s city government don’t want to be constantly reminded of the murders that the SED dictatorship committed during the Cold War.

Let’s make their decision as uncomfortable as possible for them.

They’re planning a demonstration, there’s also information on how to send your outrage to German officials-go over and take a look. They’re also planning on demonstrating in Washington D.C.

Thanks to Mudville

All Patriots are invited to a Minuteman Rally by a few, good Marine Minutemen of AZ:

When: Friday, July 1st, 2005

Where: Phoenix, AZ (in front of State Capitol)

1700 West Washington Street

Time: 10 am to around 1 pm

Bring: American Flags, water, sunscreen

Speakers: Chris Simcox

Jim Gilchrist

Representative Russell Pearce

Randy Graf

Randy Pullen

more to come…

Theme: SECURE OUR BORDERS, NOW!!!!

For more info, contact Mitch Geiger at capitolrally@yahoo.com

H/T: CAMinuteman at Minuteman Party

Euphoric Reality has full coverage of the Baldwin Park protest. Heidi did a great job putting it all together. Pics, video, you name it. Looks like BP2 was quite the affair. Here’s an excerpt:

There are two reasons it is so important for the rest of the country to know about this [illegal immigration] movement in California:

1) Because these events serve to uncover the true agenda and accelerated rhetoric of the pro-illegal/Socialist/anti-American/Communist/Brown Beret Aztlan/ACLU crowd. Why do I lump them all together? Because they’ve lumped themselves together. In their weird logic, they’ve subscribed to the theory that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” - and for all those groups, their enemy is America. Thus these little demonstrations expose the alliances and true intentions of these inter-related groups: crush America through any means available. That’s why you need to pay attention to who shows up at these things, and their motives for working together.

2) Because what is happening now in California is brewing in YOUR state - you just don’t know it yet. The state is bankrupt, it’s educational system is the bottom of the barrel, and its medical system is collapsing in slow motion. It has the highest number of illegal aliens per capita, it has the highest expenses per illegal alien, and highest rate of crime per illegal alien - it has become a cesspool. Just ask anyone who lives there, and speaks English as their primary language.

I saw a part of the interview with Matt Lauer where Tom Cruise got angry and started ranting about the history of psychiatry, anti-depression medications and Brooke Shields. Apparently Brooke experienced some post partum depression after she had her baby and has admitted to taking drugs to treat her depression. Tom Cruise and Scientology are totally against any kind of psychiatric drugs (or drugs to treat a pscyhiatric ailment).

“Matt. Matt. Matt, you don’t even - you’re glib. You don’t even know what Ritalin is,” he said.

“If you start talking about chemical inbalance, you have to evaluate and read the research papers on how they came up with these theories, Matt, okay? That’s what I’ve done.

“Psychiatry is a pseudo science,” he said.

“She [Brooke Shields] doesn’t understand the history of psychiatry. She doesn’t understand in the same way that you don’t understand it, Matt.

“You don’t know the history of psychiatry. I do,” he added.

It’s unfortunate that scientologists think the way they do, but that’s the reason why so many people are dead.

–According to a poll published on Friday by the MSNBC television channel, 69 percent of viewers said Cruise was “just plain wrong” on the role of doctors and the use of drugs to alleviate mental distress.

–About 61 percent of Entertainment Weekly magazine’s readers said they did not like the new ebullient Cruise as much as the quietly controlled superstar of yesteryear.

–And 41 percent said they would not go to see his new film, against 34 per cent who would.

I guess the inhinged Tom Cruise fired his old publicist, and hired his sister, another wacko scientologist. It seems to me the guy is totally wacked out and could use some medication himself to even out his temperment because he’s either making a total fool over himself over his new flame who he’s seen often enough sucking face with, or he’s beating up on someone in public like he did with Matt Lauer over scientology; which you’ve got to admit is really creepy.

Everything I’ve read on it indicates to me that they’re a death cult who kill people because they have some weird fixation about youth and life. There is a long list of victims who died under strange circumstances while being “tended for” by fellow scientologists.

Sorry, I want them FAR away from me. Pinellas County, Florida is pretty far, but it gives me the creeps that all that stuff having to do with Terri Schiavo was going on in Scientology central and look what happened to HER.

2nd part of Matt Lauer’s wacky interview with the weirdo Tom Cruise is coming up on Monday on NBC Today. If it doesn’t conflict with my husband’s favorite program American Chopper, I might get a chance to see it.

Thanks to Mudville and Outside the Beltway

But Didn’t Dick Durbin Apologize? Nope - He Did Not… READ MORE HERE

NEEDED: 8,750 Americans to Stand Up to Dick Durbin

Move America Forward is planning to air the commercial below (titled “Tortured Words”) on national cable television news networks (Fox News Channel, CNN, etc…) and on major broadcast affiliates (NBC,ABC,CBS, Fox) throughout Senator Durbin’s home state of Illinois.

We’ve been raising money from Move America Forward members to achieve this goal. But we are about $218,000 short of what we need to get this ad on the airwaves. That means we need 8,750 Americans to contribute an average of just $25 - and we’ll be up on the airwaves nationwide - and especially heavy in Illinois - within ONE WEEK. (more…)

One of my favorite quotes for prosecuting the current Global War on Terror is this:

“…we will surprise ourselves by facing up to the reality that you can’t be a great power unless you are prepared to risk your own citizens’ lives. If we discover the strength of character to do the right thing, there is still the question of whether European nations will also be prepared to join in.”

Now, I have to admit a bit of subterfuge, I left out part of the above quote because it really wasn’t about the GWOT, it was about Kosovo. Here, is the full quote:

Barring a sudden collapse of will on the part of Serbia, there seem to be two possibilities: Either we will shame ourselves by accepting the elimination of Kosovo’s Albanians as a fait accompli (perhaps while continuing to throw bombs at Serbia now and then), or we will surprise ourselves by facing up to the reality that you can’t be a great power unless you are prepared to risk your own citizens’ lives. If we discover the strength of character to do the right thing, there is still the question of whether European nations will also be prepared to join in.

Let’s make a couple of changes in the above, e.g.:

Barring a sudden collapse of will on the part of Serbia islamofascists, there seem to be two possibilities: Either we will shame ourselves by accepting the elimination of Kosovo’s Albanians Iraqi freedom as a fait accompli (perhaps while continuing to throw bombs at Serbia the islamofascists now and then), or we will surprise ourselves by facing up to the reality that you can’t be a great power unless you are prepared to risk your own citizens’ lives. If we discover the strength of character to do the right thing, there is still the question of whether European nations will also be prepared to join in.

Of course, standing up for what is right, regardless of what the cost may be is totally foreign to a hack like Paul Krugman who recently said in an NYTimes column:

Let me explain. The United States will soon have to start reducing force levels in Iraq, or risk seeing the volunteer Army collapse. Yet the administration and its supporters have effectively prevented any adult discussion of the need to get out.

Adult discussion? Not too many years ago, Krugman said this:

I remember once (during the air phase of the Gulf War) seeing John Kenneth Galbraith making pronouncements on TV about the military situation, and telling friends that if I ever start pontificating in public about a technical subject I don’t understand, they should gag me.

Well, get out the gag. Krugman has no idea of what he was talking about and certainly has no expertise in anything except bashing Bush and anything Republican/conservative or to the right of Paul Krugman. But, I digress, let’s get back to that supposed “adult discussion.” I’ve heard that before from those that let their anti-Bush feelings overcome their ability to think rationally (as one of my commenters recently noted “if the shoe fits… wear it.”) While I don’t object to any discussion from the opposit side of the fence regarding the GWOT or Bush or Republicans, I object like hell to any attempt to shut down discussion with ad hominem attacks designed not to further discussion, but to shut it down.

I can hear it now, “But you do, your commentors do, the right does it all the time.” Correct, but I at least can try to minimize it. There are those on the left that use it with every argument to the exclusion of any other type of argument. And its childish, and its non productive and having said that, I understand that anyone can be pushed into it. But Krugman’s comment is a typical ad hominem attack. “Adult discussion,” and if you argue against a draw down, you aren’t being adult. Right Mr. Krugman!

In other blogs, such as QandO Jon Henke discusses Krugman’s column. In fact, I borrowed the Krugman quote from his posting for which I give a tip of the GM Chapeaux. Other blogs also rip apart Mr. Krugman. Tigerhawk does a good job, even if he says he needs a chill pill following that. So does Keith Burgess-Jackson over at the Anal Philosopher

Krugman’s column (and no, I won’t link to it… go to the NYTimes if you want to read that) notes the “increasing” poll numbers showing the GWOT is running out of steam in terms of the support given by the American People. And that is true too, but not for the reasons the left and Krugman would have you believe. The reason is simple, Americans respond to the news, and the news is negative. If you ask a poll question and slant it, you can get any answer you want. For example, compare the following two poll questions on the GWOT:

1. Given the increase in the number of casualties, should the US consider setting a deadline for getting out of Iraq?
2. Given the increase in the number of casualties among the insurgents, and the increase in the frequency of the capture of insurgents, should the US consider getting out before the job is done?

You can get almost any response from a poll if you want. That’s why G.W. Bush doesn’t pay attention to them (which of course leads to the question as to why Bill Clinton paid so much attention to them) and why touting polls is a meaningless exercise in the discussion. In fact, polls showing that Kerry was behind and staying behind were denied by the left with “Polls don’t show what is going on.” Unless of course the polls run against Bush, in which case polls are the Oracle at Delphi.

Krugman is such a hack, I wonder why I waste my time dissing him. Maybe I need to take one of Tigerhawks Chill Pills.

Oh, before I go, the quote about putting our soldiers at risk as a measure of “the strength of character to do the right thing.” Heh, that was from Krugman too. And for once, he was right.

Major HT to Donald Luskin

Xposted at GM’s Corner

Mommifer has a great post up right here. She talks about what Durbin said, and his supposed “apology”. I didn’t realize what the content of his “apology” actually was, until I read it:

“I have learned from my statement that historical parallels can be misused and misunderstood.

I sincerely regret if what I said caused anyone to misunderstand my true feelings: Our soldiers around the world and their families at home deserve our respect, admiration and total support.”

THAT’s not an apology, he’s blaming everyone for misunderstanding what he said (as if the content of his inflammatory comments could be misconstrued)!!!!

What a surprise, the dolt is calling Republicans stupid for “misunderstanding” what he said. But we have a perfect understanding of the content of his comments.

Blaming a “loud, continuous drumbeat of misinformation that was being broadcast and printed” from “the right-wing media” for saying that he had “been insulting men and women in uniform”, Durbin also said, “Nothing could be further from truth.”

Oh, really?

Michael Reagan has a piece up at Frontpage Magazine about it:

Those Americans who are Vietnam veterans could never understand why it was that when they came home after honorably - and courageously - fighting in that war they were spat upon, ridiculed, and ostracized by their fellow Americans.

We are now seeing a replay of what Americans at home were going through at the time when we had leaders in Congress and prominent people in all walks of life who spread false rumors about our soldiers and what they were doing in the blood-drenched rice paddies of Vietnam.

They were called baby killers, and today members of the American armed services are being targeted by the heirs of the anti-Vietnam Left and compared to Nazis, to the brutal guards at the Soviet gulag camps and Pol Pot’s minions in the killing fields of Cambodia.

This whole shoddy exercise in relentless anti-Americanism is being conducted by people who have never had the backbone to accept the painful realities of war. Now, because they have lost control of the Senate and the House of Representatives and the White House, they have launched a mindless attack on the conduct of the war in Iraq in what they see as their only hope of regaining power.

They have joined the chorus of those outside the U.S. who hate America, and use our alleged mistreatment treatment of the terrorist thugs in Guantanamo and elsewhere as a weapon to attack us and slander the men and women in uniform assigned to guard them.

Read the rest.

Sam also posted a piece at the Conservative Voice about Durbin’s supposed apology. He points out what a true apology is -in biblical terms-Psalm 51, David praying for forgiveness and restoration. We’ve been brainwashed into thinking that “I’m sorry if what I said offended anyone” is an apology, when it is nothing of the sort.

Today came the results of the tour that was taken by 9 republicans and 7 democratic senators at Gitmo…

The U.S. lawmakers witnessed interrogations, toured cell blocks and ate the same lunch given to detainees on the first congressional visit to the prison for suspected terrorists since criticism of it intensified in the spring.

“The Guantanamo we saw today is not the Guantanamo we heard about a few years ago,” said Rep. Ellen Tauscher (search), D-Calif.

If we continue to bend over for these people, we might as well quite calling them “enemy combatants” and just tell them they’re staying at Club Gitmo.

They should all just shut up and leave the soldiers to do their duty to God and their country. The problem is, they’re desperate to get control of the House and the Senate, see this as a means to do it, even if it costs more American lives.

France is unfair to the poor terrorists! Look what they do to these freedom fighters:

PARIS — In many countries of Europe, former inmates of the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have been relishing their freedom. In Spain, Denmark and Britain, recently released detainees have railed in public about their treatment at Guantanamo, winning sympathy from local politicians and newspapers. In Sweden, the government has agreed to help one Guantanamo veteran sue his American captors for damages.

Not so in France, where four prisoners from the U.S. naval base were arrested as soon as they arrived home in July, and haven’t been heard from since. Under French law, they could remain locked up for as long as three years while authorities decide whether to put them on trial — a legal limbo that their attorneys charge is not much different than what they faced at Guantanamo.

I guess the commies at the frogblog have a very weird policy of not talking about the countries they actually live in, they just want to talk negatively about the US.

The French make heavy use of ethnic profiling. How politically incorrect!!! And of course how admirably productive.

France has embraced a law enforcement strategy that relies heavily on preemptive arrests, ethnic profiling and an efficient domestic intelligence-gathering network. French anti-terrorism prosecutors and investigators are among the most powerful in Europe, backed by laws that allow them to interrogate suspects for days without interference from defense attorneys.

Hmmm. Makes you wonder what the hell they’re bitching about, doesn’t it? The RACISTS! Fascists!

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream–and not make dreams your master,
If you can think–and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ‘em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: “Hold on!”

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings–nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much,
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And–which is more–you’ll be a Man, my son!

–Rudyard Kipling

Ogre, of Ogre’s Politics and Views (yea, the horizontal blog), had a little something to say about church and state recently:

Did you know that the VERY FIRST Act of the first Continental Congress in 1774 was a motion to pause for a prayer? The motion passed (obviously) and it was actually a Jewish prayer that was read — Psalm 35.

On December 11, 1776, The newly formed United States Congress invited states to celebrate a national day of fasting and humiliation to beg God’s pardon for the actions of the people of the new country.

George Washington ORDERED soldiers to begin each day with a public prayer.

During the Jefferson administration, the largest church service in the country was held in the U.S. Capital Building.

Prayer was a there at the birth of our nation — more specifically, of our government. So, the next time one of your buddies from the ACLU or Americans United for Separation of Church and State plays that old Establishment Clause song, you can educate them — and might as well pray for them to boot.

Ogre’s post was part of the weekly STOP THE ACLU Blogburst, held every Thursday.

Hat Tip: NIF

Originally posted 24 June 2005 at TMH’s Bacon Bits

Being that so many libs/leftists have come here complaining about a “Rovian Conspiracy” and Karl Rove is a Nazi and all that other hogwash, I got wind of what he said in his speech about democrats and 9/11 and I couldn’t help but laugh.

“Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.”

bwhahahahahaha! Who can argue with THAT? These guys think the guys who are cutting off heads would make a good houseguest, apparently and would happily put them up for the night. Even leftists in Europe are starting a 10 Euro campaign (only the leftists look like such sorry sots that they probably can’t afford the 10 Euros) to fund the terrorists in Iraq. That is practically impossible to imagine, but it’s actually happening! How are the democrats in the US any different?

Turns out that far-left groups in western Europe are carrying on a campaign dubbed Ten Euros for the Resistance, offering aid and comfort to the car bombers, kidnappers, and snipers trying to destabilize the fledgling Iraq government. In the words of one Italian website, Iraq Libero (Free Iraq), the funds are meant for those fighting the occupanti imperialisti. The groups are an odd collection, made up largely of Marxists and Maoists, sprinkled with an array of Arab emigres and aging, old-school fascists, according to Lorenzo Vidino, an analyst on European terrorism based at The Investigative Project in Washington, D.C. “It’s the old anticapitalist, anti-U.S., anti-Israel crowd,” says Vidino, who has been to their gatherings, where he saw activists from Austria, Denmark, Germany, and Italy. “The glue that binds them together is anti-Americanism.” The groups are working on an October conference to further support “the Iraqi Resistance.” A key goal is to expand backing for the insurgents from the fringe left to the broader antiwar and antiglobalization movements.

Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, had the nerve to compare American mistreatment of detainees to the acts of “Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others.” Whose side are these guys ON, anyway? And how far left does it sound that tricky Dick is, as compared to the Maoists Marxists and Fascists?

AWWW. Let’s get some more sensitivity training so that we’re more sensitive to the NEEDS of the terrorists.

Rove also pointed out (and NRO says Rove was right about Moveon.org):

“In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11 liberals believed it was time to submit a petition.” Rove continued: “I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what MoveOn.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be to ‘use moderation and restraint in responding to the terrorist attacks against the United States.’ “

All I have to say is Karl Rove, you rock and I hope you continue to have the balls to say the truth to the American people, despite liberals like Ted Kennedy who are foaming at the mouth like a bunch of rabid dogs over it. If democrats are going to keep backing up moveon.org, they’re going to keep further distancing themselves from reality and the rest of the American people.

…there is solid evidence that MoveOn did in fact oppose the war in Afghanistan, and that MoveOn founders Joan Blades and Wes Boyd hired Pariser in significant part because of his activism against the war.

Of course! That’s part of the signature of these yellow-bellied sapsuckers.

Ted Kennedy’s recent comments to Rumsfeld are absolutely unbelievable.

TED KENNEDY: Secretary Rumsfeld, as you know, we are in serious trouble in Iraq, and this war has been consistently and grossly mismanaged, and we are now in a seemingly intractable quagmire. Our troops are dying, and there really is no end in sight.

Our troops deserve better, Mr Secretary, I think the American people deserve better. They deserve competency, and they deserve the facts. In baseball it’s three strikes and you’re out. What is it for the Secretary of Defense?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, that is quite a statement. First, let me say that there isn’t a person at this table who agrees with you that we’re in a quagmire, and that there’s no end in sight. The suggestion by you that people – me or others – are painting a rosy picture is false. I think that the comments you made are certainly yours to make, and I don’t agree with them.

For people to say that democrats are even REASONABLE and living in REALITY is beyond the imagination. They’re totally unhinged. The fact that the Iraqi people are thankful for what we did and grateful that we’re sacrificing American blood and treasure is apparent on the faces of the children who are delighted to see American troops–to the point where the soldiers have had to ask them not to come running toward their tanks when they come riding through- and their parents grateful smiles. You can see evidence of this at Michael Yon’s Online Magazine. Michael Yon is reporting from the frontlines, not some cozy hotel in Baghdad.

Thanks to Mudville and Outside the Beltway

Before I get into this post in more detail, I must say that not only are traditional values under attack in the MSM, such as newspapers, TV and radio, but men in general are under attack for simply being men, and nowhere is this more apparent than in advertising.

It seems that almost every commercial I see these days that portray a couple will invariably show the man being overweight and somewhat bumbling while the woman is fit and on the ball. Another point which I will not get into today is that these guys are almost always white guys. I have seen only one commercial where the boneheaded man isn’t white, and that was a pizza commercial. But the man was still portrayed as a foolish caricature of a man.

The only exceptions to that rule are commercials where the man is in underwear or hawking some sexual enhancment pill.

Now we have this;

“The Leo Burnett advertising agency, which created the iconic macho cowboy, said a new study it conducted found that half the men in most parts of the world don’t know what is expected of them in society and three-quarters of them think images of men in advertising are out of touch with reality.”

First off I think that half of the men are just wusses that have been brainwashed into thinking that what the MSM says is gospel. As for the three quarters that think advertising is out of touch with reality I must count myself in their numbers.

It is out of touch with reality. And this next statement proves it.

“Most ads have lumped men into one of two groups — the soft, caring type known as “metrosexuals,” who are comfortable with facial peels and pink shirts, or the stereotypical “retrosexuals,” who remain oafishly addicted to beer and sports.”

Basically those are the two groups, but I must take major exception to the use of the term “retrosexuals” and the characterization of these men being “oafishly addicted to beer and sports”.

First off I like beer and sports. In fact if it weren’t for sports the only thing a man would ever wonder is what is in the fridge.

Let me clarify that statement. I used to say that if it weren’t for women and sports then we would just wonder what is in the fridge.

But then it occured to me that to a man, especially a single man, women ARE a sport. Think about it. What is a sport?

A sport is a contest……a contest to see who is better at something, some skill or talent. How does that make women a sport you ask?

Simple.

When a man is single it is the man with the hottest or coolest girl on his arm that “wins” the game of wenching. Of course the guy with the girl that isn’t all that hot or is a bit too bitchy will say “she has a great personality” or “she is a madwoman in bed” or whatever will make you look better in front of your guys, but it still biols down to who has the hottest girl.

Another measure of prowess in the sport of wenching that goes right along with quality is quantity. It is a measure of you with your crew as to how hot and how many lasses you can bed. I can’t explain the scoring system here, as it is against the “Rules of the Club”, but suffice it to say that is complex and can vary according to circumstances and lobbying by the affected parties.

Now here is the part of the article that really made me pissy.

“”As the world is drifting toward a more feminine perspective, many of the social constructs men have taken for granted are undergoing significant shifts or being outright dismantled,” said Tom Bernardin, chairman and chief executive of Leo Burnett Worldwide”

Now we must ask ourselves just WHY is the world taking on such a feminine perspective?

I blame the womens libbers.

Once you women were treated as the flowers you are, or rather can be, and were protected, cared for and worshipped. Thsi went on since time immemorial.

Then along came womens lib.

And suddenly you wanted to be treated equal. You wanted the same prospects as men, the same job opportunities, the same considerations for everything.

What you forgot was that men and women are different, with different roles in the grand scheme of things. Now after 30+ years of “equality” what do we have?

A generation or two of men that have no idea about how to BE a man. No idea of HOW to treat a woman. And trust me on this, treating a woman is like handling a fine thoroughbred. One must be firm but gentle, knowing when to caress and soothe with caring words and when to let loose with the whip.

These “metrosexuals” that go all soft at the first few bars of a love ballad and can yak for hours about the virtues of some “products” ability to hold your “hairstyle” in place after a 12 hour workday have nothing on a real man.

Women SAY they want a man that is sensitive, but go cry in front of them and see how fast you become “friend” material.

Women want a man that is “sensitive” to her moods, without giving up that strength that inherently comes with being a real man.

Remember in the late 80’s how Alan Alda was hailed as the “new man”, caring and sensitiev and willing to cry with a woman?

Uh-huh, that lasted didn’t it?

You can go read the rest of the article here,
but I warn you, if you are a real man it may piss you off.

But that’s OK…Real Men have no problem with getting angry.

Crossposted at Kenders

Andrew. J. Whitehead operates a website called Anti-CAIR. Many of you are familiar with it, but for those of you who are not, I urge you to click over and take a look. At the very beginning of the home page, Mr. Whitehead asserts: “We are a group of concerned Americans dedicated to eliminating the Islamist Terrorist Threat to the United States Constitution. We believe that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a clear and present danger to our Constitution and our way of life. We will continue to expose CAIR’s involvement in supporting Islamic terrorists, terrorist sponsored organizations, and groups in the United States.

The site appears to have a very clear purpose, not only in the mission of Anti-CAIR, but also in it’s process of informing Americans of the dangers that confront them by terrorist front organizations operating inside the United States. The principal manner of presenting this information to the American public is quotations that are attributed to CAIR staff members. So as I said, take a look and form your own conclusions.

Recently, however, Anti-CAIR has been sued by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, alleging libelous defamation, even in spite of the fact that democratic senators Dick Durbin (Illinois) and Chuck Schumer (New York) have both been quoted saying that “CAIR is unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its association with groups that are suspect,” and “We know [CAIR] has ties to terrorism.”

The banner of Anti-CAIR includes the following statement:

“Since its founding in 1994, CAIR and its employees have combined, conspired, and agreed with third parties, including, but not limited to, the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”), the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (“HLF”), the Global Relief Foundation (“GRF”), and foreign nationals hostile to the interests of the United States, to provide material support to known terrorist organizations, to advance the Hamas agenda, and to propagate radical Islam. CAIR, and certain of its officers, directors, and employees, have acted in support of, and in furtherance of, this conspiracy.”

I hope that the reader will be as interested in how this all turns out as I am. You can subscribe to the Anti-CAIR newsletter by visiting the site and entering your email address. It appears to me that some of our citizens ARE taking a stand, and that’s a good thing. I’m sure Mr. Whitehead would appreciate knowing that he is supported by his fellow Americans, and a subscription to his newsletter may be just the way to signal our support.

XPost: Social Sense