Wednesday, December 22, 2004

Another step closer to the truth. . .

An article about a gruesome crime sheds some light on another. . .

During the coverage of the crime, the status of the Bobbie Jo Stinnett's unborn girl steadily changed. All at once on AOL News during the weekend, there were headlines tracking events in the case: "Woman Slain, Fetus Stolen"; "Woman Arrested, Baby Returned in Bizarre Murder"; "Infant in Good Health." Note how a "fetus" -- something for which American law and culture has very little respect -- was somehow instantly transformed into a "baby" and "infant" -- for which we have the highest respect.

How many times are abortionists going to allow themselves to be slapped in the face by the truth before they admit that in most abortions a crime is committed? Yet another such slap is here. With each such event the truth becomes harder to deny.

Thursday, November 25, 2004

Intolerance revisited. . .

Mary Katherine Ham sheds yet another new light on what I've been thinking for quite a while. Conversations I had with a liberal friend during the recently completed election cycle gave me empirical evidence that our friends on the left are not immune to intolerant attitudes, themselves.

Monday, November 22, 2004

Intolerance. . .

This is an interesting view of our liberal friends, and what real intolerance is. Intolerance is often used in reference to Christians, but not often used where it should be used most often.

Sunday, November 14, 2004

Saturday, November 13, 2004

Good for the Goose, but. . .

This is another stirling thought from Michelle Malkin. The dems are panting over Obama, while minority Republicans remain largely invisible to the msm.

The True Nature of "The Great Divide"

"liberals cannot conceive of morals in the sense conservatives do, because this would require acknowledging a God who has set standards for thought and behavior, and then striving to meet those standards (which, of course, we can't, thus our need for a Savior). The god of the liberals is the state, which is why they must see morals in terms of how the state or the workplace treats the person, while allowing the next generation of workers to be aborted away."

David Limbaugh offers some insight concerning the reasons for the apparent great division in the American electorate. The liberals just don't get it. As with most problems in this life, it begins with the assumptions. Even the hardest science starts with some assumption at its core. The liberal assumption precludes any ability to understand the world from a "red state point of view." Thus the liberal response to the election is not "Could we be wrong?" but rather, "How could THEY be so stupid?"

Saturday, November 06, 2004

Stem cells without killing embryos. . .

This article cites the possibility of using stem cells from adult fat tissue, while others have used stem cells from bone marrow. There are many clinical trials under way, using adult stem cells for various therapies.

These experiments are important and should be publicized as much as possible. There may well be alternatives to killing embryos for stem cell research.

Monday, November 01, 2004

Character. . .

Read this and then try to convince yourself Kerry is the man you really want in the White House.

Sunday, October 31, 2004

The Kerry Candidacy. . .There's no There There. . .

Once again, someone says what I've been thinking, and says it much better than I could. . .enjoy your reading.

Saturday, October 30, 2004

Imagine that. . .

A balloon advertising for Kerry crash lands in New York's Central Park. How ironic! A Kerry balloon that didn't have enough hot air. Who'd a thunk it?

UBL's Surrender Proposal

In addition to a transcript of UBL's latest video offering, Belmont Club shares an insight gleaned from this weak attempt to influence the American election. Wretchard feels that UBL ". . .is basically asking for time out."

UBL has obviously been affected by the war he foolishly started. He has been emasculated, and is bewildered and confused. Are those references to Michael Moore? UBL may not be finished as a terrorist, but he may be closer to the end than he knows. . .

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

Thomas Sowell says,"Stop and think"!

This is a great article! Dr. Sowell, in a well written article, cites some reasons for the apparent shift in the black vote toward the Republicans. He sees that shift as an encouraging sign.

Political inertia is powerful, but the time is overdue for more black voters to look beyond the rhetoric and images to the realities that affect themselves and their children.

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Kerry learns negotiation. . .

This article cites documents that potentially illuminate the thoughtful and wise man that the democrats would like to send to the whitehouse. More evidence that this man's integrity is mostly imagined.

Monday, October 25, 2004

Kerry's tripping, again. . .

First it was a trip to Cambodia that was "seared" in him. . .in his imagination. . . now it's discussions with Security Council members during a trip to the U.N. in 2002. These discussions apparently never took place. One wonders how much of what this man can be believed. We might be best off not believing anything he says. . .

Sunday, October 24, 2004

From the NY Times. . .

To Bush-bashers, it may be the most infuriating revelation yet from the military records of the two presidential candidates: the young George W. Bush probably had a higher I.Q. than did the young John Kerry.

This is from the New York Times. The Times has long been pushing the Kerry candidacy, so as cited on Blogs for Bush, this must have been more than painful for them to publish.

Brits Have Lost It.

On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?

This is from an article in The Guardian", a British rag that has obviously gone well past civilized limits. Finishing an article full of lies and name-calling with a call for assassination is inexcusable.

Saturday, October 23, 2004

The Big Lie

I was interested to read this article. Once again someone else says what I've been thinking. . .better than I could say it. Hats off to Joseph Perkins!

Friday, October 15, 2004

Kerry's "nuanced" integrity on display again. . .

John Kerry and his surrogates are going around the country warning of Bush's secret plan to reinstate the draft after he is re-elected. This shows that Kerry is actually the man with the plan. I admire Blogs for Bush for citing this example of Kerry's integrity.

Monday, October 11, 2004

Double Standard

Power Line draws attention to the myopic way our government is enforcing its own rules. It seems that if you see the world in one way you are penalized for certain actions, while if you see it in another (politically correct) way you are rewarded for similar actions.

It's time to see clearly and act justly.

He still doesn't get it

''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' Kerry said. ''As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

Johnny still doesn't understand. We can never go back to 9/10 again. How can you tell the 3000 people that died at the hands of those terrorists that they were the victims of a "nuisance"? Our problem is not a "law enforcement" problem. Approaching it as such, as the Clinton administration did, is what made 9/11 possible. Kerry's basic misunderstanding of the nature of terrorism is the one thing that makes him most unfit to command.

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

Dennis Prager: How Kerry won

Dennis Prager: How Kerry won

This is a great article which says what I've been trying to say and says it much better than I have been able to do. Please read the article and see if it protrays the man you really want in the Whitehouse.

Sunday, October 03, 2004

Kerry the diplomat

Kerry with his new, stronger alliance. . .

Kerry, inaccurate and misleading. . .

Read here.

The man known for exceptional command (and I use that term loosely) of facts in foreign policy matters made a number of "mistakes" during the first debate the other night. Now, were the "mistakes" due to less than exceptional command (and I use that term loosely) of the facts, or were they due to a "nuanced" approach to the truth?

I am pretty certain that a man who can hold, and strongly defend, several positions on each of the most important concerns facing our country has a very different approach to the truth than the approach my mother taught me. As others have pointed out before me, he may make a great "debater-in-chief," but I am more sure now than ever before that I am not interested in seeing him assume the position of commander-in-chief.

Friday, October 01, 2004

Yes, but. . .

Kerry during the debate last night:

-"I'll never give a veto to any country over our security. But . . ."

-"I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. But . . ."

-"We have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there. We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq. But . . ."

-"I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence. But . . ."

-"I have nothing but respect for the British, Tony Blair, and for what they've been willing to do. But . . ."

-"What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of the Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists. You have to close the borders. You've got to show you're serious in that regard. But . . ."

-"I couldn't agree more that the Iraqis want to be free and that they could be free. But . . ."

-"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But . . ."

-"I've never wavered in my life. I know exactly what we need to do in Iraq, and my position has been consistent: Saddam Hussein is a threat. He needed to be disarmed. We needed to go to the U.N. The president needed the authority to use force in order to be able to get him to do something, because he never did it without the threat of force. But . . ."

James Taranto as cited on Blogs for Bush points out the nearly every sound statement that Kerry made was followed with a "but." Elsewhere it was pointed out that in most cases everything that precedes the "but" in a statement can be discounted and everything that follows the "but" is what really counts for the speaker. If that logic is applied to what Kerry said last night, he exposes himself as a great pretender, full of half-truths and sophistry. Still unfit for command.

Monday, September 27, 2004

Federal Judges

"In an AP-Ipsos poll taken last week, 56 percent of those surveyed said they wanted the president to nominate a Supreme Court justice with conservative political views if a vacancy occurs; 37 percent said they preferred a justice with liberal views."

The quote is taken from an article cited on POWER LINE. I find this amazing. Where did these numbers come from? There's got to be an explanation for the lopsided look to those numbers. Are we waking up to what the real dangers of activist judges might really be? Are we actually taking a look around us and saying, "Hey! Wait just a minute!"? I certainly hope so! If that's really the case it's not happening a moment too soon.

Saturday, September 25, 2004


As the first of the Presidential debates approaches a thought occurs to me. Which Kerry is Bush to prepare for? What is the best way to prepare for a debate with a man who holds all positions on the most important issue of this campaign? Kerry's been the pro-war candidate and the anti-war candidate, sometimes it seems both at the same time!

So how does Bush prepare? I feel certain that President Bush will maintain a steady course as he has throughout the campaign and, as it did during the Republican Convention, that steadiness will compare well to the "nuanced" half-baked half-truths of his opponent.

Sunday, September 19, 2004

Someone help me out here. . .

The more I learn about the esteemed and ever personable Mr. Kerry the less I want him in the White House. I never wanted him there much, but now much less than ever before.

I'd like to hear reasons to like him. Please don't start by telling me that the best reason to like him is that his name is not Bush.

Saturday, September 18, 2004

Dan Rather is an optimist

I just went to the CBS News website and watched a clip of Dan Rather's defense of the memos that were the basis of his Air National Guard story. I must say the man is an optimist. He's an optimist if he honestly thinks we, his viewers, are stupid enough to believe his spin job:

We presented a story about the President of the United States. The story was based on documents that are forged. If the documents are forged I (Rather) would like to be the first to break that story (too late, Flash. . .it's broken). If the documents (which were the basis for the story) are false, the story is still true. . .because the White House has not said it's not. I (Rather) think the viewers
understand. . .

Forgive my paraphrase. I could not find a transcript.

I, for one, understand. I begin to doubt if Mr. Rather understands. Listen to yourself, Dan! You'd never accept that kind of tripe from someone you were interviewing! It's not acceptable from you. You are an optimist to think it might be. . .

Thursday, September 16, 2004

An example to follow. . .

"I would like to say something . . . to the men who were in Vietnam who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it. . . . I want to apologize to them and their families." Jane Fonda (1988)

When is the esteemed Mr. Kerry going to follow Ms. Fonda's lead?

Monday, September 13, 2004

Why. . .?

. . .does Mr. Kerry continue to refuse to release all of his military documentation? He made his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign. A very odd move for someone who is offended by any mention of that time period by anyone else. Why would one credited with a gifted intellect not see the value in supporting his history with his "paper trail"? If everyone else is wrong about his service and what followed it, why not show us all the proof?

Mr Bush released his documentation months ago. Of course he's not nearly as intelligent as Mr. Kerry. . .and he doesn't have anything to hide. What could possibly be in Mr. Kerry's paperwork, that would frighten such an intelligent and forthright gentleman?

Thursday, September 09, 2004

How horrible!

Cheney says we are more likely to face another terrorist attack if Kerry is elected. How could he say such a thing? How unamerican! How hateful! How dare he!! The dems are appalled.

The dems like their candidate are two-faced.

It's horrible of Cheney to say what he said, even if it is the truth. But it's ok if the dems screech at the top of their lungs that Bush "betrayed" us. . ."mislead" us into war. . .is "unfit" to be commander in chief. . ."stole" the election of 2000. . .was AWOL from the National Guard when he served during the Vietnam war.

The facts are: He was not AWOL. . .nothing was stolen in 2000, although the dems tried in Florida. . .Bush has already proven to be a fine commander in chief. . .he did not mislead us into war (we are in a GLOBAL war as we speak and I would prefer that we err on the side of caution where WMDs are concerned). . .Bush has not and will not betray this country. . .and finally. . .we will be more vulnerable with Kerry in the Presidency. His "flexible" interpretation of the truth (so handily trumpeted by the dems as "nuanced") will surely, if given the chance, make for a much more dangerous world.

Wednesday, September 08, 2004

Ambassador Wilson and the truth

The media has yet to admit its mistake with Wilson's story. Bias?

Monday, September 06, 2004

The Recovery Continues. . .

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. economy added 144,000 jobs in August and the unemployment rate fell to 5.4%, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job figures for June and July were also revised upward to 96,000 and 73,000 respectively, a net increase of 59,000. Overall, 1.7 million new jobs have been created over the past 12 months.

This is from "Americans for Tax Reform" at:


Sacre bleu!

Diana West writes about that all important relationship between France and Iraq. Read her essay and forgive my sarcasm, please.

Sunday, September 05, 2004

Democrats for Bush

I read Sowell nearly every chance I get. He seems to me to be a sound thinker.

Saturday, September 04, 2004


Colonel North "brings it on. . ."

NPR. . .I'm tuning to the left!

I've known for years that to listen to NPR you have to "tune to the left." As I age it seems I'm having to tune further and further left. Zell Miller spoke at the NRC, in New York. He pasted Kerry pretty well. Talked about Mr. Kerry's voting record and what he thought about it. I got the impression Zell is not very impressed. He listed a number of wepons systems that Kerry voted against during his career in the Senate. He talked about Kerry supporting the authorization of war in Iraq followed by his vote against support ($87 billion) for the troops.

I was not really surprised when NPR ran a "yes but" attack on Miller the day after his speech. The democratic party was thrilled with the spin supplied by NPR, I'm sure. Zell Miller, a life long Democrat, shared his opinion of a democratic party gone too far to the left, and the man they have nominated as their choice to run for President of the United States. Based largely on Kerry's record, Miller's opinion was clear. Although they could not dispute the veracity of Miller's facts they proceeded to excuse Mr. Kerry on each point.

They concluded their "analysis" by pointing out how "negative" and incorrect the Republicans are in their criticism of Kerry. They also pointed out that the DNC had not been negative at all. Both points were untrue. Not only were the Republicans very restrained in their criticism of Kerry, but the DNC went out of their way to call the President a liar who "mislead" the country into war. This is a lie that went unchallenged by the "analysts" at NPR, because of this organisation's political bias.

As I finish this little note, I renew my determination to stay in contact with those opposing our President. I'll just have to keep tuning further and further left.

Here is a link to the text of Mr. Miller's speech:

Friday, September 03, 2004


The RNC is over. . .W has a double digit lead, according to one poll. Life is good.