Saturday, September 29, 2007

Around the Web

Rich Lowry says put a fork in Brownback ’08. The sooner, the better.
Jon Stewart
disgraces himself with Bolivian thug-in-chief Evo Morales.
Another day, another liberal lie campaign.
Target: Bill O’Reilly.
Michael Medved offers
some inconvenient truths about slavery to America-haters.
There’s still some justice in the world: American traitor Jack Murtha
has been ordered to testify in a defamation case pertaining to the Haditha marines.
Here’s a new site I’ve found about the original Feminazi, Margaret Sanger.

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Whaddya Think?

So what's the best nickname for Ron Paul diehards? Jim Geraghty likes the term “PaulBearers,” I’ve seen “Ronbots” at Hot Air, “Ronulans” at IMAO, and I’m kinda partial to “Paultergeists.” Any favorites and/or new suggestions?

Monday, September 24, 2007

Gun-Rights Win in Wisconsin

A bit of good news for the evening: the Second Amendment makes a rare guest appearance in Wisconsin! It seems our concealed-carry ban has just been ruled unconstitutional. And just when the gun-free zones were working so well…

Rolling Out the Red Carpet for Evil

Michelle Malkin has a ton of coverage on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s appearance at Columbia University. Which do you think is worse: idiotic commentary that the Tehran Tyrant’s visit is a matter of free speech, or idiotic statements about the event by the man charged with protecting us from said tyrant?

"Momma I Wanna Live"

Saturday, September 22, 2007

Gee, Thanks JB

A pack of intolerant secularists has managed to get innocent religious content purged from a memorial service organized by the Wisconsin Department of Justice:
A religious hymn called "This Too Shall Pass" and a closing prayer by a Lutheran pastor will not be included in the ceremony as initially planned, department spokesman Kevin St. John said Friday…After a review, St. John said the department agreed the content was on shaky constitutional footing. "Rather than create the unintentional appearance that the state was endorsing religion or a particular creed, the department amended the program to exclude those parts," he said. "We certainly wouldn't want to have an appearance of a potential church-state violation overshadow the event."
Hey Kevin—if you did the right thing, it wouldn’t be the DoJ “overshadowing” anything; it’d be the group of atheist thugs and their obsession. But the worst part of the story? These thugs “praised Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen's office for quickly addressing its protest.” Y’know, that’d be the JB Van Hollen who ran as a strong conservative who knows the law.
General Van Hollen, I supported you in the Republican primary. I worked for you in the general election. For what? For you to needlessly cave when faced with lawless attacks on America's heritage? Well, if Paul Bucher wants to take another stab at the job, I'll be watching....

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Dobson Rejects the Hype

I guess James Dobson ain’t with Fred:
Isn't Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won't talk at all about what he believes, and can't speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail? He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to.' And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!

Monday, September 17, 2007

"The only way he should be greeted in the United States is with an indictment under the Geneva Convention."

So said Mitt Romney earlier today in a letter (PDF link) urging the United Nations to revoke its invitation to Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmandinejad. He also pulls no punches in calling out the UN’s record of human rights failures, and threatening to “reconsider [America’s] level of support and funding for the United Nations.” This is exactly what we need the next commander-in-chief to tell the world.

Sunday, September 16, 2007

Iron Man Blasts Off against Political Correctness

Here’s the theatrical trailer for the latest comic-book film, Iron Man. For those unfamiliar with the character, Tony Stark is a billionaire arms inventor who is taken captive in a war zone and forced to build a weapon of some sort. Instead, he fashions a suit of armor to escape, then battles evil with a more sophisticated suit. But the interesting thing is how un-PC it is. Since the film is set in the present day, Stark is captured in Afghanistan. Thus, we see Iron Man beating the tar out of jihadists which are actually portrayed as Arabs. How the heck did this make it out of Hollywood?

Friday, September 14, 2007

Remembering 9/11, Part 2

Belated Memories of 9/11

I apologize for the delay—the attack on America deserves to have been remembered on September 11.
The following is the conclusion to a
heartbreaking essay by Miranda Frum (16-year-old daughter of National Review’s David Frum). I urge you all to take some time to read it all:
That night when my father finally came back, we watched the news. My brother and I decided to act like adults just in case we had to be adults later. The news showed people in a far away place we imagined to be happy, courtesy of Aladdin, dancing in the streets, celebrating. They had succeeded in something. I will never forget the fear I saw that day, or the pain it caused my parents. The men were dancing in that far away place, but the song they were dancing to was the tears and pain of Americans.
That was six years ago. But it still seems like yesterday.

Friday, September 7, 2007

GOP Letdown

Here’s the video for this week’s Republican debate. I have not seen much of it (this college thing kinda has that effect), but a conversation with someone who did suggests that everyone but John McCain had a disastrous night (even Romney, and surprisingly Hunter). Some will doubtless call this the perfect opening for the now-official (or maybe “officially official”) Fred Thompson, but Fred’s pathetic performance on Laura Ingraham’s show suggests otherwise. Thompson's mythical straight talk just isn't there. Instead we get vague fluff about "solving problems" and weaselly excuses for past mistakes on immigration and McCain-Feingold. Bleh.

Monday, September 3, 2007

God's Microscope

I like the following quote from this essay:
God is not an element under the microscope. Rather, it is we who are under His microscope.
The rest of it is well worth a read, too (hat tip:
Atheism Sucks).

Calling All Bloggers! Slime Alert!

It’s no secret that sniveling amnesty thug Geraldo Rivera is a cheap demagogue, but now he’s reached a new low. In a recent Boston Globe profile, Rivera simply can’t control his hatred of the “vile” Michelle Malkin (pot, meet kettle): “It’s good she’s in DC and I’m in New York. I’d spit on her if I saw her.”
It’s kinda amusing to see Geraldo reduced to such childishness because
he can’t handle someone who stands up to him, but there’s nothing funny about the fact that Bill O’Reilly & Sean Hannity give tacit legitimacy to this pig by treating him like a friend on their TV shows. Both pundits are on record against recklessness & vitriol in the public discourse, and both consider Michelle a friend, so which one of them is going to stand up for her next time Rivera’s on their show? Which one is going to tell Rivera to his face that he’s crossed one line of decency too many? Is Fox News Channel going to put up with one of their personalities publicly expressing desires to spit on women?
Fellow bloggers (and all observers of conscience), let’s find out.
Here are the email addresses for Fox News and their personalities. Let FNC know you think Geraldo reflects horribly on the channel, and ask O’Reilly & Hannity if they intend to do the right thing. You never know what might happen if enough people let their voices be heard.
UPDATE: Upon challenge from O’Reilly, Geraldo has apologized. I’m glad to see it, but Geraldo still has a lot of vicious immigration-related hyperbole to answer for before he ought to be taken seriously again. And where’s Hannity?

Sunday, September 2, 2007

Pro-Life Violence?

I’ve debated a number of folks of varying caliber on the ‘Net. Most recently, Thayne & G-Man have sparked a productive exploration of morality, religion, secularism, & abortion. I’ve also had some good discussions with Sean back during the Coulter Nation days and at Olbroad’s old site (by the way, this is her current site). On the other end of the spectrum, I’ve met some infantile commenters at The American Mind, the clowns of YouStinkLeft, (by the way, their latest brilliant question is—and I quote—“Why does Fox News want us to have a war with Iran?”), the unintentional hilarity offered by B&S regular Scott, and, of course, the Hacks4Rudy. But the sorriest I’ve encountered would be a truly-despicable fellow by the name of Jayce Commo. Since it’s impossible to have serious debate with the immature, bothering with them is usually a waste of time. But a recent post about Generations for Life on his aptly-named blog takes lazy guilt-by-association to such depths that I can’t let it go unchallenged:
I generally don't have any problems with pro-life supporters, so long as they're not
blowing things up, shooting doctors, or harrassing women. But a few things on the Generations site leave me feeling a bit uneasy...
Since the overwhelming majority of America’s millions of pro-lifers would never even consider violence, then Jayce doesn’t have anything to worry about. Indeed, according to the second of these three articles, one of the killers “was disappointed with the anemic response from pro-life activists, who denounced Griffin's use of violence” (the article also says “Most mainstream antiabortion organizations distanced themselves from him.” I’d sure like to seem them try to substantiate the implication that any pro-life group which could legitimately be deemed “mainstream” either stayed neutral or embraced the killings.).
Anyway, the
article in question is an announcement for a couple protests of a new abortion mill in Aurora, Illinois (I was gonna call the article a “call to arms,” but as we’ll see below, you never know what phrases might trigger liberal bed-wetting). Jayce is mortified that teen pro-lifers “are determined to do everything they can to stop Planned Parenthood” (his emphasis). “I hope ‘everything’ doesn't really mean everything,” he says, with no evidence whatsoever that GFL harbors even a shred of sympathy towards anti-abortion violence. Jayce then complains that GFL describes participants of Families against Planned Parenthood’s 40-Day Prayer Vigil as “Prayer Warriors,” because it sounds “way to much like these psychos at Army of God.”
The so-called Army of God supports killing abortionists. Take a look at what FAPP’s idea of a “Prayer Warrior”
consists of, and you’ll see it’s juuust a little different. Take a look at any serious pro-life organization, like the several on CFO’s “Fighting for Life” sidebar (whoops! Can’t say “fighting!”), and the difference between us and the killers is self-evident—to the fair-minded.
Speaking of facts, let’s take a look at some hard numbers. NARAL’s own statistics (
PDF link) cover both the US and Canada & are up to date as of January 1, 2007. Now, bear in mind that an organization which advocates killing children is certainly unlikely to have any qualms about cooking the numbers (when you’re in their line of work, you need all the sympathy you can get), but for the sake of argument, let’s take them at face value. So how pervasive is the anti-choice reign of terror?
- 7 murders
- 17 attempted murders
- 41 bombings
- 171 arsons
- 82 attempted bombings & arsons
- 574 fake anthrax letters
- 92,000 “acts of disruption” such as bomb threats & harassing calls
Assuming none of the other cases were counted among the “acts of disruption,” that’s a grand total of 92,892 acts of pro-life extremism covering both the US and Canada. That sounds like a lot, but bear a couple things in mind. About 99% of the acts come from the “disruption” category, and we should be wary of exactly what constitutes a “harassing call” in NARAL’s view—I highly doubt they only counted violent calls; rather, I’ll bet there are quite a few in that number which only consisted of arguing abortion’s morality and/or offering to pray for their forgiveness. Say what you want about the productivity or decorum of such calls, but they certainly can’t be described as malevolent in any way. What’s more, NARAL puts the bomb-threat number at 596, which means the overwhelming majority of the pro-life extremism in general, and of the disruptions in particular, consists of lesser acts.
As for the incidents of actual violence and genuine threat, each is inexcusable & deplorable, and no pro-lifer should tolerate them in any way. The good news is, the fanatics make up only a tiny minority of Americans against abortion. In contrast, how big is the real pro-life movement? Consider that Pro-Life Wisconsin alone
boasts the support of 14,000 families (and that many pro-lifers only belong to one of a state’s multiple pro-life groups given their differences on things like rape exceptions), and the serious, honorable pro-life movement easily dwarfs the unhinged.
So why does Jayce think
saying inflammatory things without evidence is ethical? Because “submission of moral authority makes anything possible, including murder…the lines between morality, martyrdom, and terrorism are blurring more each day.” Is submitting one’s moral authority to religious belief likely to make somebody violent? It can; I’m not aware of any Christian who denies that the Bible’s been used to justify horrible things, and we’re in a world war sparked by Islamic fanaticism. But “submission of moral authority” alone doesn’t create bad results; submission combined with bad teachings does, as does submission in the absence of reason—fortunately, most Judeo-Christians embrace reason wholeheartedly.
Moreover, if God-submission is to blame for all religious evil, then it deserves equal credit for all religious good. Believing that one is God-bound to do charity and oppose bigotry is just as powerful as believing that one is God-bound to kill. In fact, the secular should be thankful that believers overwhelmingly “submit their moral authority” to the former than to the latter (don’t believe me?
Click here to hear Dennis Prager’s interview with Arthur Brooks, author of Who Really Cares).
One more observation: why is submitting moral authority to something else inherently more problematic than the alternative: deeming oneself the highest arbiter of one’s morality? It seems to me the latter has its own potential to produce arrogance & rationalization. After all, Jayce’s atheism certainly didn’t keep him from smearing GFL without evidence.
Only someone suffering from religious paranoia could seriously construe the work of Generations for Life as blurring the lines between morality, martyrdom, and terrorism. Neither critical thought nor honest concern could possibly yield such a result. Whether it’s Jayce, Christopher Hitchens, or Sam Harris, some people just can’t escape their prejudices when it comes to religion. That's a shame, and we can only hope & pray that they'll someday grow up.
The views expressed on this weblog are strictly my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of any other websites, blogs, campaigns, publications, or organizations where I have been employed and/or my work has been featured, nor do they necessarily reflect the views of any individuals employed by or otherwise affiliated with such groups.